VYHNÁNEK, Ladislav, Anna BLECHOVÁ, Michael BÁTRLA, Jakub MÍŠEK, Tereza NOVOTNÁ, Amnon REICHMAN and Jakub HARAŠTA. The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations. German Law Journal. Lexington: Washington & Lee University School of Law, 2024, vol. 25, No 3, p. 386-406. ISSN 2071-8322. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.96.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
Basic information
Original name The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations
Authors VYHNÁNEK, Ladislav (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution), Anna BLECHOVÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Michael BÁTRLA (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Jakub MÍŠEK (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Tereza NOVOTNÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Amnon REICHMAN (203 Czech Republic) and Jakub HARAŠTA (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution).
Edition German Law Journal, Lexington, Washington & Lee University School of Law, 2024, 2071-8322.
Other information
Original language English
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 50500 5.5 Law
Country of publisher United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW Odkaz na publikovaný text výsledku
Impact factor Impact factor: 1.300 in 2022
Organization unit Faculty of Law
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.96
UT WoS 001163104300001
Keywords in English Constitutional courts; semiprocedural review; proportionality; COVID-19; separation of powers
Tags International impact, Reviewed
Changed by Changed by: JUDr. Mgr. Jakub Harašta, Ph.D., učo 323070. Changed: 1/10/2024 09:39.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that even when using trusted legal tools, courts may run into challenging problems. Governments reacted to an unprecedented (at least in the context of post-WW2 era of fundamental rights) global crisis by adopting measures that drastically limited fundamental rights in order to protect the lives and health of many. Courts, of course, were entrusted with protecting fundamental rights against governmental overreach. The question was, how strict should the courts be when reviewing governmental acts. On the one hand, they could have relied on substantive proportionality assessment. This option, however was virtually ignored and most courts have opted for a deferential approach. This article analyzes both of these approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately it argues that a third option - semiprocedural review - is the best way out of this judicial conundrum. Relying on comparative as well as theoretical arguments, it argues that semiprocedural review is the best way to deal with challenging empirical question - even under conditions of epistemological uncertainty.
Links
VI04000096, research and development projectName: Omezení svobody pohybu: technologické možnosti a ústavněprávní limity
Investor: Ministry of the Interior of the CR
PrintDisplayed: 4/10/2024 10:24