The author focuses on examining the compliance of the Regulation on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The author examines the various arguments that supported the consistency of the proposal with the above-mentioned principles, and refers to the counter-arguments. This article contributes to discussion on the need to set up the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, its scope and other legal issues that need to be addressed.
SK
V predkladanom článku sa autor zameriava na skúmanie súladu nariadenia o Európskej prokuratúre so zásadami subsidiarity a proporcionality. Autor skúma jednotlivé argumenty, ktoré podporovali súlad návrhu tohto nariadenia s uvedenými zásadami, a uvádza k tomu protiargumenty. Predkladaný článok je príspevkom k diskusii o nevyhnutnosti zriadenia Európskej prokuratúry, o šírke jej pôsobnosti a ďalších právnych otázkach, ktorých riešenie bude potrebné nájsť.
In the case of degressive proportionality, a large over-representation of small countries is a deliberate concession of larger countries to ensure that less populated states are adequately represented (the principle of European solidarity). It is worth emphasizing how important is the role played by election thresholds, which prevent excessive fragmentation of the parliament. Thus, they act as a stabilizing factor in the political scene, which in Polish conditions cannot be overestimated. A weakness of the thresholds is the fact that they distort the proportionality of the results and cause over-representation of certain parties. In extreme cases they can lead to the dictatorship of one party even if it is provided with low popularl support.
This article investigates the engagement of EU law with the interests represented and pursued by the Member States within the framework of the European Union. In principle, because the interests which the Member States feed into the EU governance machinery are formulated in political processes at the national level, and thus possess paramount political legitimacy, EU law may only interact with those interests when a clear and sufficient mandate has been provided for doing so. Such mandates follow from Treaty provisions or EU legislation. They embody common political agreements among the Member States by which they commit themselves to realising the specific interests they share, as well as achieving related common policy objectives. In practice, however, the boundaries of EU law’s mandate are difficult to determine with precision, and this may weaken the legitimacy of EU law’s interventions. The weaker legitimacy of the law raises particular problems in the law of the Single Market, where the interests pursued by national governments are subjected to filtering, moderation, and even transformation by the Court of Justice.
The commentary contains a criticism of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, in which the problem of the constitutionality of limitations on the openness of administrative court proceedings in proceedings before the Provincial Administrative Court has been reduced to linking the statutory limitation with the constitutional value enabling such a limitation. The Supreme Administrative Court did not conduct a proportionality test. Carrying it out and taking into account the normative and factual context, would imply a statement that the restrictions at the time of issuing the challenged judgement of the Provincial Administrative Court were not even useful for a specific purpose. They also did not meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality in the strict sense.
Although the general principles of law at first sight do not bring about numerous associations with the sphere of taxation where the processes of compliance with legal rules or applying them must end with a precise numerical result, both the relevance and the significance of these principles in the sphere of tax law are more and more noticeable. The principle of proportionality has been invoked in probably every second VAT judgment of the Court of Justice for years. The principle of legal certainty has made its way to the case law of the said court as well as the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. The importance of other principles is definitely on the rise.
Strengthening their Role in Shaping the EU policy (COM (2018) 703 final): The communication is a general and preliminary document of a political nature. It is a result of work on the reform of the European Union started in 2017 and the work undertaken in 2017 and 2018 at the initiative of the Commission by the Task Force in the scope of the above principles, in relation to a broadly understood action for better lawmaking. The Communication “identifies ways to strengthen the role of subsidiarity and proportionality in shaping the EU policy. In particular, it initiated follow-up activities of the Commission in relation to the recommendations of the Task Force and ways to highlight areas in which others should act”. In the author’s opinion, the document is unsatisfactory due to the limited set of suggestions for changes and their superficiality. The communication does not formulate any broader vision of action.
