THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT APPROACHES PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS AS A LEGAL REASONING METHOD TO DECIDE INVOLVING COMPETING RIGHTS CASES

Abstract

The research focused on the proportionality analysis (proportionality principle) as a Legal Reasoning Method to decide competing rights caseS in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) or Bundesverfassungsgericht. It is the ultimate rule of law, global constitutionalism value, and the benchmark for constitutional judges to review conflicts between individual rights and state interests. Hence, an analysis model for measuring conflicts of competence between the European Union and Germany. It is four stage assessment analysis: legitimate aims, suitable, necessary, and balancing (strict sense). The result of the research saw that it is used as a constitutional reasoning model in landmark decision cases in 2020-2022, namely: the European Central Bank asset case, the climate change case, the Election of a Vice-President of the Bundestag case, and the Bavarian Constitution Protection Act case. Based on these case reviews, it is well applied, systemised, structured, and comprehensive in each case. However, not all stages are used in competing rights analysis, especially the balancing test as the last analysis in proportionality.