LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE: RECONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY (WITH REFERENCE TO TAXATION)
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The principle of subsidiarity is a concept that is currently receiving increased attention within the fields of both European human rights law and governance practice. The present study examines the manner in which subsidiarity is implemented within the Council of Europe, with a particular focus on its application in the context of the protection of fundamental human rights and taxation. The paper aims to explore the evolving role of local and regional authorities in implementing European human rights standards while maintaining fiscal responsibility and legal accountability. The research focuses on how the European Court of Human Rights applies the subsidiarity principle to tax-related cases, balancing national discretion with Convention-based safeguards. The study applies a doctrinal methodology, combining legal theory with case law analysis. It investigates leading Court’s judgments (e.g., Ferrazzini v. Italy, Gasus Dosier v. the Netherlands, Bulves AD v. Bulgaria) to identify the legal logic, proportionality tests, and the Court’s reasoning in taxation matters. Additionally, the paper examines the links between subsidiarity, fiscal autonomy and sustainable development, focusing on the local implementation of SDGs 11, 13 and 16. As a result, the paper explores how subsidiarity can empower local self-government bodies to administer taxes competently and act as key human rights stakeholders. The findings show that combining human rights law with the SDGs increases local democratic legitimacy and policy coherence. The research provides a framework for aligning fiscal governance with human rights protections, offering practical insights to policymakers, legal scholars and European institutions seeking to reinforce local governance based on the rule of law.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
subsidiarity, Council of Europe, local government, European Court of Human Rights, taxation, human rights, fiscal autonomy, SDGs, multilevel governance, legal proportionality, democratic accountability
Attard, R., & de Albuquerque, P. P. (2023). Taxation at the European Court of Human Rights. Wolters Kluwer Law International.
Backhaus, U. G. (1997). Subsidiarity and ecologically based taxation: A European constitutional perspective. Public Choice, 90(3), 281–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005009527060
Council of Europe (2010). Interlaken Declaration. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2010_Interlaken_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
Council of Europe (2011). Izmir Declaration. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/2011_izmir_finaldeclaration_eng.pdf
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2022). Can the European Court of Human Rights shape European public order? Cambridge University Press.
European Court of Human Rights (1995). Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands (Application no. 15375/89). Judgment of 23 February 1995. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57919
European Court of Human Rights (1997). National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom (Application nos. 21319/93, 21449/93, 21675/93). Judgment of 23 October 1997. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58113
European Court of Human Rights (2001). Ferrazzini v. Italy (Application no. 44759/98). Judgment of 12 July 2001. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59530
European Court of Human Rights (2005). J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 44302/02). Judgment of 30 August 2005. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70230
European Court of Human Rights (2009). Bulves AD v. Bulgaria (Application no. 3991/03). Judgment of 22 January 2009. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90656
European Court of Human Rights (2013). Shchokin v. Ukraine (Applications nos. 23759/03 and 37943/06). Judgment of 14 October 2013. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126129
Føllesdal, A. (2014). The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12(2), 447–468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381712000123
Forst, D. (n.d.). The Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Limits and Ways Ahead. International Constitutional Law Journal. Available at: https://www.icl-journal.com/media/ICL_Thesis_Vol_7_3_13.pdf
Lambert, E. (2018). Execution of judgment: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (MPEiPro). Available at: https://www.mpeipro.com
Nicolaidis, K. (2013). European democracy and its crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 351–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12006
Nussberger, A. (2020). The European Court of Human Rights at sixty – Challenges and perspectives. European Convention on Human Rights Law Review, 1(1), 11–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12301-020-00325-w
Saul, M. (2017). How does, could, and should the international human rights judiciary interact with national parliaments? In The Future of International Human Rights Law, 15-42. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316874820.015
Zürn, M. (2021). How Normative Conflicts Shape the Global Order: The Case of Multilevel Governance. Available at: https://wzb.eu/system/files/docs/ipl/gg/global_governance_as_multi-level_governance.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.