The question of proportionality is undoubtedly an overriding concern of forma requirements in the modern private law – approaching form as a functionally motivated regulatory tool (designed to reach particular economic and social goals). A the goals in question and particular goals for their fulfilment (both formalities itself, as well as the consequences prescribed for their non-observance) are set forth generally, regardless of any particular legal dealing already made, the interdependence between these two spheres (“goals” and “means”) is being predetermined in equally abstract terms. This peculiarity – proper both (yet in different shape) for the requirements enacted through statute and stipulated by the parties – entails the need of assessment, whether formalities and effects of their breach remain actually proportional against the particular circumstances arising in their application. In some instances the balance in question can be distorted due to the occurrences and conditions existing both at the time of decision making or prior to it, as well as arising later on. In these cases emerges the need for restoring proportionality – and, if recognized, incentivizes to seek for remedial tools. The text summarizes the most common ways of maintaining and restoring proportionality, developed by the judiciary (in discourse with the doctrine) and statutory law, supplemented by the parties’ dealings. Upon these observations it attempts to identify the more common structures and concepts underlying the issue of proportionality in the field of formal requirements.
The study focuses on the analysis of the constitutional and legal limits of the exercise of freedom of speech. This freedom forms one of the pillars of a democratic and legal state. However, the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms allow for its legitimate limitations. The authors therefore examine the limits of restrictions on freedom of expression under the conditions of Slovak legislation. The role of independence and autonomy of media are also emphasised, and a specific case demonstrates the interaction between the personality protection of a public figure and freedom of expression.
Although the change in the electoral system used in elections to the Chamber of Deputies has attracted the attention of lawyers, political scientists, and sociologists, we still lack a comprehensive comparative analysis of the new system with the original one or other alternatives. The main reason for this is the lack of empirical data. This article overcomes this problem using a simulation of electoral results that correspond to the real Czech election environment. On the basis of this simulated dataset it is possible to generate generalisable conclusions about the proportionality, integration effect, and legitimacy of three electoral formulas: the original D’Hondt divisor, the newly adopted Imperiali quota, and the Hare quota. Our results show that the Hare quota is clearly the best choice. Its advantages in proportionality significantly outweigh its disadvantages in integrative effect. Moreover, this formula sees the least disruption to the logical sequence of results, i.e. where a party with fewer votes gets more seats, a phenomenon that is undesirable and undermines the legitimacy of elections. We are convinced that among the three formulas compared the Hare quota is the one that best fits the constitutional requirements of the electoral system as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, and that - unless the legislature is planning to change other parameters of the electoral system - it is the one that should be implemented.
The authors advocate operational improvement of the European Arrest Warrant system. When applying the judicial cooperation instruments concerning criminal matters, more attention should be devoted to the requirements of proportionality, effective judicial protection, and coherence. The power to issue an EAW should be more circumscribed whereas executing authorities should be allowed more flexibility in the decision making process as far as the execution of an EAW is concerned. The authors conclude by sketching amendments to the legal and practical framework and the efforts required to implement them as well as by addressing the issue of political feasibility.
Les perquisitions à l’aube restent un pilier de l’application du droit de la concurrence, mais leur mise en œuvre s’est complexifiée à l’ère numérique. Les plateformes de messagerie et les appareils distants augmentent le risque de suppressions sur place, ce qui a conduit les autorités turques et européennes à adopter une approche de responsabilité stricte : toute suppression effectuée après le début des inspections est considérée comme une obstruction en soi, indépendamment de l’intention, de la possibilité de récupération ou de la perte de valeur probante. Si cela maximise l’effet dissuasif, cela soulève des questions de proportionnalité, de respect de la vie privée et de sécurité juridique. Cet article soutient que l’application de la loi peut rester efficace et proportionnée en s’orientant vers un modèle tenant compte du préjudice causé. S’appuyant sur des décisions turques et européennes, il met en évidence des cas atypiques dans lesquels les sanctions ont été réduites ou levées, en les interprétant à la lumière de la jurisprudence de Strasbourg sur la prévisibilité, la nécessité et la vie privée. Il propose une approche d’application proportionnée articulée autour de quatre facteurs : la prévisibilité et le contrôle de la portée, les garanties en matière de vie privée, la perte de valeur probante et l’attitude de l’entreprise, permettant ainsi d’appliquer des sanctions calibrées tout en préservant l’effet dissuasif et en alignant les perquisitions surprises sur les droits fondamentaux.
