(Continued)
6. Foundations of the Principle of Proportionality
The use of coercive means to enforce the Power of Administrative Police must follow the proportionality of the measure adopted by the government since it interferes directly in the sphere of individual liberty of the citizen. It is here, the application of known principles of administrative law, the proportionality of means to ends. Referring to this principle, the authors French, Spanish and Germans use the term "proportionality", as the authors Argentines and Americans prefer the term "reasonableness."
Anyway, it is certain that the Administration should proceed with extreme caution in this respect, taking care not to apply resources more energetic than enough to achieve the desired end.
To Hely Lopes Meirelles, the disproportionality of the act by police or their excess amounts to abuse of power and as such it typifies the penalty nullified illegality (Meirelles, 2002). Therefore, the Police Power must never go beyond what is necessary for self-interest pursued.
The principle of proportionality is based on a general supremacy, a general bond and delimits the contours of liberty and property of individuals. Also called by some scholars of Limitations to Property and Freedom.
When the director exercises the power of police, their administrative actions should be fully lined and in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality together with that of Legality. If the administrator extrapolate this power, there is a violation of the Principle of Proportionality, and depending on how the breach affects therefore, even if indirectly, the whole structure of constitutional law.
Proportionality is therefore an important issue and is present at the time to consider whether such a standard infra is in line with the constitutional rule by applying it to the narrowest possible way, being framed by the judiciary if in contradiction with our constitution.
Regarding the composition of the Principle of Proportionality is usually divided into three sub-principles for the doctrine, which are: the appropriateness (or utility), borrowing (or Enforceability) and Proportionality in the strict sense. First, the measure adopted must be adequate to satisfy the public interest pursued by the standard, under penalty of nullity. Moreover, the restriction on fundamental rights must be restricted to what is necessary to care of that interest. According Canotilho:
The Principle also known como''princípio Enforceability of necessity ''or'' minor interference as possible, "puts the accent on the idea that the citizen is entitled to the lowest possible disadvantage. Thus, it would require proof that always, to achieve certain goals, it was not possible to adopt other means less costly for the citizen (CANOTILHO, 2005).
He concludes that here, means and ends are put into the equation by a court of weighting, in order to evaluate if the means used or is not disproportionate to the end (CANOTILHO, 2005).
Proportionality is therefore an important issue and is present at the time to consider whether such a standard infra is in line with the constitutional rule by applying it to the narrowest possible way, being framed by the judiciary if in contradiction with our constitution.