Fundamental rights can collide in practice, even if constitutional norms are not structured hierarchically. When rights come into conflict, the principle of proportionality serves as a key mechanism for resolution, involving a careful assessment of adequacy, necessity and balanced consideration. A jurisprudence<\/a>[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/span> particularly the Supreme Court Court<\/a>[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/span>The International Court of Justice has recognised the direct effect of fundamental rights on private relations, although international legal literature continues to debate the extent and scope of such application. Practical examples include tensions between freedom of the press and privacy rights, limitations in critical situations such as kidnappings, and the adjudication of complex scenarios in the contexts of employment, family and property. Academics such as Sarlet, Canotilho and Rolim have extensively investigated these dynamics, emphasising the nuanced approach needed to optimise the protection of rights while preventing disproportionate restrictions on individual freedoms.<\/p>\n Os direitos fundamentais podem colidir na prática, mesmo que as normas constitucionais não sejam estruturadas hierarquicamente. Quando os direitos entram em conflito, o princípio da proporcionalidade serve como um mecanismo-chave para resolução, envolvendo uma avaliação cuidadosa de adequação, necessidade e consideração equilibrada. A jurisprudência brasileira, particularmente o Supremo Tribunal, reconhece o efeito direto dos direitos […]<\/p>\n