proportionality
noun · Verhältnismäßigkeit
Verhältnismäßigkeit, but a mandatory four-step test that governs every German state measure touching a right, not a contested ground of review. Legitimate aim, suitable, necessary and reasonable, in that fixed order, and the necessity step often decides the case.
Which translation, when
Why
Proportionality is Verhältnismäßigkeit, and the difference is how central and how structured it is. In German law it is a mandatory constitutional test, drawn from the Rechtsstaatsprinzip of Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG and binding all state power, that every measure touching a right must pass. It runs in a fixed order: the measure must pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable to further it, be necessary in the sense that no equally effective but milder means exists, and be reasonable in the narrow sense, where the burden is weighed against the aim. The necessity step, the mildestes-Mittel question, is a separate stage that is often decisive. In the UK proportionality is a structured test too under the Human Rights Act, but it is confined to rights and EU-derived contexts, is still contested as a general ground of judicial review against Wednesbury unreasonableness, and cannot invalidate primary legislation. So the German test reaches further, into every Verwaltungsakt and every statute, and can render a measure void. Rendering proportionality as Verhältnismäßigkeit is correct, but treating it as a loose balancing or a niche review ground drops the necessity step and the constitutional reach that decide German cases.
Typical mistakes
- German Verhältnismäßigkeit is a mandatory four-step test in fixed order, and the necessity step, the least-restrictive-means question, is a separate stage that often decides the case, so collapsing it into a single balancing loses the step that matters.
- It has constitutional rank, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, and reaches every state measure including statutes, so treating it as a contested or rights-only review ground understates its scope.
- A measure that fails the test is unlawful or void, not merely open to a declaration, so the German consequence is stronger than the UK one.
What matters
Testing whether a German measure survives, the analysis has to run the four steps in order and give the necessity step its own weight, since a milder equally effective means makes the measure unlawful, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG. Presenting proportionality as a single balancing, as in a loose UK sense, skips the stage that most often decides the outcome.
What the machine misses
Machine output renders proportionality as Verhältnismäßigkeit correctly, then flattens it into a general balancing. It loses that German law runs a fixed four-step test in which necessity, the mildestes Mittel, is a separate and often decisive stage, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, and that the test binds every measure up to a statute and can render it void. The rendering hides the structure and the reach that carry the German argument.
Examples
| the principle of proportionality | der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit |
| the measure is disproportionate | die Maßnahme ist unverhältnismäßig |
| proportionality in the narrow sense | Verhältnismäßigkeit im engeren Sinne |
| necessary and proportionate | erforderlich und verhältnismäßig |