Proportionality as a Fundamental Principle of EEA Law

Chapter

Abstract

The principle of proportionality bridges legal thinking all around the world. From its German origins, it has expanded to national and international jurisdictions alike. At present, the principle forms an indispensable part of the judicial review conducted by the Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Despite its apparent omnipresence, a closer look at the principle’s usage reveals many different forms of application and varying degrees of intensity of judicial review.

This chapter sets out the specifics of this “uberprinciple” of law in the EEA legal order and its application beyond. It takes into account not only the Court’s case law, but also developments in other jurisdictions. In particular, the chapter discusses the application of proportionality by the courts of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, both in dealing with domestic law and the application of EEA law. Particular emphasis is placed on the operation of the preliminary reference procedure in this regard.

References

  1. Andenas M, Zleptnig S (2006–2007) Proportionality: WTO law: in comparative perspective. Tex Int Law J 42:371Google Scholar
  2. Barbier de La Serre E (2014) Standard of review in competition law cases. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Hart, p 418Google Scholar
  3. Batliner A (2012) Practical issues regarding the application of EEA law through the eyes of a National Judge. In: Baudenbacher C et al. The EEA and the EFTA Court: Decentred integration: to mark the 20th anniversary of the EFTA Court, EFTA Court (ed) Hart, Oxford and Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudenbacher C (2006) Governments before the EFTA Court. In: Fenger N et al (eds) Festskrift til Claus Gulman. KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  5. Baudenbacher C (2012) The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence, Court of Justice of the European Union (ed) Springer, p 183Google Scholar
  6. Baudenbacher LM (2016) Aspects of competition law enforcement in selected European jurisdictions. ECLR 37(9):343–364Google Scholar
  7. Bjorge E (2010) The status of the ECHR in Norway: should Norwegian courts interpret the convention dynamically? Eur Public Law 16(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1552421
  8. Björgvinsson DT (2007) Application of Article 34 of the ESA/Court agreement by the Icelandic courts. In: Monti M, von Liechtenstein N, Vesterdorf B, Westbrook JL, Wildhaber L (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation/Wirtschaftsrecht und Justiz in Zeiten der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos Verlag, Verlag Österreich, Stämpfli Verlag AG, Baden-Baden, Wien, Bern p 37Google Scholar
  9. Björgvinsson DT (2015) The intersection of international law and domestic law: a theoretical and practical analysis. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  10. Boer NJ (2013) Fundamental rights and the EU internal market: just how fundamental are the EU treaty freedoms? A normative enquiry based on John Rawls’ political philosophy. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1)Google Scholar
  11. Bücker A, Warneck W (eds) (2011) Reconciling fundamental social rights and economic freedoms after Viking. Laval and Rüffert, NomosGoogle Scholar
  12. Burley AM, Mattli W (1993) Europe before the Court A theory of legal integration. Int Organ 47(1) Winter 1993Google Scholar
  13. Challenor B (2015) The balancing act: a case for structured proportionality under the second limb of the Lange test. Univ West Aust Law Rev 40:267 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Claasen CD (2012) Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Spiegel europäischer Rechtsentwicklungen. In: Sachs M, Siekmann H, Blanke HJ, Dietlein J, Nierhaus M, Püttner G (eds) Der grundrechtsgeprägte Verfassungsstaat: Festschrift für Klaus Stern zum 80. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 651Google Scholar
  15. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2011) Proportionality and the culture of justification. Am J Comp Law 59(2) (Spring 2011), 463Google Scholar
  16. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2013a) Proportionality and justification. Univ Toronto Law J 64 (2012) no. 3Google Scholar
  17. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2013b) Proportionality and constitutional culture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohn M (2010) Legal transplant chronicles: the evolution of unreasonableness and proportionality review of the administration in the United Kingdom. Am J Comp Law 58(3) (Summer 2010), 583–629Google Scholar
