Jenni Aer
{"title":"Uudenmaan liikkumisrajoitukset perustuslain 23 §:n mukaisena tilapäisenä poikkeuksena perusoikeuksista","authors":"Jenni Aer","doi":"10.33344/vol11ypp12-33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nSection 23 of the Constitution of Finland allows temporary derogations from fundamental rights during a state of emergency. This article examines whether the restrictions of movement between Uusimaa region and the rest of Finland during the spring 2020 Covid-19 crisis can be considered derogations under Section 23 of the Constitution, as the Constitutional Law Committee did. The question is twofold: did the restrictions exceed the boundaries of ordinary limitations to fundamental rights, namely the inviolability of the core content and the prohibition of exceptional and nonspecific measures, and, if the answer is positive, did they fulfil the conditions for derogations? It is argued that the restrictions did exceed the limits for ordinary limitations to fundamental rights at least due to their exceptional and nonspecific nature. The restrictions also seem to fulfil the constitutional requirements for derogations, even though the application of the proportionality principle by the Committee was somewhat superficial.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Helsinki Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol11ypp12-33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《芬兰宪法》第23条允许在紧急状态期间暂时克减基本权利。本文探讨了在2020年春季新冠肺炎危机期间,乌西马地区与芬兰其他地区之间的行动限制是否可以被视为宪法第23条规定的克减,正如宪法法律委员会所做的那样。问题是双重的:这些限制是否超出了对基本权利的一般限制的界限,即核心内容的不可侵犯性和对例外和非具体措施的禁止,如果答案是肯定的,它们是否符合克减的条件?有人认为,这些限制确实超过了对基本权利的一般限制,至少由于它们的例外和非具体性质。这些限制似乎也符合宪法对减损的要求,尽管委员会对相称原则的适用有些肤浅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uudenmaan liikkumisrajoitukset perustuslain 23 §:n mukaisena tilapäisenä poikkeuksena perusoikeuksista
Section 23 of the Constitution of Finland allows temporary derogations from fundamental rights during a state of emergency. This article examines whether the restrictions of movement between Uusimaa region and the rest of Finland during the spring 2020 Covid-19 crisis can be considered derogations under Section 23 of the Constitution, as the Constitutional Law Committee did. The question is twofold: did the restrictions exceed the boundaries of ordinary limitations to fundamental rights, namely the inviolability of the core content and the prohibition of exceptional and nonspecific measures, and, if the answer is positive, did they fulfil the conditions for derogations? It is argued that the restrictions did exceed the limits for ordinary limitations to fundamental rights at least due to their exceptional and nonspecific nature. The restrictions also seem to fulfil the constitutional requirements for derogations, even though the application of the proportionality principle by the Committee was somewhat superficial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信