scientific conference of lau
Title Principle of Proportionality in Foreign Legal Doctrine and Practice and its Interpretation in Russia in the Context of Providing Protection of Subjects’ Rights and Legal Interests
Author Mikhail N. Semyakin
About the author
DOI 10.35853/UfH-RMP-2019-L02
Section Law
Year Index UDK 34 Pages 159–167
Abstract The subject of this research springs from the fact that the principle of proportionality is extremely under-researched in the Russian jurisprudence. The main goal is identifying the essence of the proportionality principle and its properties compared to the American “balance of interests” method. Methodology: general scientific methods – dialectic, historical, formal logic, analytical; specific scientific methods – formal dogmatic, historical and legal, comparative jurisprudence. The research method is the method of interpreting legal texts, generalizing and analyzing the practice. Key findings: 1. The essence of the European principle of proportionality is identified; 2. Social, historic & cultural and other sources of the proportionality principle are demonstrated; 3. A comparative analysis is performed for the European proportionality principle and the American “balance of interests” method; 4. A contrastive analysis of the Russian principle of balancing private and public interests vs. the European principle of proportionality is conducted; 5. Its interpretation in the Russian legal doctrine and features of its practical application are demonstrated. Conclusions: the European principle of proportionality and the American “balance of interests” method are essentially non-contradictory; the proportionality principle and the method of balancing interests are different in a number of features like methods of inquiry, but these differences are not paradigmatic by nature and are most probably caused by historical and cultural features and other traditions characteristic of the development of Romano-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon legal systems; both of the above methods of inquiry are closely interconnected and quite comparable, which can hardly yield methodology grounds for contrasting them to each other as completely different conceptual approaches; the purpose of imposing limitations on certain basic rights must have a very important public character; the principle of proportionality should only be applied in practice as a systemic whole of all its elements.
Keywords
  • principle of proportionality
  • balance of interests method
  • correlation
  • origins of the principle
  • proportionality criteria
  • methodology grounds
For citation Semyakin MN. Principle of Proportionality in Foreign Legal Doctrine and Practice and its Interpretation in Russia in the Context of Providing Protection of Subjects’ Rights and Legal Interests. In: Zaks LA, Semitko AP, Mitsek SA, et al. (еds.) Russian Man and Power in the Context of Dramatic Changes in Today’s World: Collection of academic papers from the 21st Russian scientific-practical conference (with international participation) (Yekaterinburg, April 12–13, 2019). Yekaterinburg: Liberal Arts University – University for Humanities; 2019. p. 159–167. Available from: doi:10.35853/UfH-RMP-2019-L02.
License Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Article language russian
References
  • 1. Gadzhiev GA. Konstitutsionnye printsipy rynochnoi ekonomiki (razvitie osnov grazhdanskogo prava v resheniyakh Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii) [Constitutional Principles of Market Economy (Civil Law Fundamentals Development in Rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Moscow: Yurist; 2004. 284 p. (In Russ.).
  • 2. Cohen-Elia M, Porat I. Amerikanskii metod vzveshivaniya interesov i nemetskii test na proportsional’nost’: istoricheskie korni [American Balance of Interests Method and German Proportionality Test: Historical Roots]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review. 2011;3(82): 59–81. (In Russ.).
  • 3. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 13, 2010 No. 16-P “Concerning the case of verifying constitutionality of provisions of articles 6 and 7, Law of the Krasnodar Krai ‘On organization of transport services for the population by individual taxis in the Krasnodar Krai’ associated with a complaint from citizens V.A. Beresnev, V.A. Dudko et al.”. Garant legal reference system. 2010. Available from: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/1695893/ [Accessed 29.07.2019]. (In Russ.).
  • 4. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2004 No. 14-P “Concerning the case of verifying constitutionality of individual provisions of part 2, art. 89, Tax Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints from citizens A.D. Yegorov and N.V. Chuyev”]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF = Corpus of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 2004. Vol. 30. item 3214. (In Russ.).
  • 5. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2006 No. 2-P “Concerning the case of verifying constitutionality of individual provisions of Federal Law “On communication” in relation to a request from Duma of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug. ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Available from: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_58946/ [Accessed 28.07.2019]. (In Russ.).
  • 6. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 31, 2005 No. 6-P “Concerning the case of verifying constitutionality of Federal Law “On mandatory civil liability insurance for vehicle owners” in connection with requests from State Assembly – El Kurultay – of the Altai Republic, Volgograd Regional Duma, a group of deputies from the State Duma and a complaint from citizen S.N. Shevtsov. ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Available from: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_53775/ [Accessed 29.07.2019]. (In Russ.).
  • 7. Frantz LB. The First Amendment in Balance. Yale Law Journal. 1962;71(8): 1424–1450. Available from: doi:10.2307/794500.
  • 8. Schauer F. Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture. In: Nolte G. (ed.) European and US Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 49–69. Available from: doi:10.1017/CBO9780511493904.004.
Funding
Submitted 10.09.2019
Accepted 14.10.2019