Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

General Principles of EU Law as Evidence of the Development of a Common European Legal Thinking: The Example of the Proportionality Principle (from the Italian Perspective)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Common European Legal Thinking

  • 936 Accesses

Abstract

While it is surely questionable whether the reference to “any rule of law” contained in Art. 263.2 TFEU can be considered to be one of the bases for the development of the so‐called general principles of EU law, it is conversely certainly the case that the provisions of Art. 340.2 TFEU are considered an essential point of reference in this context. This provision, which remained in essence unchanged in its wording since the Treaty of Rome (Art. 215.2 EEC), states in fact that: “In the case of non‐contractual liability, the Union shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.” This provision has been recently restated by Art. 41.3 EUCFR on the right to good administration.

This paper is part of the publications related to project PRIN 2012 (2012SAM3KM) on Codification of EU Administrative Procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Art. 263.2 TFEU the CJEU shall have jurisdiction “on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application”.

  2. 2.

    Joined Cases 7/56, 3/57–7/57, Algera et al. v. Assemblée commune (ECJ 10 July 1957). See more extensively in the Opinion of AG Lagrange of 14 June 1957.

  3. 3.

    See Galetta 2013, para 4.

  4. 4.

    See for all: Adinolfi 1994, p. 521.

  5. 5.

    According to Art. 5.2 TEU, under the principle of conferral, “the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States”.

  6. 6.

    Case 45/86, Commission v. Council (ECJ 26 March 1987).

  7. 7.

    In this sense Louis and Ronse 2005, p. 17.

  8. 8.

    Ziller 2014, p. 351.

  9. 9.

    On the fundamental distinction between material source and formal source of general principles see Ziller 2014, passim.

  10. 10.

    See Galetta 2013, para 4.

  11. 11.

    Joined Cases C 6/90 and C 9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci (ECJ 19 November 1991).

  12. 12.

    Joined Cases 7/56, 3/57–7/57, Algera et al. v. Assemblée commune (ECJ 10 July 1957).

  13. 13.

    See Tesauro 2013, p. 487 et seq.; see also Schwarze 2012, p. 118.

  14. 14.

    In this regard a necessary point of reference is now Art. 52.4 EUCFR, stating that: “In so far as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions”. The Explanations to the Charter clarify then, in this specific regard, that “[t]he rule of interpretation contained in paragraph 4 has been based on the wording of Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Treaty on European Union and takes due account of the approach to common constitutional traditions followed by the Court of Justice […]. Under that rule, rather than following a rigid approach of ‘a lowest common denominator’, the Charter rights concerned should be interpreted in a way offering a high standard of protection which is adequate for the law of the Union and in harmony with the common constitutional traditions”.

  15. 15.

    See Hofmann et al. 2011, p. 75.

  16. 16.

    Case C‐221/09, AJD Tuna (ECJ 17 March 2011), where it refers also to its previous case‐law in Case C‐432/05, Unibet (ECJ 13 March 2007) para 37, and in Joined Cases C‐402/05 P and C‐415/05 P, Kadi (ECJ 3 September 2008) para 335.

  17. 17.

    Ziller 2014, p. 351. In this same vein see already the remarks of Capotorti 1983, p. 409.

  18. 18.

    See for example Prechal and de Leeuw 2008, p. 203.

  19. 19.

    See in this regard the interesting remarks of Hofmann and Mihaescu 2013, p. 73.

  20. 20.

    See Gaja 2007, p. 370, who provides a thorough overview as well as an extensive bibliography on the topic. See also the remarks of Albrecht Weber on this point, expressed in a paper translated by myself and published in an Italian Law Journal in 1992: Weber 1992, p. 397.

  21. 21.

    As for the consequences of this see Tesauro 2013, p. 493.

  22. 22.

    Ziller 2014, p. 334.

  23. 23.

    Ziller 2014, p. 345 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Ziller 2014, p. 349.

  25. 25.

    See most recently Joined Cases C‐293/12 and C‐594/12, Digital Rights Ireland (ECJ 8 April 2014), which states the invalidity of Parliament/Council Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks, O.J. L 105/54 (2006), because “by adopting Directive 2006/24, the EU legislature has exceeded the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality” (para 69).

  26. 26.

    See for example, already more than 30 years ago, Case 258/78, Nungesser v. Commission (ECJ 8 June 1982).

  27. 27.

