Proportionality or Rationality in Socio-Economic Rights Adjudication? Case Study of the Czech Constitutional Court’s Judgment in Compulsory Vaccination Case

Abstract

Proportionality represents the basic methodological approach towards constitutional rights adjudication. The million-dollar question raised in current doctrinal work is the question of its limits. One such limit concerns the applicability of the doctrine to socioeconomic rights. Since the doctrine and case law of constitutional courts do not provide clear answers in this regard, the main goal of this paper is to assess whether proportionality is a suitable method to review interferences with socio-economic rights. First, the paper discusses the theoretical aspects of this issue, primarily the paradigmatic structure of constitutional review. Second, the paper continues with a case study of the Czech Constitutional Court. In order to review interferences of these rights, the Constitutional Court applies the rationality test. The abstract definition of the test implies only means-ends analysis. Notwithstanding this, it represents an open-ended standard akin to proportionality. The paper concludes by assessing whether there are differences between these two standards of review of reasonableness.