[1. Anđelković, Luka. “The Elements of Proportionality as a Principle of Human Rights Limitations.” Facta Universitatis Series: Law and Politics 15:3 (2017): 235 – 244.10.22190/FULP1703235A]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Barak, Aharon. Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Harvard: Cambridge University Press, 2012.10.1017/CBO9781139035293]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Bendor, Ariel L., and Tal Sela. “How proportional is proportionality?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 13 (2015): 530–544.10.1093/icon/mov028]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Bernstorff, Jochen von. “Proportionality without Balancing. Comparative Judicial Engagement”: 63-83. In: Liora Lazarus, et al., eds. Reasoning Rights. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing, 2014.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Bienias, Emma, et al. “Implicit bias in the legal profession” (2017) // https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Implicit-Bias-White-Paper-2.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Blades, Nicholas, and Fernando Herrera-González. “An economic analysis of personal data protection obligations in the European Union.” 7th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS). Cambridge, United Kingdom (7-9 September 2016) // https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2018/economics/Presentations/.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Boersema, David. Philosophy of Human Rights: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2018.10.4324/9780429498312]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Burazin, Luka. “Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights Norms”: 111-120. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_5]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Cianciardo, Juan. “The principle of proportionality: the challenges of human rights.” Journal of Civil Law Studies 3:1 (2010): 177-185.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Clerico, Laura. “Proportionality in Social Rights Adjudication: Making it Workable”: 25-48. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_2]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Dolzhikov, Alexey V. “The European Court of Human Rights on the Principle of Proportionality in ‘Russian’ Cases.” Teisė 82 (2012): 215-224.10.15388/Teise.2012.0.127]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornelian University Press, 2013.10.7591/9780801467493]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Duarte, David. “Gains and Losses in Balancing Social Rights”: 49-70. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_3]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Dworkin, Ronald. “It is absurd to calculate human rights according to a cost-benefit analysis.” The Guardian (May24, 2006).]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Endicott, Timothy. “Proportionality and Incommensurability”: 311-342. In: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, and Gregoire Webber, eds. Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. Harvard: Cambridge University Press, 2014.10.1017/CBO9781107565272.019]Search in Google Scholar
[16. European Data Protection Supervisor. “About” (2018) // https://edps.europa.eu/about-edps_en.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Faigman, David L. “Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication.” Northwester University Law Review 88 (1994): 641-694.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Feinberg, Joel. “Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 93(1978): 223-257.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Finnis, John. “Commensuration and Public Reason”: 215-260. In: Ruth Chang’s, eds. Incommensurability, Incompatibility, and Practical Reason. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Guntrip, Edward. “International Human Rights Law, Investment Arbitration, and Proportionality Analysis: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?” Blog of the European Journal of International Law (January 7, 2014) // https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-human-rights-law-investment-arbitration-and-proportionality-analysis-panacea-or-pandoras-box/.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Hauck, Sué González. “A Critique of Proportionality Balancing as a Harmonization Technique in International Law.” Völkerrechtsblog (5 August 2015) // DOI: 10.17176/20170920-12125.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Kelleher, Denis, and Karen Murray. EU Data Protection Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Khosla, Madhav. “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights? A Reply.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 (2010): 298–306.10.1093/icon/moq002]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Lindsey, Nicole. “Understanding the GDPR Cost of Continuous Compliance” (2019) // https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/understanding-the-gdpr-cost-of-continuous-compliance/.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Lopes, Pedro M. “Balancing Principles and A Forteriori Reasoning”: 137-156. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_7]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Nalty, Kathleen. “Strategies for Confronting Unconscious Bias.” The Federal Lawyer (January/February 2017): 27-34.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Panagis, Nikiforos. “Putting Balancing in the Balance” (2014): 1-10 // https://tsakyrakis.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/nikiforos-panagis-putting-balancing-in-the-balance/.10.2139/ssrn.2423378]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Peer, Eyal, and Eyal Gamliel. “Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions.” Court Review 49 (2013): 114-118.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Posner, Richard. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Posner, Richard. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Pyykkö, Elina. “Data protection at the cost of economic growth?” (2012) // https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/data-protection-cost-economic-growth/.]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Rivers, Julian. “Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review.” The Cambridge Law Journal 65:1 (2006): 174-207.10.1017/S0008197306007082]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Sampaio, Jorge S.” Proportionality in its Narrow Sense and Measuring the Intensity of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights”: 71-110. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_4]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Sartor, Giovanni. “Consistency in Balancing: From Value Assessments to Factor-Based Rules”: 121-136. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_6]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Sartor, Giovanni. “The Logic of Proportionality: Reasoning with Non-Numerical Magnitudes.” German Law Journal 14:8 (2013): 1419–56.10.1017/S2071832200002339]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Sartor, Giovanni. “The right to be forgotten balancing interests in the flux of time.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 24 (2016): 72–98.10.1093/ijlit/eav017]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Schlink, Bernard. “Proportionality”: 249-266. In: Michel Rosenfeld and Andras Sajó, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199578610.013.0035]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Sieckmann, Jan. “Proportionality as a Universal Human Rights Principle”: 3-48. In: David Duarteand and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_1]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Souliotis, Panagiotis. “Proportionality and The European Convention on Human Rights: A Critical View” (2016): 1-30 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2690366.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Stijn Smet, “On the Existence and Nature of Conflicts between Human Rights at the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Law Review (2017) // DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngx016.10.1093/hrlr/ngx016]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Tsakyrakis, Stavros. “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?” Jean Monnet Working Paper 09/08 (2009) // https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/paper/proportionality-an-assault-on-human-rights-2.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Tyler, Tom. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology 57 (2006): 375-400.10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Urbina, Francisco. A Critique of Proportionality and balancing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.10.1017/9781316796276]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Vranes, Erich. “Vom ‘rechten Maß’ zum globalen Rechtsgrundsatz? Schlaglichter in der Entwicklung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes” (From ‘right measure’ to global legal principle? Highlights in the development of the principle of proportionality): 99-136. In: Günter Herzig, et al., eds. Europarecht und Rechtstheorie. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2017.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Webber, Grégoire C. “Proportionality, Balancing, and the Cult of Constitutional Rights Scholarship.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2010): 179-202.10.1017/S0841820900004860]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Wiggins, David. “Incommensurability: Four Proposals”: 52-60. In: Ruth Chang’s, eds. Incommensurability, Incompatibility, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Worstall, Tim. “Is GDPR worth the cost?” (2018) // https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Is-GDPR-worth-the-cost.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. EDPS Guidelines on assessing the proportionality of measures that limit the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data. European Data Protection Supervisor (19 December 2019) // https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/our-work-by-type/guidelines_en.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 On the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU-GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union L 119/1 2016.]Search in Google Scholar