pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(1).124-133pravo-603Research ArticleПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА ОРГАНАМИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ВЛАСТИTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIESКонституционное требование необходимости: постановка проблемыThe constitutional test of necessity: problem statementhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8866-8993ДолжиковА. В.DolzhikovA. V.

Должиков Алексей Вячеславович – кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры конституционного права, SPIN-код РИНЦ: 4274-9924; AuthorID: 313427, ResearcherID: J-4829-2014.

199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7/9

Aleksei V. Dolzhikov – PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law, SPIN-код РИНЦ: 4274-9924; AuthorID: 313427, ResearcherID: J-4829-2014

7/9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034

a.dolzhikov@spbu.ruСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSt. Petersburg UniversityRussian Federation20222403202261124133Copyright © Должиков А.В., 20222022Должиков А.В.Dolzhikov A.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/603

Рассматривается требование необходимости – этот элемент соразмерности в истории права известен давно в форме метафор. В таком образном выражении необходимость встречается в доктрине и судебной практике. Применение необходимости в конституционном правосудии отличается юридической методологией. Этот элемент соразмерности подразумевает оценку альтернатив, способных достичь выбранной законодателем цели при наименьшем обременении носителя конституционных прав. Соответственно, в конституционном судопроизводстве применяется метод аналогии, а не традиционный дедуктивный метод юридической квалификации или прием взвешивания интересов. Источниками аналогии могут служить нормы международного права, отраслевые институты и сравнительно-правовые материалы.

The subject-matter of the research is the constitutional test of necessity. This element of proportionality could be found in doctrine and case-law in the form of metaphors. The necessity as a prong of proportionality consists in testing the available alternatives in comparison with the measures that the legislator has chosen to achieve public aims. The notion of a least restrictive means can be used as a synonym for this element of proportionality. Although this term is cumbersome, it more precisely defines the nature of constitutional litigation, where the admissibility of interference with fundamental rights is assessed.

The purpose of the research is to argue that this element of proportionality implies the assessment of the least restrictive alternatives for the rights-holder in order to achieve the goal chosen by the legislator.

The methodology of research includes the method of analogy. Accordingly, the analogical reasoning is used in constitutional adjudication when testing necessity of legislative measures, but not the methods of logical subsumtion or judicial balancing. The sources of such analogy can be the rules of international law, ordinary legislation and comparative legal materials.

The main results of the research and the scope of their application. The expression necessity is widely used in international law and ordinary legislation. Such approaches are relevant to constitutional adjudication. Thus, the ultima ratio principle, which initially appears in criminal and administrative law, acquires universal application in constitutional justice. This criterion, which requires the use of the most severe legal measures only as a last resort, with the ineffectiveness of softer alternatives, can be extended to the constitutionalization of other branches of legislation.

The test of necessity, which is often expressed in metaphors, in the case-law of constitutional justice is based on the method of analogy. In the decisions of the constitutional justice bodies, the least restrictive means are often mentioned in comparison with those which were originally chosen by the legislator. At the same time, the discovered alternatives should be equally or at least minimally suitable in comparison with the existing legislative solutions. Comparative law, international law, or ordinary legislation are often an auxiliary source for constitutional judges to identify and formulate least restrictive alternatives.

Conclusions. The value of the analogical reasoning, including the appeal of constitutional justice to comparative law materials, lies in the possibility of identifying some experimental legal regimes. Moreover, the perception of specific alternatives, their clarification or modification remains within the discretionary powers of the legislature. Thus, avoiding the well-known counter-majoritarian difficulty, constitutional justice conducts a dialogue with the parliament, and in the end, contributes to the optimal implementation of fundamental rights.