    Case 230/78, Eridania (ECJ 27 September 1979) para 31.

  28. 28.

    Law No. 241 of 11 August 1990 setting new rules concerning administrative procedure and the right of access to documents, published in the Official Gazette of 18 August 1990, No. 192.

  29. 29.

    Law No. 15 of 11 February 2005 that introduces Amendments to Law No. 241 of 7 August 1990, relating to general rules on administrative action, published in the Official Gazette of 21 February 2005, No. 42.

  30. 30.

    Author’s translation. Original wording: “L’attività amministrativa persegue i fini determinati dalla legge ed è retta da criteri di economicità, di efficacia, di imparzialità, di pubblicità e di trasparenza secondo le modalità previste dalla presente legge e dalle altre disposizioni che disciplinano singoli procedimenti, nonché dai princìpi dell’ordinamento comunitario.”

  31. 31.

    See Galetta 2010, p. 601.

  32. 32.

    Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), sec. V, 19 June 2009 n. 4035 (author’s translation).

  33. 33.

    My first publication on the topic was already in 1993 (Galetta 1993), but my book on the principle of proportionality was published only in 1998 (Galetta 1998a).

  34. 34.

    Schwarze 2005, p. 694; Groussot 2006, passim.

  35. 35.

    Author’s translation. More precisely Fleiner stated: “Des Amtes der Polizei ist es, die ‘nötigen Anstalten’ zu treffen zur Erhaltung der öffentlichen Sicherheit und Ordnung. Die Beschränkung der individuellen Freiheit darf nie das absolut erforderliche Maß überschreiten. Die Polizei soll nicht mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schießen.” See Fleiner 1912, p. 354.

  36. 36.

    “Erst mit der Feststellung, daß ein Interesse der Allgemeinheit besteht, welches nur durch einen Eingriff in die private Sphäre befriedigt werden kann, gelangt man in den Anwendungsbereich des Grundsatzes.” von Krauss 1955, p. 94.

  37. 37.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 596/56 (judgment of 11 June 1958) in BVerfGE 7, 377.

  38. 38.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 52, 665, 667, 754/66 (judgment of 16 March 1971) in BVerfGE 30, 292, author’s translation.

  39. 39.

    Stein 1978, p. 279.

  40. 40.

    “Die abstrakte Möglichkeit der Zweckerreichung genügt”. German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 52, 665, 667, 754/66 (judgment of 16 March 1971) in BVerfGE 30, 292.

  41. 41.

    In German literature are used as synonyms, depending on the case: Notwendigkeit; Subsidiarität; Grundsatz des schonendsten Mittels; Grundsatz des geringstmöglichen Eingriffs; Grundsatz des geringsten Mittels. See Jakobs 1985, p. 102.

  42. 42.

    See, among others, in the case‐law of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht): 2 BvR 326/69 et al. (judgment of 3 September 1971) in BVerfGE 30, 250; 1 BvL 5/64 (judgment of 18 December 1968) in BVerfGE 25, 1; 1 BvR 286/65 et al. (judgment of 10 May 1972) in BVerfGE 33, 171.

  43. 43.

    See, among others, in the case‐law of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht): 1 BvR 596/56 (judgment of 11 June 1958) in BVerfGE 7, 377; 1 BvF 1/58 (judgment of 10 July 1958) in BVerfGE 8, 71; 1 BvR 71/57 (judgment of 16 June 1959) in BVerfGE 9, 338; 1 BvR 216/51 (judgment of 23 March 1960) in BVerfGE 11, 30; 1 BvL 44/55 (judgment of 17 July 1961) in BVerfGE 13, 97; 1 BvR 758/57 (judgment of 29 November 1961) in BVerfGE 13, 230; 1 BvR 760/57 (judgment of 29 November 1961) in BVerfGE 13, 237; 1 BvR 665/62 (judgment of 18 December 1962) in BVerfGE 15, 223; 1 BvL 15/62 (judgment of 16 February 1965) in BVerfGE 18, 353; 1 BvL 17/63 (judgment of 14 February 1967) in BVerfGE 21, 150; 1 BvR 175/66 (judgment of 29 November 1967) in BVerfGE 22, 380; 1 BvR 638/64 et al. (judgment 18 December 1968) in BVerfGE 24, 367; 1 BvL 3/66 (judgment of 15 January 1969) in BVerfGE 25, 112; 1 BvR 30/66 (judgment of 14 October 1969) in BVerfGE 27, 88; 1 BvR 307/68 (judgment of 14 October 1970) in BVerfGE 29, 221.

