ULTIMA RATIO AND PROPORTIONALITY IN CALIBRATING CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS: A TIERED ENFORCEMENT MODEL
Keywords:
ultima ratio; proportionality; criminalization; enforcement pyramid; responsive regulation; administrative fines; turnover-based sanctions; rule of law; deterrence; criminal-law character of sanctionsAbstract
Legislators frequently criminalize conduct or escalate administrative penalties without first testing whether less restrictive measures could achieve the same regulatory objective. This thesis examines the ultima ratio principle as a proportionality safeguard governing the choice between criminal, administrative, and non-punitive responses to unlawful conduct. Drawing on the Venice Commission's rule-of-law standards [1], Ayres and Braithwaite's enforcement-pyramid model [2], the European Court of Human Rights' functional test for the criminal character of formally administrative penalties [7,8], and comparative practice in the EU's turnover-indexed fines under GDPR and competition law [3,4], the thesis proposes a four-question sequential test for evaluating new criminalization or sanction-escalation proposals. It argues that administrative fines should, wherever the offender is an economic entity, be calibrated to turnover rather than fixed sums, and that doing so systematically postpones – and in many cases eliminates – the need to resort to criminal liability as the only credible deterrent against large offenders.
Downloads
References
1. Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. (2011). Report on the rule of law, CDL-AD(2011)003rev, adopted at the 86th plenary session (25–26 March 2011).
2. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press.
3. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), Article 83.
4. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, Article 23(2); European Commission (2006), Guidelines on the method of setting fines, OJ C210.
5. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
6. Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press.
7. European Court of Human Rights. (2011). A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, Application No. 43509/08, Judgment of 27 September 2011.
8. European Court of Human Rights. (2014). Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, Application No. 18640/10, Judgment of 4 March 2014.