Конституционное правосудиепринцип соразмерноститребование необходимостиметафоры в правеаргументация по аналогииConstitutional adjudicationproportionality principletest of necessitymetaphors in lawanalogical reasoningReferencesRess G. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im deutschen Recht / G. Ress // Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in europäischen Rechtsordnungen / mitverf. H. Kutscher, G. Ress u.a. – Heidelberg : Müller, 1985. – S. 5–51.Ress G. The principle of proportionality in German law, in: Kutscher H., Ress G. et al. (eds.) The principle of proportionality in European legal systems, Heidelberg, Müller Publ., 1985, pp. 5–51. (In German).Voßkuhle A. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit / A. Voßkuhle // Juristische Schulung. – 2007. – Bd. 47. – H. 5. – S. 429–431.Voßkuhle A. The principle of proportionality. Juristische Schulung, 2007, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 429–431. (In German).Parker R. A. Least Restrictive Means : Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association (Spokane, WA, February 17-21, 1989) / R. A. Parker. – 35 р. – URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314764.pdf (дата обращения: 01.07.2021).Parker R.A. Least Restrictive Means, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association (Spokane, WA, February 17-21, 1989). 35 p. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314764.pdf (accessed: July 01, 2021).Struve G. M. The Less-Restrictive-Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process / G. M. Struve // Harvard Law Review. – 1967. – Vol. 80, № 7. – P. 1463–1488.Struve G.M. The Less-Restrictive-Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process. Harvard Law Review, 1967, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1463–1488.Magnet J. E. Constitutional law of Canada: cases, notes and materials / J. E. Magnet. – 8th ed. – Edmonton : Juriliber, 2001. – Vol. 2. – 940 p.Magnet J.E. Constitutional law of Canada: cases, notes and materials, 8th ed. Edmonton, Juriliber Publ., 2001. Vol. 2. 940 p.Brems E. ‘Don’t Use a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut’: Less Restrictive Means in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights / E. Brems, L. Lavrysen // Human Rights Law Review. – 2015. – Vol. 15, № 1. – P. 139–168. – DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu040.Brems E., Lavrysen L. ‘Don’t Use a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut’: Less Restrictive Means in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 2015, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 139–168. DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu040.Sykes A. O. The Least Restrictive Means / A. O. Sykes // The University of Chicago Law Review. – 2003. – Vol. 70, № 1. – P. 403–419. – DOI: 10.2307/1600566.Sykes A.O. The Least Restrictive Means. The University of Chicago Law Review, 2003, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 403–419. DOI: 10.2307/1600566.Fleiner F. Institutionen des deutschen Verwaltungsrechts / F. Fleiner. – Tübingen : Mohr, 1911. – 358 s.Fleiner F. Institutions of German administrative law. Tübingen, Mohr Publ., 1911. 358 p. (In German).Ayres I. Narrow tailoring / I. Ayres // UCLA Law Review. – 1995. – Vol. 43, № 6. – P. 1781–1838.Ayres I. Narrow tailoring. UCLA Law Review, 1995, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1781–1838.Bunker M. D. The jurisprudence of precision: Contrast space and narrow tailoring in First Amendment doctrine / M. D. Bunker, E. Erickson // Communication Law and Policy. – 2001. – Vol. 6, № 2. – P. 259–285. – DOI: 10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_1.Bunker M.D., Erickson E. The jurisprudence of precision: Contrast space and narrow tailoring in First Amendment doctrine. Communication Law and Policy, 2001, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 259–285. DOI: 10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_1.Shumway S. K. In Defense of Narrow Tailoring / S. K. Shumway // Brigham Young University Prelaw Review. – 2005. – Vol. 19, № 1. – P. 13–18.Shumway S.K. In Defense of Narrow Tailoring. Brigham Young University Prelaw Review, 2005, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 13–18.Arroyo L. A. S. Tailoring the Narrow Tailoring Requirement in the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Cases / L. A. S. Arroyo // Cleveland State Law Review. – 2010. – Vol. 58. – P. 649–684.Arroyo L.A.S. Tailoring the Narrow Tailoring Requirement in the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Cases. Cleveland State Law Review, 2010, vol. 58, pp. 649–684.Marchant G. The use of analogy in legal argument: Problem similarity, precedent, and expertise / G. Marchant, J. Robinson, U. Anderson, M. Schadewald // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. – 1993. – Vol. 55, № 1. – P. 95–119. – DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1026.Marchant G., Robinson J., Anderson U., Schadewald M. The use of analogy in legal argument: Problem similarity, precedent, and expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1993, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 95–119. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1026.Sherwin E. A defense of analogical reasoning in law / E. Sherwin // University of Chicago Law Review. – 1999. – Vol. 66, № 4. – P. 1179–1198. – DOI: 10.2307/1600365.Sherwin E. A defense of analogical reasoning in law. University of Chicago Law Review, 1999, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1179–1198. DOI: 10.2307/1600365.Sunstein C. R. On analogical reasoning / C. R. Sunstein // Harvard Law Review. – 1993. – Vol. 106, № 3. – P. 741–791. – DOI: 10.2307/1341662.Sunstein C.R. On analogical reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 1993, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 741–791. DOI:10.2307/1341662.Schauer F. Why precedent in law (and elsewhere) is not totally (or even substantially) about analogy / F. Schauer // Perspectives on Psychological Science. – 2008. – Vol. 3, № 6. – P. 454–460. – DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00090.x.Schauer F. Why precedent in law (and elsewhere) is not totally (or even substantially) about analogy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2008, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 454–460. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00090.x.Хачатуров Р. Л. Аналогия в праве / Р. Л. Хачатуров // Вектор науки Тольяттинского государственного университета. – 2009. – № 5. – С. 129–132.Khachaturov R.L. Analogy in law. Vektor nauki Tol’yattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Science Vector of Togliatti State University, 2009, no. 5, pp. 129–132. (In Russ.)Kühn Z. Worlds apart: Western and Central European judicial culture at the onset of the European enlargement / Z. Kühn // The American Journal of Comparative Law. – 2004. – Vol. 52, № 3. – P. 531–567. – DOI: 10.2307/4144478.Kühn Z. Worlds apart: Western and Central European judicial culture at the onset of the European enlargement. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2004, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 531–567. DOI: 10.2307/4144478.Блохин П. Д. Обоснование по аналогии в конституционно-правовых спорах / П. Д. Блохин // Аргументация в праве и морали : моногр. / под ред. Е. Н. Лисанюк. – СПб. : Алеф-Пресс, 2018. – С. 212–224.Blokhin P.D. Analogical reasoning in constitutional litigation, in: Lisanyuk E.N. (ed.) Argumentatsiya v prave i morali, Monograph, St. Petersburg, Alef-Press Publ., 2018, pp. 212–224. (In Russ.).Gardam J. G. Necessity, proportionality, and the use of force by states / J. G. Gardam. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2004. – 259 p.Gardam J.G. Necessity, proportionality, and the use of force by states. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004. 259 p.Ohlin J. D. Necessity in international law / J. D. Ohlin, L. May. – New York : Oxford University Press, 2016. – 280 p.Ohlin J.D., May L. Necessity in international law. New York, Oxford University Press, 2016. 280 p.Gerards J. How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights / J. Gerards // International Journal of Constitutional Law. – 2013. – Vol. 11, № 2. – P. 466–490. – DOI: 10.1093/icon/mot004.Gerards J. How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2013, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 466–490. DOI: 10.1093/icon/mot004.European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms / ed. D. Ehlers. – Berlin : De Gruyter, 2007. – 644 p.Ehlers D. (ed.) European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2007. 644 p.Александров А. И. Уголовная политика и уголовный процесс в российской государственности: история, современность, перспективы, проблемы / А. И. Александров. – СПб. : Изд. дом С.-Петерб. гос. ун-та, 2003. – 559 c.Aleksandrov A.I. Criminal policy and criminal procedure in Russian statehood: history, modernity, prospects, problems. St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg University Publ., 2003. 559 p. (In Russ.).Владимиров Л. Е. Учение об уголовных доказательствах. Общая часть / Л. Е. Владимиров. – 2-е изд., доп. – Харьков : Тип. Каплана и Бирюкова, 1888. – 248 c.Vladimirov L.E. The doctrine of criminal evidence. A general part, 2nd ed. Kharkiv, Kaplan and Biryukov Publ., 1888. 248 p. (In Russ.).Васьковский Е. В. Руководство к толкованию и применению законов : для начинающих юристов / Е. В. Васьковский. – М. : Городец, 1997. – 128 с.Vas’kovskii E.V. Guide to the interpretation and application of laws, For beginner lawyers. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 1997. 128 p. (In Russ.)Мадьярова А. В. Разъяснения Верховного Суда Российской Федерации в механизме уголовно-правового регулирования / А. В. Мадьярова. – СПб. : Юридический центр Пресс, 2002. – 405 с.Mad’yarova A.V. Explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the mechanism of criminal law regulation. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskii tsentr Press Publ., 2002. 405 p. (In Russ.).Гаджиев Г. А. О судебной доктрине верховенства права / Г. А. Гаджиев // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. – 2013. – № 4. – С. 12–25.Gadzhiev G.A. On the judicial doctrine of the rule of law. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie = Comparative constitutional review, 2013, no. 4, pp. 12–25. (In Russ.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.