<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-05-06T19:16:13Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/7731" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/7731</identifier>
      <datestamp>2013-01-18T07:53:58Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
        <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20170317-155526</dc:identifier>
        <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/french-millionaires-tax-decision-are-good-judges-bad-for-democracy/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>French Millionaires’ Tax Decision: Are Good Judges Bad For Democracy?</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Dyevre, Arthur</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>ger</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2013-01-18</dc:date>
        <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Judicial Review</dc:subject>
        <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
        <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
        <dc:rights>CC BY-NC-ND 4.0</dc:rights>
        <dc:description>Just before the turn of the year, on December 29th, the French Constitutional Council overturned the socialist government’s 75% income-tax rate for the rich, a measure the new occupant of the Elysée Palace, François Hollande, had turned into an anti-rich symbol during his presidential campaign. This is not the first time a flagship campaign pledge of this sort is quashed by a constitutional court. The ruling raises a somewhat counter-intuitive paradox. Namely, that good judicial technocrats might, by preventing the adoption of bad policies, undermine the deliberative quality of the democratic process.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