  44. 44.

    See Stein 1978, p. 281; Lerche 1961, p. 129.

  45. 45.

    See Ipsen 1995, p. 103, para 293.

  46. 46.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 216/51 (judgment of 23 March 1960) in BVerfGE 11, 30.

  47. 47.

    See Stern 1984, p. 863.

  48. 48.

    German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), 1 BvR 435/68 (judgment of 24 February 1971) in BVerfGE 30, 173.

  49. 49.

    Cited in: Weekly Law Reports, 1983, p. 155.

  50. 50.

    Further in Galetta 2012, para 4.

  51. 51.

    Case 8/55, Fédération Charbonnière (ECJ 16 July 1956); Joined Cases 5‐11, 13‐15/62, Società acciaierie San Michele (ECJ 14 December 1962), p. 917; Case 18/63, Schmitz (ECJ 19 March 1964) p. 175.

  52. 52.

    See among others, Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (ECJ 17 December 1970) p. 1125; Case 5/73, Balkan‐Import‐Export (ECJ 24 October 1973) p. 1091.

  53. 53.

    von Danwitz 2012, p. 367.

  54. 54.

    Art. 1 of Protocol No. 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

  55. 55.

    Art. 5.4 TEU reads: “Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.”

  56. 56.

    Galetta 1998a, p. 6; see also von Danwitz 2012, p. 367.

  57. 57.

    Among many others see von Krauss 1955; Hirschberg 1981; Dechsling 1989.

  58. 58.

    Case C‐265/87, Schräder (ECJ 11 July 1989).

  59. 59.

    See von Danwitz 2012, p. 373.

  60. 60.

    See, for example, Case C‐357/88, Hopermann (ECJ 2 May 1990). Although it must be said that, in this last respect, it is almost certainly a difference more apparent than real and due essentially to the differences in style and manner of drafting the judgments by the German Courts and by the EU Courts. While the first, in fact, have the habit of providing extensive and full reasons in judgments, the latter usually report only the essential steps of their legal reasoning. In this vein: Kischel 2000, p. 391.

  61. 61.

    Kahl 2011, p. 42.

  62. 62.

    As underlined already by Emiliou 1996, p. 171.

  63. 63.

    Clearly in this vein Case 45/85, Verband der Sachversicherer (ECJ 27 January 1987) para 61. See also, more recently, Joined Cases T‐37/07 and T‐323/07, Mohamed El Morabit (CFI 2 September 2009), Case T‐390/08, Bank Melli Iran (CFI 14 October 2009).

  64. 64.

    See, for detailed references, von Danwitz 2012, p. 374, note 33.

  65. 65.

    Nevertheless, see the recent (and noteworthy) decision in Joined Cases C‐293/12 and C‐594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. (ECJ 8 April 2014), declaring invalid Parliament/Council Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data on the ground that by adopting the Directive the EU legislature “has exceeded the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality” (para 69).

  66. 66.

    This is reported, most recently, also by von Danwitz 2012, p. 378.

  67. 67.

    Recital 1 of the Preamble to the TEU.

  68. 68.

    So clearly Case 29/77, Roquette (ECJ 20 October 1977) para 19 and 20; Joined Cases C‐296/93 and C‐307/93, France and Ireland v. Commission (ECJ 29 February 1996).

  69. 69.

    See, for example, Case C‐65/05, Commission v. Greece (ECJ 21 October 2006). Of the same opinion on this point von Danwitz 2012, p. 378.

  70. 70.

    See Papadopoulou 1996, p. 252; von Danwitz 2003, p. 400.

  71. 71.

    See the already quoted decision in Joined Cases C‐293/12 and C‐594/12, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. (ECJ 8 April 2014), where the protection of the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data were at stake.

  72. 72.

    von Danwitz 2012, p. 379.

  73. 73.

    See Case C‐34–36/95, De Agostini (ECJ 9 July 1997) para 52; Joined Cases C‐96/03 and C‐97/03, Tempelman (ECJ 10 March 2005) para 49. More recently, Case C‐182/08, Glaxo Wellcome (ECJ 17 September 2009) para 102.

  74. 74.