EN
Dawn raids remain a cornerstone of competition law enforcement, yet their execution has grown complex in the digital era. Messaging platforms and remote devices increase the risk of on-site deletions, prompting authorities in Türkiye and the EU to adopt a strict-liability stance: any deletion after inspections begin is treated as obstruction per se, regardless of intent, recoverability or probative loss. While this maximises deterrence, it raises concerns of proportionality, privacy and legal certainty. This article argues that enforcement can remain effective and proportionate by shifting towards a harm-sensitive model. Drawing on Turkish and EU decisions, it highlights outlier cases in which penalties were reduced or waived, interpreting them through Strasbourg jurisprudence on foreseeability, necessity, and privacy. It advances a proportional enforcement approach structured around four factors: foreseeability and scope control, privacy safeguards, probative loss, and corporate posture, enabling calibrated penalties while preserving deterrence and aligning dawn-raid enforcement with fundamental rights.
The aim of the article: The presented study concerns the problem of violations of fundamental rights caused by the law regulation contained in art. 27c of the Corporate Income Tax Act in Poland. This regulation provides obligation to publish information about introduced tax strategies. Yet, it may endanger many human rights and this article focuses on two of them – the right to remain silent, and the right of privacy. The aim of this article is to make an analysis of the standards presented by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the standard presented by the Polish Constitutional Court is presented. Methodology: To decode these standards the comparative law method is used. Especially the case laws of these courts are presented and additionally, they are completed by the comparison of the acts that concern similar law institutions but come from different lawmakers. Results of the research: The results of the study do not provide a clear answer. However, they do allow for an approximation of the issue of possible violations of fundamental rights by the analyzed regulation. It is very likely that the analyzed regulation violates the right to remain silent and it is even close to certainty that the analyzed laws violate the right to privacy. The problem is not only the interference in these rights, but in its character as well. Under certain circumstances, interference with fundamental rights is acceptable but must be proportionate. Examined laws are only explained in terms of budgetary balance and the academic world points out that the purpose of this type of regulation is mainly of administrative convenience. This is far too little to consider this interference with fundamental rights imperative.
In recent years, armed conflicts have changed in nature (civil war, ‘terrorism’) and the means used are increasingly technological (robotisation, cyberwar). Faced with these developments, some would claim International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is outdated. While these technological innovations present new challenges in the application of IHL, it still constitutes a relevant legal framework for armed conflicts and the conduct of hostilities. Indeed, the flexibility of IHL allows it to adapt to contemporary conflicts. Therefore, this shows that the statements about its obsolescence are primarily political in nature.
Cyberspaces can be significantly influenced by simple tools and tactics, and offer cost-effective solutions for states to achieve their objectives. However, it can also be used for conducting cyberwarfare, and its effects remain in gray areas. The spectrum of cyberwarfare activities ranges from minor web disruptions to crippling attacks on critical national infrastructures. Nevertheless, cyberattacks present a unique challenge in applying well-established humanitarian legal principles, particularly regarding the distinction between civilian and military targets. This is because of the interconnectedness and shared infrastructure of cyberspace between civilian and military entities, which blurs the lines between combatants and civilian populations. This article seeks to shift the general perception of the problems associated with this manner of conducting hostilities by building on the learning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Furthermore, the authors examine the cyber activities that occurred during the conflict and the legal and ethical challenges that arise from classifying these activities and applying international law. They try to distinguish cyber activities as an act of force or armed attack, with a focus on determining the criteria that played a role in this classification, in light of Articles 2 (4) and 51 of the UN Charter. With reference to the United Nations (UN) Charter and the principles of self-defence, the concept of attack is scrutinised. Furthermore, the article addresses the principles of distinction and proportionality in relation to qualified cyber activities as an armed attack in the same conflict, emphasising the importance of the principle of proportionality in assessing cyber warfare.
