Theoretical model of the balance between legal certainty and the principle of justice in constitutional and supranational adjudication
Keywords:
Legal Certainty, Justice, Constitutional Adjudication, Judicial Discretion, Proportionality, Legitimate ExpectationsAbstract
This article examines when a constitutional or supranational court may correct the result of a formally applicable rule without undermining legal certainty. The study is limited to constitutional and rights-based adjudication in Ukraine, Germany, Spain and the European Court of Human Rights. Legal dogmatics and structured comparative analysis were applied to 17 normative and institutional sources and 24 purposively selected decisions identified within a 2014–2025 search window. The final judicial corpus comprised decisions issued between 2015 and 2022, six per jurisdiction or reference point. Each decision was coded for rule clarity, scope of discretion, proportionality, legitimate expectations, access to court, finality and departure from precedent. Three patterns were identified within the selected corpus: preservation of the rule, teleological interpretation within the rule’s semantic range and corrective departure from the prima facie result on an express legal basis. Legal certainty operates as the presumption. Justice may modify the formal result only when a protected legal interest is identified, manifest disproportionality is demonstrated, the least disruptive corrective technique is used and consistency with the legal order is explained. The model is doctrinal rather than statistically representative and is intended to evaluate the quality and limits of judicial reasoning.
Downloads
References
AARNIO, A. The rational as reasonable: A treatise on legal justification. Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1987.
ALEXY, R. “Constitutional rights, balancing, and rationality”. Ratio Juris, v. 16, n. 2, 2003, pp. 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00228
ALEXY, R. A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
ATIENZA, M. El derecho como argumentación. Barcelona: Ariel, 2006.
BARAK, A. Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. Organic law 2/1979 on the constitutional court. 1979. Available at: https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/tribunal/normativa/Normativa/LOTC-en.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 112/2016, ECLI:ES:TC:2016:112. 2016, June 20. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2016-7289 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 140/2016, ECLI:ES:TC:2016:140. 2016, July 21. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2016-7905 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 148/2021, ECLI:ES:TC:2021:148. 2021, July 14. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2021-13032 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 183/2021, ECLI:ES:TC:2021:183. 2021, October 27. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2021-19512 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 58/2018, ECLI:ES:TC:2018:58. 2018, June 4. Available at: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2018-9534 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. STC 83/2016, ECLI:ES:TC:2016:83. 2016, April 28. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2016-5195 (accessed on 18 September 2026).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 1-r/2018. 2018, February 27. Available at: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/1_r_2018.doc (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 2-r(II)/2019. 2019, May 15. Available at: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/2_r_2_2019_0.doc (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 3-r(I)/2019. 2019, June 5. Available at: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/3_r1_2019.doc (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 4-r/2019. 2019, June 13. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v004p710-19#Text (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 5-r/2018. 2018, May 22. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v005p710-18#Text (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decision No. 7-r/2019. 2019, June 25. Available at: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/docs/7_r_2019.doc (accessed on 26 July 2025).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE. Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. n.d. Available at: https://ccu.gov.ua/en/docs-search (accessed on 26 July 2025).
COUNCIL OF EUROPE. The rule of law checklist. 2025. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/venice-commission/rule-of-law-checklist (accessed on 26 July 2025).
DÍEZ-PICAZO, L. M. Sistema de derechos fundamentales (4th ed.). Cizur Menor: Civitas, 2013.
DWORKIN, R. Law’s empire. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1986.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION). Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions and Reports concerning Courts and Judges, CDL-PI(2019)008. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-PI%282019%29008-e (accessed on 18 September 2026).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION). Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions, Reports and Studies on Constitutional Justice, CDL-PI(2017)008. Available at: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI%282017%29008-e (accessed on 18 September 2026).
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1950. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13. 2016, December 13. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-169663 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Bochan v. Ukraine (No. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08. 2015, February 5. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152331 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18. 2020, December 1. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-206582 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. HUDOC case-law database. n.d. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11. 2016, November 29. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-169054 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09. 2022, November 3. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-220142 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12. 2018, April 5. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181821 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Decisions database. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/EN/Decisions/decisions_node.html (accessed on 18 September 2026).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Order, 1 BvR 471/10 and 1 BvR 1181/10. 2015, January 27. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110en.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Order, 2 BvR 2735/14. 2015, December 15. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2015/12/rs20151215_2bvr273514en.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Order, 1 BvR 2019/16. 2017, October 10. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2017/10/rs20171010_1bvr201916en.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Order, 1 BvR 2237/14 and 1 BvR 2422/17. 2021, July 8. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/07/rs20210708_1bvr223714.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Right to Be Forgotten I, 1 BvR 16/13. 2019, November 6. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2019/11/rs20191106_1bvr001613en.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF GERMANY. Right to Be Forgotten II, 1 BvR 276/17. 2019, November 6. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2019/11/rs20191106_1bvr027617en.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE. Act on the federal constitutional court. 1951. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bverfgg/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE. Basic law for the federal republic of Germany. 1949. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FEDERAL OFFICE OF JUSTICE. Code of civil procedure. 1877. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FENWICK, M., and WRBKA, S. (Eds.). Legal certainty in a contemporary context: Private and criminal law perspectives. Singapore: Springer, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0114-7
FERRERES COMELLA, V. Constitutional courts and democratic values: A European perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Available at: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300148688/constitutional-courts-and-democratic-values/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
FULLER, L. L. The morality of law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969. Available at: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300010701/the-morality-of-law/ (accessed on 26 July 2025).
GASCÓN ABELLÁN, M. Los hechos en el derecho: Bases argumentales de la prueba (3rd ed.). Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2010.
GRIMM, D. “Proportionality in Canadian and German constitutional jurisprudence”. University of Toronto Law Journal, v. 57, n. 2, 2007, pp. 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2007.0014
GRIMM, D. Constitutionalism: Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766124.001.0001
HART, H. L. A. The concept of law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-concept-of-law-9780199644704 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
KLATT, M., and MEISTER, M. The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001
LAPORTA, F. J. El imperio de la ley: Una visión actual. Madrid: Trotta, 2007.
MACCORMICK, N. Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
MACCORMICK, N. Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2005.
MARMOR, A. “The rule of law and its limits”. Law and Philosophy, v. 23, n. 1, 2004, pp. 1–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150562
MAXEINER, J. R. “Some realism about legal certainty in the globalization of the rule of law”. Houston Journal of International Law, v. 31, n. 1, 2008, pp. 27–46. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1230457 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
PETERSEN, N. Proportionality and judicial activism: Fundamental rights adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823330
PETROV, R., and KALINICHENKO, P. “The Europeanization of third country judiciaries through the application of the EU acquis: The cases of Russia and Ukraine”. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, v. 60, n. 2, 2011, pp. 325–353.
POPELIER, P. “Five paradoxes on legal certainty and the lawmaker”. Legisprudence, v. 2, n. 1, 2008, pp. 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521467.2008.11424673
PRIETO SANCHÍS, L. Justicia constitucional y derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Trotta, 2003.
RADBRUCH, G. “Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 26, n. 1, 2006, pp. 1–11.
RAZ, J. The authority of law: Essays on law and morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253457.001.0001
RUBIO LLORENTE, F. La forma del poder: Estudios sobre la Constitución (3rd ed.). Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2012.
SPANISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SPAIN. Constitutional case-law search engine. n.d. Available at: https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/en (accessed on 26 July 2025).
STATE AGENCY OFFICIAL STATE GAZETTE. Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil. 2000. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2000-323 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
STATE AGENCY OFFICIAL STATE GAZETTE. The Spanish constitution. 1978. Available at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1978/BOE-A-1978-31229-consolidado.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2025).
STONE SWEET, A., and MATHEWS, J. “Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism”. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, v. 47, n. 1, 2008, pp. 68-149. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569344 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
TAMANAHA, B. Z. On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812378
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. Constitution of Ukraine, No. 254k/96-VR. 1996. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text (accessed on 26 July 2025).
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,” No. 2136-VIII. 2017. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2136-19#Text (accessed on 26 July 2025).
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges,” No. 1402-VIII. 2016. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19#Text (accessed on 26 July 2025).
WALDRON, J. “The concept and the rule of law”. Georgia Law Review, v. 43, n. 1, 2008, pp. 1–61. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol43/iss1/2 (accessed on 26 July 2025).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Oleh Andrukhiv, Liubomyr Ilyn, Oleksandr Lada, Tetiana Demianchuk, Alla Stechyshyn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have published with this journal, accept the following terms:
The authors cede all their copyrights to the magazine Cadernos de Dereito Actual, which will be in charge of disseminating and always quoting the author.
The authors agree not to send the article or publish it in another magazine.
The authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g., in institutional telematic archives or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the number of citations of the published work, provided that reference is made to Cadernos de Dereito Actual.
All contents published in the magazine are protected under a "Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial" license. Everyone has the right to freely access the contents of the magazine.