    See for example German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 11 C 35.92 (judgment of 27 January 1993) in Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1993, p. 613; 4 A 29.95 (judgment of 23 August 1996) in Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 1997, p. 68; 7 VR 2.96 (judgment of 30 August 1996) in Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht, 1997 p. 496.

  75. 75.

    See, among the most recent contributions, Groussot 2006.

  76. 76.

    See Galetta 1998a, p. 5.

  77. 77.

    See Galetta 2005, p. 554; Ligugnana 2011, p. 447.

  78. 78.

    Birkinshaw 2014, para 8.02. See also Craig 1999, p. 95; Jowell and Birkinshaw 1996, p. 282; Hoffmann 1991, p. 114.

  79. 79.

    See 1985 GCHQ decision of the House of Lords, Council for Civil Service Unions v. Minister of State for the Civil Service, Law Reports – AC, 1985, p. 374 (410).

  80. 80.

    House of Lords, Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind (7 February 1991).

  81. 81.

    See Clayton 2001, p. 504.

  82. 82.

    Birkinshaw 2014, p. 372.

  83. 83.

    See House of Lords, Alconbury (9 May 2001). See also House of Lords, Regina v. Shayler (21 March 2002) para 75; House of Lords, Wrexham County Borough Council v. Berry et al. (22 May 2003); House of Lords, Regina v. British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Prolife Alliance (15 May 2003). For further references see Birkinshaw 2014, para 8.03; see further Brady 2012, p. 5.

  84. 84.

    Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy (TAR Lombardia), sec. III (2 April 1997), n. 354; sec. III (16 April 1998), n. 752. See for further references Galetta 1998a, p. 231.

  85. 85.

    See for details Galetta 1998b, p. 299.

  86. 86.

    The principle of reasonableness is characterised by a large degree of uncertainty and its “evanescence” has been widely reported in the academic literature. See, for example, Ledda 1983, p. 438; more recently Astone 2012, p. 371.

  87. 87.

    See, among many others, Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), plenary (6 February 1993), n. 3; sec. V (18 February 1992), n. 132; sec. V (4 November 1992), n. 1168; sec. IV (1 July 1992), n. 654; sec. V (3 April 1990), n. 326; sec. V (3 April 1990), n. 332.

  88. 88.

    See Galetta 1998a, p. 221.

  89. 89.

    See, for example, Legislative Decree no. 163 of 12 April 2006 (Code of public contracts for works, services and supplies, transposing Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC) which, in various provisions, makes specific reference to the principle of proportionality. See also Art. 1 of Legislative Decree no. 32 of 28 February 2008 (Amendments and additions to Legislative Decree no. 30 of 6 February 2007, implementing Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States), which specifies how “removal orders shall be adopted in accordance with the principle of proportionality”.

  90. 90.

    Examples of the second type are, in particular: Legislative Decree No. 152 of 3 April 2006 (Environmental Regulations), whose Art. 178.3 expressly refers to the principle of proportionality among the principles to be fulfilled in the business of waste management. Law No. 448 of 4 August 2006 (Conversion into law, with amendments, of Decree‐Law No. 223 of 4 July 2006, containing urgent measures for the economic and social recovery, containment and rationalisation of public expenditures and contrast of tax evasion), whose Art. 12.2, entitled “Provisions relating to the movement of vehicles and municipal and inter‐municipal transport” expressly refers to the principle of proportionality among the principles to be fulfilled in order to protect the right to health, environmental health and safety of road users and the public interest to an adequate urban mobility. See also Law No. 262 of 28 December 2005 (Provisions for the protection of savings and regulation of financial markets), which makes express reference to the principle of proportionality in Art. 23 as a principle that the competent authorities must take into account when defining the content of acts of administrative rule making.

  91. 91.

    See on this constitutional reform and its implications Galetta 2001, p. 293.

  92. 92.

    In a recent and important Italian study on the principle of proportionality the reference was, as a matter of fact, to “the method of proportion as a general category of law”. See Cognetti 2010, p. 15 (author’s translation).

  93. 93.

    See Sauvé and Polge 2010, p. 743: “Les vertus reconnues aux principes généraux du droit, en particulier leur souplesse de consécration comme d’ application et leur capacité à étendre la protection des individus au‐delà des prévisions écrites, devraient conduire la Cour de justice des Communautés européenne a continué de recourir à cette technique.”

  94. 94.

    Tesauro 2013, p. 487.

  95. 95.

    See on this point especially Schwarze 2010; see also Schwarze 2012, p. 117.

