De Criminali Proportione: On Proportionality Standing Between National Criminal Laws and the E.U. Fundamental Freedoms

Alessandro Rosanò
{"title":"De Criminali Proportione: On Proportionality Standing Between National Criminal Laws and the E.U. Fundamental Freedoms","authors":"Alessandro Rosanò","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over time, the European Court of Justice has had to clarify whether and under what circumstances national laws may put one of the four fundamental freedoms of the internal  market  aside  in  cases  concerning  clashes  between  national  regulations  and said freedoms. The answers provided by the E.C.J. have always focused on the centrality of  the  principle  of  proportionality,  expressing  the  idea  that  a  balance  between conflicting interests and means to protect those interests must be reached. An a priori protection of the fundamental freedoms has been refused  in favor of a more concrete kind of approach. This article deals with this topic, assessing the relationship between proportionality and free movement of persons, goods, and services. Also, it is checked whether, thanks to the principle of proportionality, the E.C.J. may achieve the role of a European  Constitutional  Court  that  can  protect  the  E.U.  interests  without  putting national interests aside.","PeriodicalId":36563,"journal":{"name":"University of Bologna Law Review","volume":"2 1","pages":"49-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Bologna Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.2531-6133/7180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over time, the European Court of Justice has had to clarify whether and under what circumstances national laws may put one of the four fundamental freedoms of the internal  market  aside  in  cases  concerning  clashes  between  national  regulations  and said freedoms. The answers provided by the E.C.J. have always focused on the centrality of  the  principle  of  proportionality,  expressing  the  idea  that  a  balance  between conflicting interests and means to protect those interests must be reached. An a priori protection of the fundamental freedoms has been refused  in favor of a more concrete kind of approach. This article deals with this topic, assessing the relationship between proportionality and free movement of persons, goods, and services. Also, it is checked whether, thanks to the principle of proportionality, the E.C.J. may achieve the role of a European  Constitutional  Court  that  can  protect  the  E.U.  interests  without  putting national interests aside.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论刑事比例:国家刑法与欧盟基本自由的比例立场
随着时间的推移,欧洲法院不得不澄清,在涉及国家条例与上述自由发生冲突的案件中,国家法律是否以及在何种情况下可以将内部市场的四项基本自由之一搁置一边。欧洲法院提供的答案始终聚焦于比例原则的中心地位,表达了一种观点,即必须在相互冲突的利益与保护这些利益的手段之间达成平衡。对基本自由的先验保护被拒绝,取而代之的是一种更具体的方法。本文讨论这一主题,评估比例性与人员、货物和服务自由流动之间的关系。同时,通过比例原则,欧洲法院能否实现在不牺牲国家利益的情况下保护欧盟利益的欧洲宪法法院的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
University of Bologna Law Review
University of Bologna Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Securitizing Notes of Small Businesses and Needy Workers The Price of Transitional Justice: A Cost‐Benefit Analysis of its Mechanisms in Post‐Revolution Phase Is a Requirement to Wear a Mask Economically Valid During COVID-19? Constituting Over Constitutions Challenging the Undesired Outcome of FIOST Clauses on Cargo Interests
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1