The article is devoted to a comparative legal study of the European principle of proportionality and the American method of weighing interests, their origins, common and distinctive features, socio-cultural and historical foundations, the application of the principle of proportionality in the Russian legal order. Historically, the origins (roots) of the European principle of proportionality go back to the German administrative-legal doctrine, and the American method of weighing as an initial principle is associated with private law and only later was extended to the public law sphere. The article assesses the impact of these principles on the Russian legal doctrine and law enforcement practice.
Purpose: The main purpose of the article is to identify the general and distinctive features of the European principle of proportionality and the American method of balancing interests in order to comprehend on this basis the Russian legal model for ensuring the balance of private and public interests. Tasks: to explore the historical, socio-cultural, doctrinal foundations of the genesis of the European principle of proportionality and the American method of weighing interests; to identify the common and special features characteristic of these methods; to show the influence of these methods on Russian doctrine and law enforcement practice; compare the Russian principle of balance between private and public interests with the European principle of proportionality; formulate recommendations and suggestions for improving Russian law enforcement practice.
Methods: historical and legal, logical, formal and legal, systemic and structural, method of interdisciplinary legal research, method of system analysis.
Discussion: the European principle of proportionality and the American method of weighing interests, although they do not belong to new phenomena of legal thought, nevertheless, due to their fundamental importance both at the constitutional and other sectoral levels of development of law, are constantly in the center of the field of vision of legal thought abroad, as well as in Russia. The emergence of various approaches to understanding the legal provision of the balance of private and public interests is causing lively, sometimes quite sharp, discussions in the scientific field. The article focuses on the historical, socio-cultural, political and legal features of the development of the European principle of proportionality and the American method of balancing interests, which leads to both close interaction and convergence, as well as the need for their joint scientific research, which can give a significant theoretical and practical effect.
Conclusion: the article states that the distinctive features of the European principle of proportionality and the American method of weighing interests are not of an essential, paradigmatic nature, which allows us to conclude that in this case there are no grounds for a fundamental opposition to each other of the above-named constructive models as methods of understanding legal reality, as well as legal means of ensuring a balance of private and public interests. The development of the European principle of proportionality has a significant impact and impact on the formation of Russian political and legal thought and practice in the field of interaction between private and public law, ensuring an organic combination of private and public interests, which is reflected in the legal position formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation concerning the principle of ensuring proportional observance, balance of private and public interests in the implementation of legal regulation of public relations.

ALEINIKOFF, Alexander. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 96. 1987. No. 5. pp. 943-1005.

BEATTY, D. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 2004. 193p.

DAVIDOV, Guy. Separating Minimal Impairment from Balancing: A Comment on h. v. Sharpe (B. C. C. A.). Review of Constitutional Studies. Vol. 5. 2000. No 2. pp. 195.

FALLON, Richard H. Strict Judicial Serutiny. UCLA Law Review. Vol. 54. 2007. No. 5. pp. 1267-1337.

FRANTZ, Laurent B. The First Amendment in Balance. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 71. 1962. No. 8. pp. 1424-1426.

GADZHIEV, Gadis. Constitutional Principles of Market Economy (Development of Civil Law Basics in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation). Moscow. 2004. 286p.

GADZHIEV, Gadis. Protection of basic economic rights and freedoms of entrepreneurs abroad and in the Russian Federation. Moscow, 1995. 232p.

German civil law: in 2 vols ed. editor B. N. Topornin. Moscow. 1994. Vol 2. 320 p.

GRIMM, Dieter. Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Law Jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal. Vol. 57. 2007. No 2. pp. 383-397.

KARAPETOV, Artem. Economic Analysis of Law. Moscow. 2016. 528 p.

MISHINA, Valeria. Health and Health care. Kommersant − Merchant. 2018. 15 December.

MOSHE, Cohen-Eliya, Porat Iddo. American Interest Weighting Method and German Proportionality Test: Historical Roots. Comparative Constitutional Review. 2011. No. 3. pp. 59-81.

PORAT, Iddo. The Dual Model of Balancing. Cardozo Law Review. Vol. 27. 2006. No 3. pp. 1393-1448.

Real rights and ways to protect them. review of judicial practice. Economic justice in the Urals region. 2017. Vol. 3 (43). pp. 31-44.

REGAN, Donald H. Judicial of Trade Withina Federal or Quasi –federal system: Protectionism and Balancing. Da Capo. Michigan Law Review. Vol. 99. 2001. No. 8. pp. 1853-1902.

RUBENFELD, J. Commentary: Unilateralism and Constitutionalism. New York University Law Review. Vol. 79. 2004. No. 6. pp. 1971.

SCHAUER, F. Freedom of Expression Adjudi cation in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture. European and US Constitutionalism / Ed. By G Nolte. pp. 49-50.

SCHAUER, Frederick. The Convergence of Rules and Standards. New Zealand Law Review. 2003. No. 3. pp. 303-328.

SEMYAKIN, Mikhail. Formation of economic analysis of private law in Russia: problems and prospects for development. Journal of Business and Corporate Law. 2018. Vol. 2 (10). pp. 42-48.

SEMYAKIN, Mikhail. The principle of proportionality in the foreign legal doctrine and practice and its interpretation in Russia in the context of ensuring the protection of the rights and legal interests of subjects. Russian people and power in the context of radical changes in the modern world. materials of the XXI Russian scientific-practical conference (with international participation). 2019. pp. 300-305.

SEMYAKIN, Mikhail. The principle of proportionality in the foreign legal doctrine and practice and its interpretation in Russia in the context of ensuring the protection of the rights and legal interests of subjects. Russian people and power in the context of radical changes in the modern world. Collection of scientific papers of the XXI Russian scientific-practical conference (with international participation). 2019. pp. 161-162.

STRUVE, Guy Miller. The Less Restrictive Alternative Principle and Economic Due Process. Harvard Law Review. Vol. 80. No. 7. 1967. pp. 1463-1488.

VITRYANSKY, Vasiliy. Reform of Russian civil legislation: interim results (reprint). Moscow. 2018. 431 p.

VITRYANSKY, Vasiliy. News on agreements in the field of banking and other financial activities. Economy and law. 2017. No. 11 (490). pp. 3-29.

WEINRIB, Lorraine E. The Postwar Paradigm and American Exceptionalism. The Migration of Constitutional Ideals / Ed. By S. Choudhry. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 84-112.