  96. 96.

    See Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany (TAR Toscana), Firenze, sec. I (6 March 2001), n. 381. See also, in the same vein, Regional Administrative Court of Puglia (TAR Puglia), Bari, sec. II (7 June 2001), n. 2405; Regional Administrative Court of Puglia (TAR Puglia), sec. II (24 October 2006), n. 3783; Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR Lazio), sec. III (2 February 2007), n. 777; Regional Administrative Court of Trentino Alto Adige (TRGA), Trento (29 January 2009), n. 41; Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR Lazio), sec. I (8 May 2009), n. 4994; Regional Administrative Court of Lazio (TAR Lazio), sec. I (8 May 2009), n. 5005; as well as Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), sec. IV (1 October 2004), n. 6410; sec. VI (17 April 2007), n. 1746; sec. VI (8 February 2008), n. 424; sec. VI (10 March 2009), n. 1420; sec. VI (11 January 2010), n. 19.

  97. 97.

    See especially Regional Administrative Court of Puglia (TAR Puglia), Bari, sec. II (24 October 2006), n. 3783; Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), sec. V (29 December 2009), n. 8939.

  98. 98.

    See already Galetta 1998a, p. 205.

  99. 99.

    A very good example of what I mean is Italian Council of State (Consiglio di Stato), sec. VI (27 June 2007), n. 3704.