The paper analyzes the extent of transposition of the requirements of the right to education into the statutory legislation on education in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The author includes also the conclusions and opinions arising from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The article explores the limitation of one of the privacy and data protection rights when using generative AI models. The identified limitation is assessed from the perspective of the ‘essence’ of the right to the protection of personal data. With the further aim of assessing the limitation, the author explores whether the right to be forgotten (RTBF) is relevant or effective in an AI/machine learning context. These considerations are focused on the technical problems encountered when applying the strict interpretation of the RTBF. In particular, the antagonism between, on the one hand, the values of privacy and data protection rights, and on the other, the technical capabilities of the producer of the generative AI models, is further analysed in this context. As the conclusion emphasizes that the RTBF cannot be practicably or effectively exercised in the machine learning models, further considerations of this exposed limitation are presented. The proportionality principle, as an instrument that supports the proper application if there is any limitation of the conflicting rights, has been utilized to depict the qualitative approach. The integration of this principle supports the conclusion by identifying a more efficient way to address some regulatory issues. Hence, the conclusion of the article presents some suggested solutions as to the interpretation of this right in the light of this new technological advancement. Ultimately, the paper aims to address the legal conundrum of how to balance the conflict between the interest of innovative use of the data (the data producer’s right) and privacy and data protection rights.
The idea of justice has been present in social and political thought since Antiquity. It is also often to be found in common sense discourse, particularly in the context of protest, contestation and revolutionary movements inspired by the perception of injustice. But the meaning of the concept is neither obvious nor simple. The purpose of the paper is the analysis and explication of the concept of justice informed by the Aristotelian intuition of proportionality. The author distinguishes five varieties of justice and respective normative principles: distributive, communicative, retributive, transactional and attributive. In each case the demand for equality, often associated with the idea of justice, is shown to be untenable. Equality is relevant only as a meta-principle that rules the application of all five principles of justice. The proposed definition treats justice as the equality of principles generating multidimensional inequality, unavoidable and indispensable in social life.
PL
Pojęcie sprawiedliwości występuje w myśli społecznej i politycznej od czasów starożytnych. Bardzo często odnajdujemy je także w myśleniu potocznym, zwłaszcza w kontekście protestów, kontestacji czy ruchów rewolucyjnych skierowanych przeciwko odczuwanej niesprawiedliwości. Jego znaczenie nie jest jednak ani jasne, ani proste. Celem artykułu jest analiza i eksplikacja sensu pojęcia sprawiedliwości obierająca za punkt wyjścia arystotelesowską ideę właściwej proporcji. Rozróżnione zostaje pięć rodzajów sprawiedliwości i pięć odpowiednich zasad normatywnych: sprawiedliwość dystrybutywna, komunitatywna, retrybutywna, transakcyjna i atrybutywna. W wypadku każdego rodzaju odrzucona zostaje intuicja często wiązana ze sprawiedliwością: postulat równości. Równość ma sens jedynie jako metazasada odnosząca się do stosowania wszystkich zasad sprawiedliwości. Sprawiedliwość to w myśl proponowanej definicji równość zasad generujących wieloraką i konieczną w życiu społecznym nierówność.
The premises concerning the use of force are currently changing, as are the goals and methods, which entails that appropriate adaptation and interpretation of international legal norms is required in the context of new threats and methods of combating them. This constitutes a significant problem, especially in the event of extraordinary circumstances that are to justify the use of unilateral measures without the consent of the UN Security Council. This encompasses, inter alia, the issue of targeted killing, i.e. eliminating in the territory of another state, while not operating against such a state, on the order of a specific government, a specific person responsible for the illegal use of force, if other methods of apprehending the perpetrator are unrealistic. This makes such a method, in a given circumstance, a legal form of combat, as long as the criterion of necessity and proportionality is taken into account.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.