  19. Fredriksen HH (2014) The Troubled Relationship between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court –Recent Development. Available at https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/7861/The%20Troubled%20Relationship%20between%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Norway%20and%20the%20EFTA%20Court%20-%20Recent%20Developments.pdf?sequence%C2%BC1
  20. Gerards J (2013) How to improve the necessity test of the European court of human rights. ICON 11(2):466–490Google Scholar
  21. Gerstenberg O (2009) The role of the ECJ in the protection of fundamental and social rights, economic constitutionalism or deliberative constitutionalism. In: Calliess G-P et al (eds) Soziologische Jurisprudenz: Festschrift für Gunther Teubner zum 65. GeburtstagGoogle Scholar
  22. Greer S (2004) “Balancing” and the European court of human rights: a contribution to the Habermas-Alexy debate. Camb Law J 63(2):412–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grimm D (2007) Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. Univ Toronto Law J 57:383 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Haguenau-Moizard C, Sanchez Y (2015) The principle of proportionality in European law. In: Ranchordas S, de Waard B (eds) The judge and the proportionate use of discretion: a comparative administrative law study. Taylor & Francis Ltd, Routledge, London, p 142Google Scholar
  25. Harbo TI (2012) Legal integration through judicial dialogue. In: Fauchald K, Nollkaemper A (eds) The practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of international law. Hart, Oxford and Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  26. Harbo TI (2015) The function of proportionality analysis in European law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris D et al (2014) Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilf M, Puth S (2002) The principle of proportionality on its way into WTO/GATT law. In: Von Bogandy A, Mavroidis PC, Mény Y (eds) European integration and international co-ordination: studies in transnational economic law in honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, New York, p 199Google Scholar
  29. Hoch H (2000) Schwerpunkte in der Entwicklung der Grundrechtssprechung des Staatsgerichtshofes. Available at: http://www.sfplex.li/CFDOCS/cms3/admin/cms/download.cfm?FileID=8947&GroupID=281&WatermarkMenuEntriesObjectID=8771
  30. Höfling W (2012) Schranken der Grundrechte. In: Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, Band 52Google Scholar
  31. Hreinsson P (2003) Meðalhófsregla Stjórnsýslulaga. In: Stefánsson SM og Matthíasson VM (eds) Lögberg - Rit Lagastofnunar Háskóla Íslands, p 503Google Scholar
  32. Hreinsson P (2016) General principles. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, p 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huber PM (2016) The principle of proportionality. In: Schroeder W (ed) Strengthening the rule of law in Europe. Hart, Oxford, p 98Google Scholar
  34. Jowell J (1996) Is proportionality an Alien concept? Eur Public Law 2(3)Google Scholar
  35. Kley A (1998) Allgemeine Grundsätze des liechtensteinischen Verwaltungsrechts. In: Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, Band 23Google Scholar
  36. Koch O (2003) Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschafen. In: Schriften zum Europäischen Recht (Band 92). Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumm M (2007) Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review, p 172Google Scholar
  38. Lennert P, Heilmann D (2011) Die Auslegung der aktorischen Kaution im Lichte des Allgemeinen Europäischen Diskriminierungsverbotes in Art. 4 des Abkommens zum Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum: Besprechung Urteil des EFTA-Gerichtshofes vom 17. Dezember 2010, Rechtssache E-5/10, LJZ 2011Google Scholar
  39. Mahoney P (2010) Reconciling Universality of Human Rights and Local Democracy – the European Experience. In: Festschrift für Renate Jaeger Grundrechte und Solidarität - Durchsetzung und Verfahren Hohmann-Dennhardt, C, Masuch, P, Villiger M (eds) Kehl-am RheinGoogle Scholar
  40. Örlygsson T (2007) Iceland and the EFTA Court. In: Monti M, von Liechtenstein N, Vesterdorf B, Westbrook JL, Wildhaber L (eds) Economic Law and Justice in times of Globalisation/Wirtschaftsrecht und Justiz in Zeiten der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden, Wien, Bern, p 225Google Scholar
  41. Peters A (2016) Proportionality as a Global Constitutional Principle (2016). Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2016-10, p 2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2773733 or  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2773733
  42. Petersen N (2017) Proportionality and judicial activism. Cambridge University Press, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  43. Pirker B (2013) Proportionality analysis and models of judicial review. Europa Law PublishingGoogle Scholar