References

  • Adinolfi, A. (1994). I principi generali nella giurisprudenza comunitaria e la loro influenza sugli ordinamenti degli Stati membri. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 3(4), 521–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astone, F. (2012). Il principio di proporzionalità. In M. Renna, & F. Saitta (Eds.), Studi sui principi del diritto amministrativo (pp. 371–387). Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, A. D. P. (2012). Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capotorti, F. (1983). Il diritto comunitario non scritto. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali, 3(4), 403–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, R. (2001). Regaining a Sense of Proportion: The Human Rights Act and the Proportionality Principle. European Human Rights Law Review, 504–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognetti, S. (2010). Principio di proporzionalità. Profili di teoria generale e di analisi sistematica. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (1999). Unreasonableness and Proportionality in UK Law. In E. Ellis (Ed.), The principle of proportionality in the Laws of Europe (pp. 85–106). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Danwitz, T. (2003). Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Gemeinschaftsrecht. Europäisches Wirtschafts- & Steuerrecht, 393–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Danwitz, T. (2012). Thoughts on Proportionality and Coherence in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. In P. Cardonnell, & A. Rosas (Eds.), Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System. Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh (pp. 367–382). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechsling, R. (1989). Das Verhältnismäßigkeitsgebot. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Literatur zur Verhältnismäßigkeit staatlichen Handelns. Munich: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emiliou, N. (1996). The principle of Proportionality in European Law. London: Kluwer Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiner, F. (1912). Institutionen des Deutschen Verwaltungsrechts. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja, G. (2007). General Principles of Law. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (pp. 370–378). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D.-U. (1993). Il principio di proporzionalità nella giurisprudenza comunitaria (nota a Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee, Corte plenaria, sentenza 18.05.1993, in causa C-126/91). Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 4, 837–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (1998a). Principio di proporzionalità e sindacato giurisdizionale nel diritto amministrativo. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (1998b). El principio de proporcionalidad en el Derecho Público italiano. Cuadernos de Derecho Publico, 5, 299–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (2001). La previsione di cui all’articolo 3, comma 1, cpv. 1, della legge di revisione del titolo V della costituzione come definitivo superamento della teoria dualista degli ordinamenti. In P. Bilancia, & E.De Marco (Eds.), Problemi del federalismo (pp. 293–310). Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (2005). Il principio di proporzionalità comunitario e il suo effetto di “spill over” negli ordinamenti nazionali. Nuove autonomie, 541–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (2010). Diritto ad una buona amministrazione e ruolo del nostro giudice amministrativo dopo l’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona. Diritto Amministrativo, 3, 601–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (2012). Il principio di proporzionalità. In M. Renna, & F. Saitta (Eds.), Studi sui principi del diritto amministrativo (pp. 389–412). Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galetta, D. U. (2013). Le fonti (del diritto amministrativo europeo). In M. P. Chiti (Ed.), Diritto amministrativo europeo (pp. 89–141). Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot, X. (2006). Creation, Development and Impact of the General Principles of Community Law: Towards a jus commune europaeum? The Netherlands: Europa Law Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, L. (1981). Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Göttingen: Schwartz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, L. (1991). The Influence of the European Principle of Proportionality upon UK Law. In E. Ellis (Ed.), The principle of proportionality in the Laws of Europe (pp. 107–114). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, H. C. H., & Mihaescu, B. C. (2013). The Relation between the Charter’s Fundamental Rights and the Unwritten General Principles of EU Law: Good Administration as the Test Case. European Constitutional Law, 9, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, H. C. H., Rowe, G. C., & Türk, A. H. (2011). Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen, J. (1995). Niedersächsisches Gefahrenabwehrrecht. Stuttgart: Boorberg Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs, M. (1985). Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowell, J., & Birkinshaw, P. (1996). English Report. In J. Schwarze (Ed.), Das Verwaltungsrecht unter europäischem Einfluß (pp. 723–737). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, W. (2011). Die Europäisierung des subjektiven öffentlichen Rechts. Juristische Arbeitsblätter, 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kischel, U. (2000). Die Kontrolle der Verhältnismäßigkeit durch den Europäischen Gerichtshof. Europarecht, 380–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Krauss, R. (1955). Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in seiner Bedeutung für die Notwendigkeit des Mittels im Verwaltungsrecht. Hamburg: Appell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledda, F. (1983). Potere, tecnica e sindacato giurisdizionale sull’amministrazione pubblica. Il diritto processuale amministrativo, 4, 371–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerche, P. (1961). Übermaß und Verfassungsrecht. Zur Bindung des Gesetzgebers an die Grundsätze der Verhältnismäßigkeit und Erforderlichkeit. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ligugnana, G. (2011). Principio di proporzionalità e integrazione tra ordinamenti. Il caso inglese e italiano. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 447–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, J. V., & Ronse, Th. (2005). L’ordre juridique de l’Union européene. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou, R. E. (1996). Principes Généraux du Droit et Droit Communautaire. Brussels: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal, S., & de Leeuw, M. (2008). Transparency: A General Principle of EU Law?. In U. Bernitz et al. (Ed.), General Principles of EC Law in a Process of Development (pp. 201–242). London: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé, M., & Polge, N. (2010). Les principes généraux du droit en droit interne et en droit communautaire. Liens croisées pour un avenir commun. In J.-C. Masclet, H. Ruiz Fabri, C. Boutayeb, & S. Rodrigues (Eds.), L’Union européenne: Union de droit, Union des Droits. Mélanges en l’honneur de Philippe Manin (pp. 727–750). Paris: Pedone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2005). Europäisches Verwaltungsrecht. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (2nd edn.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2010). Zukunftsaussichten für das Europäische Öffentliche Recht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2012). Zwischen Tradition und Zukunft: die Rolle allgemeiner Rechtsgrundsätze im Recht der Europäischen Union. In J. Schwarze (Ed.), Europarecht. Strukturen, Dimensionen und Wandlungen des Rechts der Europäischen Union. Augewählte Beiträge (pp. 114–127). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, T. (1978). Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Deutsche öffentlich-rechtliche Landesberichte zum X. internationalen Kongreß für Rechtsvergleichung in Budapest. (pp. 273–288). Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, K. (1984). Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Grundbegriffe und Grundlagen des Staatsrechts, Strukturprinzipien der Verfassung (2nd edn.). Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro, G. (2013). Alcune riflessioni sul ruolo della corte di giustizia nell’evoluzione dell’Unione europea. Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 3, 483–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, A. (1992). Il diritto amministrativo procedimentale nell’ordinamento della Comunità Europea. Rivista italiana di diritto pubblico comunitario, 2, 393–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, J. (2014). Hierarchy of Sources and General Principles in European Union Law. In U. Becker et al. (Ed.), Verfassung und Verwaltung in Europa. Festschrift für Jürgen Schwarze zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 334–352). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milan, Mailand, Italy

    Prof. Diana-Urania Galetta

Authors
  1. Prof. Diana-Urania Galetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Pedro Cruz Villalón

  3. University of Applied Sciences for Administration and Public Management in the State of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany

    Tonio Klein

  4. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Jacques Ziller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galetta, DU. (2015). General Principles of EU Law as Evidence of the Development of a Common European Legal Thinking: The Example of the Proportionality Principle (from the Italian Perspective). In: Blanke, HJ., Cruz Villalón, P., Klein, T., Ziller, J. (eds) Common European Legal Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation