Proportionality CASES
In English and European law, proportionality is a principle requiring that legal measures, restrictions, or decisions do not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. It ensures a fair balance between individual rights and the aims pursued by public authorities.
Definition and Principles
Proportionality asks whether a measure is suitable, necessary, and balanced in achieving its purpose. It prevents excessive or unjustified interference with rights, especially in constitutional and human rights contexts.
Requirements for Establishing
- Legitimate aim: The measure must pursue a lawful and proper objective.
- Suitability: The measure must be capable of achieving that aim.
- Necessity: There must be no less restrictive means of achieving the same result.
- Proportionality stricto sensu: The benefits of the measure must outweigh its detriments to individual rights.
Practical Applications
Often applied in judicial review, human rights claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, and EU law cases to assess whether state actions unjustifiably restrict fundamental freedoms.
Importance
Proportionality provides a structured framework for balancing competing interests, promoting fairness, and ensuring government measures remain within reasonable limits of legal authority.
Home » Proportionality
Nigerian parents of a British citizen child were refused leave to remain in the UK. They argued this breached their Article 8 ECHR right to family life. The Court of Appeal held that the child's citizenship was a primary factor but not determinative. Facts The appellants, Mr and Mrs Olotu, were Nigerian citizens who had entered the United Kingdom as visitors and subsequently overstayed their leave. Their daughter, Michelle, was born in the UK in August 1992 and was a British citizen by virtue of section 1(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, as her mother was ‘settled’ in the
Four UK Christians claimed their rights to manifest religion were violated by employers. The ECHR found a violation for an airline employee prevented from wearing a cross, but not for a nurse, a registrar, or a counsellor whose beliefs conflicted with employer duties. Facts The case concerned four separate applications brought by British nationals who were devout Christians. They alleged that domestic law failed to protect their right to manifest their religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. First Applicant (Ms Eweida) Ms Eweida was
Appellants, designated under the UK's Russia sanctions regime due to links with Roman Abramovich, challenged the meaning of 'control'. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, affirming a broad, reality-based interpretation of control and the government's wide discretion in such matters. Facts This case concerned two conjoined appeals against designations made under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The first appellant, Mr Eugene Shvidler, a UK/US national and business associate of Roman Abramovich, was designated, resulting in the freezing of his assets, including two private aircraft. The second appellant, Dalston Projects Ltd, a UK company
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against extradition to Poland. It ruled that extraditing the appellant, a long-term UK resident with a British family, would be a disproportionate breach of his right to family life under Article 8 ECHR due to the exceptionally severe impact on his children. Facts The appellant, Mr Michal Andrysiewicz, is a Polish national who has resided in the United Kingdom since 2007. He is married with two young British children and is fully integrated into UK society. In 2022, the Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland, issued a Trade and Cooperation Agreement warrant seeking his extradition
A journalist's phone was seized under the Terrorism Act 2000. She argued this breached her right to protect sources under Article 10 ECHR. The Supreme Court ruled the seizure lawful but imposed strict safeguards for examining the data to protect journalistic material. Facts The appellant, Ms Isabel Perry, is a journalist who specialises in reporting on terrorism and the Middle East. Upon her return to the United Kingdom from a reporting trip to Syria, she was stopped at Heathrow Airport by police officers. Acting under the powers conferred by Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (‘TACT’), the officers questioned
