English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this article is to reconstruct in a rational way the use of the proportionality test in contexts of constitutional social rights adjudication. Such a reconstruction will be developed in two steps. Firstly, I will address the question as to whether proportionality test in its “by omission” version (i.e. used to apply positive rights) shows or not a different structure in comparison with its, much better known and investigated, “by excess” version (i.e., used to apply negative rights). Secondly, I will describe the rules and forms of reasoning that are implied in the use of proportionality test by omission and integrate, respectively, the sub-tests of suitability, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu. Finally, I will present a brief summary as a conclusion.

Examen de proporcionalidad y adjudicación judicial de derechos sociales constitucionales