比例原则对刑法相关基本权利的威胁

E. Śliwiński
{"title":"比例原则对刑法相关基本权利的威胁","authors":"E. Śliwiński","doi":"10.1177/20322844231158323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article argues that the principle of proportionality—a legal tool widely used for balancing competing rights—can be perceived as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights, i.e. mainly the nullum crimen sine lege and ne bis in idem principles. A case study is carried out, of A and B v Norway, Tsonyo Tsonev v Bulgaria (no 4) and Saquetti Iglesias v Spain ECtHR judgments, as well as P16-2021-001 ECtHR advisory opinion and Menci CJEU ruling, heavily relying on the rule-principle distinction (as presented by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy). The conclusion stemming from the study can be described as follows: in some instances ‘inserting’ proportionality into the content of fundamental rights might be inappropriate, i.e. dogmatically flawed and detrimental to the effective protection of these rights.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Principle of proportionality as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights\",\"authors\":\"E. Śliwiński\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20322844231158323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article argues that the principle of proportionality—a legal tool widely used for balancing competing rights—can be perceived as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights, i.e. mainly the nullum crimen sine lege and ne bis in idem principles. A case study is carried out, of A and B v Norway, Tsonyo Tsonev v Bulgaria (no 4) and Saquetti Iglesias v Spain ECtHR judgments, as well as P16-2021-001 ECtHR advisory opinion and Menci CJEU ruling, heavily relying on the rule-principle distinction (as presented by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy). The conclusion stemming from the study can be described as follows: in some instances ‘inserting’ proportionality into the content of fundamental rights might be inappropriate, i.e. dogmatically flawed and detrimental to the effective protection of these rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Journal of European Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Journal of European Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231158323\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231158323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文认为,比例原则——一种广泛用于平衡相互竞争权利的法律工具——可以被视为对刑法相关基本权利的威胁,即主要是法无明文不为罪原则和一事不再理原则。对A和B诉挪威案、Tsonyo Tsonev诉保加利亚案(第4号)和Saquetti Iglesias诉西班牙欧洲人权法院判决以及P16-2021-001欧洲人权法院咨询意见和Menci欧洲法院裁决进行了案例研究,主要依赖于规则原则区分(由Ronald Dworkin和Robert Alexy提出)。这项研究得出的结论可以描述如下:在某些情况下,在基本权利的内容中“插入”相称性可能是不适当的,即在教条上有缺陷,不利于有效保护这些权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Principle of proportionality as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights
The article argues that the principle of proportionality—a legal tool widely used for balancing competing rights—can be perceived as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights, i.e. mainly the nullum crimen sine lege and ne bis in idem principles. A case study is carried out, of A and B v Norway, Tsonyo Tsonev v Bulgaria (no 4) and Saquetti Iglesias v Spain ECtHR judgments, as well as P16-2021-001 ECtHR advisory opinion and Menci CJEU ruling, heavily relying on the rule-principle distinction (as presented by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy). The conclusion stemming from the study can be described as follows: in some instances ‘inserting’ proportionality into the content of fundamental rights might be inappropriate, i.e. dogmatically flawed and detrimental to the effective protection of these rights.
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