The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality
Abstract
Introduction 1. The Structure of the Proportionality Test 2. Rights, Interests, and Trumps 3. The Method of Balancing 4. Discretion and Deference 5. Positive Rights and Proportionality Analysis 6. Epistemic Reliabilities in Proportionality Analysis 7. Case Analysis: Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria 8. Results
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The reasoning behind this step is strongly linked to the moral and political background of the individual arguments and the context of the given society. 21 35”
From Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cited by
A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing
Urbina, F. J. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316796276 · Cited by 110
Surveying the Geneva impasse: Coercive care and human rights
Martin, W., & Gurbai, S. (2019) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.03.001 · Cited by 104
“One familiar legal response to such circumstances is to engage in a proportionality exercise: compromises on some rights may be permitted if the policy adopted is a proportionate measure for protecting one or more fundamental rights (see for example: Klatt & Meister, 2012).”
BackgroundOn Tiles and Pillars: EU Citizenship as a Federal Denominator
Kochenov, D. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781139680714.003 · Cited by 70
Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?
Sauter, W. (2013) · Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies · doi:10.5235/152888713809813611 · Cited by 62
Proportionality – A New Mega Standard in European Copyright Law
Afori, O. F. (2014) · GRURRR. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Rechtsprechungs-Report/GRUR-DVD/GRUR-CD/IIC/Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht/Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil · doi:10.1007/s40319-014-0272-1 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Klatt, M., & Meister, M.
- ORCID
- Klatt, Matthias
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2012-07-26
- OpenAlex
- W595331111
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 13.63
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Keywords
- proportionality test, constitutional law, balancing test, administrative discretion, judicial deference, positive rights, epistemic reliability, European Court of Human Rights, fundamental rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001
- The paper
- Klatt, M., & Meister, M. (2012). The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780199662463.001.0001
