The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F24%3A00139889" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/24:00139889 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/dynamics-of-proportionality-constitutional-courts-and-the-review-of-covid19-regulations/6F519F4528D94BD4A9CAACBE83A8678B" target="_blank" >https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/dynamics-of-proportionality-constitutional-courts-and-the-review-of-covid19-regulations/6F519F4528D94BD4A9CAACBE83A8678B</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.96" target="_blank" >10.1017/glj.2023.96</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that even when using trusted legal tools, courts may run into challenging problems. Governments reacted to an unprecedented (at least in the context of post-WW2 era of fundamental rights) global crisis by adopting measures that drastically limited fundamental rights in order to protect the lives and health of many. Courts, of course, were entrusted with protecting fundamental rights against governmental overreach. The question was, how strict should the courts be when reviewing governmental acts. On the one hand, they could have relied on substantive proportionality assessment. This option, however was virtually ignored and most courts have opted for a deferential approach. This article analyzes both of these approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately it argues that a third option - semiprocedural review - is the best way out of this judicial conundrum. Relying on comparative as well as theoretical arguments, it argues that semiprocedural review is the best way to deal with challenging empirical question - even under conditions of epistemological uncertainty.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations

Popis výsledku anglicky

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that even when using trusted legal tools, courts may run into challenging problems. Governments reacted to an unprecedented (at least in the context of post-WW2 era of fundamental rights) global crisis by adopting measures that drastically limited fundamental rights in order to protect the lives and health of many. Courts, of course, were entrusted with protecting fundamental rights against governmental overreach. The question was, how strict should the courts be when reviewing governmental acts. On the one hand, they could have relied on substantive proportionality assessment. This option, however was virtually ignored and most courts have opted for a deferential approach. This article analyzes both of these approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately it argues that a third option - semiprocedural review - is the best way out of this judicial conundrum. Relying on comparative as well as theoretical arguments, it argues that semiprocedural review is the best way to deal with challenging empirical question - even under conditions of epistemological uncertainty.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/VI04000096" target="_blank" >VI04000096: Omezení svobody pohybu: technologické možnosti a ústavněprávní limity</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

German Law Journal

ISSN

2071-8322

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

25

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

21

Strana od-do

386-406

Kód UT WoS článku

001163104300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85185476765