  44. Planzer S (2016) Gambling law. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) Handbook of EEA law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  45. Polley R (2014) Third party access to file in competition cases. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA court. Hart, p 435Google Scholar
  46. Polley R, Clifton M-J (2016) The principles of transparency and openness, and access to documents. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law, p 625Google Scholar
  47. Poulsen TC (2016) Norwegian courts. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  48. Prechal S (2008) Free movement and procedural requirements: proportionality reconsidered. Leg Issues Econ Integr 35(3):201. Kluwer Law International, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  49. Reich N (2011) “Verhältnismässigkeit” als “Mega-Prinzip” im Unionsrecht? Überlegungen zur Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Union (EuGH) zum Verhältnis der Grundfreiheiten zur Autonomie des Nationalstaates. In: Mehde V, Ramsauer U, Seckelmann M (eds) Staat, Verwaltung, Information, Festschrift für Hans Peter Bull zum 75. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 259Google Scholar
  50. Rodriguez Ferrere MB (2007) Proportionality as a Distinct Head of Judicial Review in New Zealand, Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago, October 2007Google Scholar
  51. Rosas A (2005) Fundamental rights in Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts. In: Baudenbacher C et al (eds) The EFTA court, ten years on. HartGoogle Scholar
  52. Schlink B (2012) Proportionality in constitutional law: why everywhere but here? Duke J Comp Int Law 22(2):291Google Scholar
  53. Schönberg SJ (2000) The principle of proportionality’s many faces: a comparative study of judicial review in English. French and EU LawGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwarze J (2012) Dimensionen der Verhältnismässigkeit. In: Schwarze, Europarecht: Strukturen, Dimensionen und Wandlungen des Rechts der Europäischen Union, p 710Google Scholar
  55. Steenbergen J (2008) Proportionality in competition law and policy. Leg Issues Econ Integr 35(3)Google Scholar
  56. Stone Sweet A, Mathews J (2008) Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia J Transl Law 47 (fall 2008), no. 1:72Google Scholar
  57. Temple Lang J (2012) Judicial review of competition decisions under the European convention on human rights and the importance of the EFTA Court: the Norway post judgment. Eur Law Rev 37:467Google Scholar
  58. Thorarensen B (2003) Áhrif meðalhófsreglu við skýringu stjórnarskrárákvæða. In: Stefánsson SM og Matthíasson VM (eds) Lögberg - Rit Lagastofnunar Háskóla Íslands, p 51Google Scholar
  59. Tsakyrakis S (2009) Proportionality an assault on human rights. Int J Comp Law 7(3)Google Scholar
  60. Tsakyrakis S (2013) Total freedom: the morality of proportionality. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220255 (last visited on 11.05.2017)
  61. Tschütscher K, Baudenbacher C (2012) 20 Jahre Unterzeichnung des EWR-Abkommens_Ein Vierakter mit Original-Darstellern, Schaan, Regierung des Fürstentums LiechtensteinGoogle Scholar
  62. Ueda J (2003) Is the principle of proportionality the European approach?: a review and analysis of trade and environment cases before the European court of justice. Eur Bus Law Rev 14(5):557–593Google Scholar
  63. Ungerank W (2010) Entsprechen die nunmehrigen Bestimmungen der ZPO betreffend die Sicherheitsleistung für Prozesskosten dem EWR-Recht? LJZ 2010, Seite 32 (Heft 2)Google Scholar
  64. Von Danwitz T (2012) Thoughts on proportionality and Coherence in the jurisprudence of the court of justice. In: Cordonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system, essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, p 367Google Scholar
  65. Vries S (2013) The protection of fundamental rights within Europe’s internal market after Lisbon – an endeavour for more harmony. In: Vries SA et al (eds) Balancing fundamental rights with the EU treaty freedoms: the European court of justice as tightrope walker. HartGoogle Scholar
  66. Vries SA et al (2012) Balancing fundamental rights with the EU treaty freedoms: the European court of justice as tightrope walker. Europa Instituut UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  67. Werlauff E (2010) Proportionality lost – proportionality regained. In: Koch H, Hagel-Sorensen K, Haltern UR (eds) Europe. The new legal realism: essays in honour of Hjalte Rasmussen. Djøf Publishing, Copenhagen, p 817Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EFTA CourtLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations