Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Obywatelstwo państwa polskiego w świetle orzecznictwa Najwyższego Trybunału Administracyjnego 1922–1939

100%
Malec D.
Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica
|
2015
|
vol. 14
|
issue 2
73-96
EN
After Poland restored its independence in 1918, the subject of Polish citizenship was regulated by the provisions of international law, particularly those found in the Versa- illes Treaty of 24 June 1919, as well as by those formulated in the Treaty with Austria signed in St. Germain en Laye on 10. Sept. 1919, those laid down in the Treaty of Riga of 18 March 1921, and additionally, by the provisions of domestic law, namely the provisions of the Statute on Citizenship of the Polish State of 20 Jan. 1920. It was as early as during the work on the aforementioned Statute that there appeared problems that, in the years which followed, became detectable in decisions taken by the Supreme Administrative Tribunal. It was the latter that – within the scope of its competence – controlled the legality of decisions made on the occasion of adjudicating in matters concerned with the application of provisions on citizenship of the Polish state. In the judicial decisions of the Tribunal, which was established in 1922, there dominated those concerned with the certification of citizenship for which there applied the individuals who acquired the citizenship by virtue of law. The Tribunal also frequently decided in matters referring to making an option of citizenship, the option being allowed by the Versailles Treaty. The Tribunal cautiously appraised the proceedings designed to expel an individual from the territory of Poland. What the Tribunal considered to be a defect in the proceedings was inter alia too general a justification of decisions that referred to the refusal of granting citizenship to the person applying for it. Although the doctrine of the time regarded the act of granting citizenship as the decision that the compe- tent organ made within its discretionary power, the Supreme Administrative Tribunal oversaw each case to ensure that the boundaries of the discretionary power were not exceeded. Likewise, in each case the Tribunal considered itself to be the organ that was competent to check the regularity of proceedings. In each case the Tribunal made a pe- netrating interpretation of provisions and would repeatedly return to the most difficult questions. Among the latter there were inter alia the interpretation of such notions as affiliation with the commune, domicile and the place of settling and military service as titles that justified the acquisition of citizenship. As a result of its control over the ad- ministrative practice, the Tribunal managed to reveal many infringements of provisions. This led to the quashing of decisions that were subject to complaints. In this respect the activities of the Tribunal deserve credit.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Uwagi nad książką: Marek Krzymkowski, Rada Stanu Księstwa Warszawskiego, wyd. Ars boni et aequi, Poznań 2011, s. 299

100%
Malec D.
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa
|
2013
|
vol. 6
|
issue 1
PL
Remarks on the book: Marek Krzymkowski Rada Stanu Księstwa Warszawskiego, Ars boni et aequi, Poznań 2011, s. 299 The State Council of the Duchy of Warsaw has been the subject of numerous analyses by various authors, including W. Sobocinski, H. Izdebski, and W. Witkowski, whose publications became part of the achievement of Polish scholarship. Given the current state of research, the task of providing a comprehensive description of the institution and devoting a whole monograph to it was very difficult. Undoubtedly, the author of the book has managed to gather together and order the scattered information, which enables the reader to fully comprehend the nature and importance of the tasks set before the institution in question, but the book does not contain many new findings. It was based on a very thorough bibliographical research, and the author confirmed his position of an expert on the history and administration of the Duchy of Warsaw. It will certainly find many readers interested in the history of the Duchy of Warsaw, and the law and administration on the Polish lands in the nineteenth century. Also worth noting is the systematic presentation of the history of state councils in Napoleonic Europe which points out both similarities and differences in their organization, competences and functioning.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The First Amendment to the President’s Ordinance of 6 Feb. 1928. The Statute on the Structure of Common Courts of Law as a Subject of the Sejm Debate in 1928. Selected Problems

100%
Malec D.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
|
2016
|
vol. 25
|
issue 3
EN
The first all-Poland Statute on the Structure of the Common Courts of Law was initially being elaborated in the Second Republic’s Codification Commission but eventually it assumed a final form of Ordinance issued by the Republic’s President on 6 Feb. 1928. The Ordinance was equipped with the force of law. When compared with the provisions of the March Constitution of 1921, the regulations of the Ordinance diminished in particular the scope of the principle of irremovability of judges from their office. This gave rise to the dissatisfaction of the milieu of lawyers, and particularly the judges. The works on the amendment to the Ordinance were started prior to the Ordinance coming into force, and namely they started when there were filed with the Sejm the amendment projects drafted by the clubs of deputes, and specifically inter alia by the Parliamentary Association of Polish Socialists, by the National Club, by the Polish Peasant Party “Liberation” and the Party of Peasants. Also the Ministry of Justice emphasized the need for amending the Ordinance. In view of the fact that the calendar of Sejm debates did not foster the work of the Juristical Commission (the Sejm session being adjourned in June 1928), the National Club decided, in November 1928, to file the Bill on the postponing (by one year) the coming into force of the enactment of common courts of law structure. In the Sejm, the Bill was subjected to the debate during three sessions and eventually the lower house passed the law on the postponing (until 30 January 1930) the coming into force of the new provisions. However, this enactment failed to come under consideration of the Republic’s Senate. As a result, despite the alleged victory of the Sejm in its struggle with the executive power, the Ministry of Justice implemented its own image of the new organization of the administration of justice and, while exploiting the temporary suspension of the principle of irremovability of judges, got rid of those of them whose views did not comply with the political line promoted by the Sanation (Sanacja)  Camp. Among those who were dismissed there was the First President of the Supreme Court W. Seyda and other Supreme Court judge A. Mogilnicki, known for his critical attitude toward the new provisions. The dismissal of W. Seyda caused a considerable critical reaction of the public and even induced the National Democratic Party members to try to pass the vote-of no confidence vis-à-vis Minister of Justice S. Car who was responsible for the introduction of the 6 Feb. 1928 Ordinance and for making staff changes in the judicature. In February 1929, the question of amendment was again subjected to the debate of the parliament which finally adopted, on 4 March 1929, the Statute that liberalized a series of contested principles. Yet despite this, the hopes for further changes in the system of administration of justice were shattered by next alterations that were introduced, and particularly those of August 1932, which laid out the tendency to further interfering by the Ministry with the independence of judiciary. It was, inter alia, W. Makowski who, during the December debate on the administration of justice, expressed his criticism to the principle of the separation of powers and the concept of preserving balance between them. These last ideas were reflected in the ever more energetic works that tended toward the drafting of a new Constitution. When the latter was in fact adopted, it rejected the principle of separation and the balancing of powers.
PL
Pierwsze w II Rzeczypospolitej ogólnopolskie prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, choć było przedmiotem prac prowadzonych w Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej II Rzeczypospolitej, to przybrało ostateczną postać rozporządzenia Prezydenta RP z mocą ustawy z dnia 6 lutego 1928 r. Jego treść, a w szczególności zmniejszenie w porównaniu z Konstytucją marcową z 1921 r. zakresu nieusuwalności sędziowskiej, od razu wzbudziła niezadowolenie środowiska prawników, w tym zwłaszcza sędziów. Prace nad nowelizacją rozporządzenia rozpoczęły się jeszcze przed jego wejściem w życie, gdy do Sejmu II kadencji trafiły projekty klubów poselskich, miedzy innymi Związku Parlamentarnego Polskich Socjalistów, Klubu Narodowego, PSL „Wyzwolenie” i Stronnictwa Chłopskiego. Na potrzebę korekty przepisów zwracało uwagę także Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości. Wobec niesprzyjającego dla sejmowej Komisji Prawniczej kalendarza obrad (przerwanie sesji sejmowej w czerwcu 1928 r.) w listopadzie 1928 r. zdecydowano o zgłoszeniu (Klub Narodowy) projektu ustawy o odroczeniu o jeden rok wejścia w życie prawa o ustroju sądów powszechnych. Debacie nad tym projektem Sejm poświęcił trzy posiedzenia, by ostatecznie 18 grudnia 1928 r. uchwalić ustawę odraczającą wejście w życie nowych przepisów do 1 stycznia 1930 r. Ustawą nie zdążył jednak zająć się Senat RP. W rezultacie, mimo pozornego zwycięstwa Sejmu w toczonej w parlamencie II kadencji walki z władzą wykonawczą, Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości zrealizowało swoją wizję nowej organizacji wymiaru sprawiedliwości i pozbyło się, korzystając z czasowego zawieszenia zasady nieusuwalności sędziów, osób nieodpowiadających linii politycznej obozu sanacyjnego, w tym między innymi sędziów Sądu Najwyższego (wśród nich I Prezesa SN W. Seydy i krytyka nowych przepisów A. Mogilnickiego). Dymisja W. Seydy wywołała duży rezonas, a nawet skłoniła ugrupowania endeckie do podjęcia próby przeforsowania votum nieufności dla odpowiedzialnego za wprowadzenie rozporządzenia z dnia 6 lutego 1928 r. i zmiany kadrowe w sądownictwie, dotyczące zwłaszcza zwolenników endecji, ministra sprawiedliwości S. Cara. Choć w lutym 1929 r. sprawa nowelizacji wróciła pod obrady parlamentu, który ostatecznie uchwalił 4 marca 1929 r. ustawę liberalizującą wiele zasad, to nadzieje na dalszą zmianę systemu wymiaru sprawiedliwości przekreśliły kolejne zmiany, w tym zwłaszcza przeprowadzona w sierpniu 1932 r., wytyczająca między innymi kierunek dalszego ingerowania w zasadę niezawisłości sędziowskiej. Krytyka podziału i równowagi władz, wyrażona podczas grudniowej debaty nad systemem wymiaru sprawiedliwości między innymi przez W. Makowskiego, znajdowała swoje odzwierciedlenie w coraz bardziej aktywnych pracach nad nową konstytucją, ostatecznie zasadę tę odrzucającą.
4

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii Grzegorza Smyka Administracja publiczna Królestwa Polskiego w latach 1864–1915 Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin 2011, s. 456

100%
Malec D.
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa
|
2012
|
vol. 5
|
issue 4
375–379
EN
The monograph written by Grzgorz Smyk and devoted to public administration in th Kingdom of Poland in 1864-1915, shows – against a broad comparative background – the problems of organizing and shaping of the administrative organs as well as the doctrinal basis of the functioning of administration and the transformation of the latter. The author of the monograph verifies the thesis, firmly formulated in the research, on the full Russification and unification of the discussed administration with that of the Russian Empire. In his discourse the author exploits abundant source material, particularly the normative one. The conclusions to which he arrives are based on large bibliography and wide formal and dogmatic analysis. The discussed volume is characterized by the original, innovative internal outlay that refers to the systematics of the general part of administrative law.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Themis clothed in Ermine. Some Remarks on the Jurisdiction Excercised by the Rector of Krakow Academy

100%
Malec D.
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa
|
2014
|
vol. 7
|
issue 1
PL
The scope of the jurisdiction of the Rector of the Krakow Academy was determined by the foundation privileges of Kazimierz Wielki and Władysław Jagiełło; the latter had subsequently been extended by the university statutes as well as by the royal and urban documents. The judicial competence of the Rector, named in legal documents as the “highest judge”, referred above all to members of the university corporation, but also to people remaining outside this structure (e.g. in some cases to the Krakow townsmen). The Rector assumed the jurisdiction the moment he had taken an oath. The students and professors of the Krakow Academy were also subject to the Rector’s judicial authority, the moment they had taken an oath. The subject range of the Rector’s jurisdiction comprised penal cases, including those relating to disciplinary issues. The jurisdiction also extended to civil law: confirmation of documents, certain institutions of inheritance law and even civil contentions relating to copyright law. The Rector adjudicated on the basis of canon law, Roman law and customary law as well as on the basis of the university statutes. The procedure was based on a shortened and simplified mode derived from canon law. The trial was of an adversarial nature and consequently, the penal and civil proceedings did not differ much one from another. All proceedings were based on the principle of oral testimonies. The hearing of evidence was based on a legal theory of evidence. The fundamental type of evidence was an oath, but other forms of evidence were also allowed, including testimonies of women witnesses. The majority of cases adjudicated by the Rector concerned the students of the Academy; proceedings against professors were also conducted. The most common offences concerned disciplinary matters, offences against morality, neglect of duties, theft of books, fights. Among the adjudicated punishments there predominated fines although one could also come across penalties of temporary imprisonment or church punishments, such as excommunication. The students and professors were protected by immunity, thanks to which they could not be held responsible before municipal and magistrates courts. As a matter of rule, one could not appeal against the verdict passed by the Rector, although there were other legal measures that enabled one to avoid punishment. During the reforms implemented by H. Kołłątaj, attempts were made to broaden the extent of the Rector’s judicial competence, yet the latter had never been implemented on a wider scale. The Rector’s jurisdiction was eventually abolished by the Austrian authorities.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Profesorowie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego i tworzenie prawa II Rzeczpospolitej Wybrane zagadnienia i postaci

100%
Malec D.
Z Dziejów Prawa
|
2019
|
vol. 12
371-384
EN
The centenary of Poland’s regaining independence is conducive to reflections on the achievements of the last 100 years, including the legal achievements of the interwar period. The Codification Commission, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2019, played an important role in the creation of the law of the Second Republic of Poland. Professors at the Jagiellonian University, including F.K. Fierich, the first President of the Commission in 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W.L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzy- muski, took an active part in its work. The work of the commission on the Polish nature conser- vation law of 1934 was inspired by professor at Jagiellonian University, W. Szafer. The influence of Cracow scholars on the shape of law was also exercised through participation in the works on the Constitution of 17 March 1921, participation in debates and discussions on the shape of vari- ous legal solutions in the field of, among others, the system of academic schools and the training of lawyers, shaping borders, creating acts of executive authorities by virtue of their functions as prime minister and ministers (among others, A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estreicher, K.W. Ku- maniecki, S. Kutrzeba, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).
DE
Das hundertjährige Jubiläum der Erlangung der Unabhängigkeit durch Po- len ist ein Anlass, über das Schaffen der letzten hundert Jahre, einschließlich des juristischen Schaffens der Zwischenkriegszeit, nachzudenken. Die Kodifizierungskommission, die im Jahre 2019 ihr 100-jähriges Bestehen feiert, spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Schaffung des Rechts  der Zweiten Polnischen Republik. Professoren der Jagiellonen-Universität beteiligten sich aktiv an ihrer Arbeit, darunter F.K. Fierich, der erste Präsident der Kommission 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W.L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzy- muski. Die Arbeiten der Kommission an dem polnischen Naturschutzrecht von 1934 wurden vom Professor der Jagiellonen-Universität W. Szafer inspiriert. Der Einfluss der Krakauer Gelehrten auf die Rechtsform erfolgte auch durch die Teilnahme an den Arbeiten an der Verfassung vom 17. März 1921, durch die Teilnahme an Debatten und Diskussionen über die Form verschiedener rechtlicher Lösungen, u.a. im Bereich der Struktur der akademischen Schulen und Juristenaus- bildung, Gestaltung der Grenzen, Schaffung von Akten der Organen der Exekutive, was sich aus der Funktion des Premierministers und Ministers ergab (u.a. A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estrei- cher, K.W. Kumaniecki, S. Kutaże, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).
PL
Stulecie odzyskania niepodległości przez Polskę sprzyja refleksjom na temat dorobku ostatnich 100 lat, w tym dorobku prawnego okresu dwudziestolecia międzywojennego. Istotną rolę w tworzeniu prawa Drugiej Rzeczpospolitej odegrała Komisja Kodyfikacyjna, obchodząca w 2019 r.  setną rocznicę utworzenia. W jej pracach brali aktywny udział profesorowie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, m.in. F. K. Fierich, pierwszy Prezydent Komisji w latach 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W. L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzymuski. Prace komisji nad polskim prawem ochrony przyrody z 1934 r. zainspirował profesor UJ W. Szafer. Wpływ krakowskich uczonych na kształt prawa odbywał się także poprzez udział w pracach nad Konstytucją z 17 marca 1921 r., udział w debatach i dyskusjach nad kształtem różnych rozwiązań prawnych w zakresie m.in. ustroju szkół akademickich i kształcenia prawników, kształtowania granic, tworzenia aktów organów władzy wykonawczej z racji pełnienia funkcji premiera oraz ministerialnych (m.in. A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estreicher, K. W. Kumaniecki, S. Kutrzeba, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Międzynarodowa konferencja naukowa dla uczczenia jubileuszu ABGB w Pradze

100%
Malec D.
Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne
|
2012
|
vol. 64
|
issue 1
316-317
PL
Międzynarodowa konferencja naukowa dla uczczenia jubileuszu ABGB w Pradze
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Piotr Krzysztof Marszałek, Najwyższe władze wojskowe w systemie ustrojowym II Rzeczypospolitej, 2011

100%
Malec D.
Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne
|
2013
|
vol. 65
|
issue 2
466-471
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wincenty Szpor (1796–1856) i jego program wykładu umiejętności politycznych. Z dziejów Katedry Umiejętności Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

63%
Malec D., Malec J.
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa
|
2010
|
vol. 3
PL
Wincenty Szpor (1796–1856) was a Cracow advocate and the Senator of the Free City of Cracow in the years 1848–1850. Likewise, he lectured on political skills and statistics at the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University. In the years 1827, 1830, 1834, 1847 he repeatedly entered the competition for the Heard of the Chair of Political Skills. On the successive competitions he unsuccessfully rivalled with Ferdynand Kojsiewicz. As a result it was only after the Kojsiewicz’s death that he arrived at the position of the deputy professor. After 1848, due to political reasons, the Austrian authorities did not agree to stabilize his position. It was in 1828 that W. Szpor, while fulfilling the competition requirements for the Chair, submitted to the Commission his ample program of the lecture on political skills. The program suggested by Szpor was well prepared and clear in its form and contents. It was based rather on the assumptions of the Enlightenment era and only to a slight extent it drew upon the assumptions of the spontaneously developing administrative sciences. Therefore in such form the lecture doubtless fell short of the expectations of the mid‐19th century which was the time when Szpor eventually started his much desired academic career. That way or another, Szpor’s program – particu‐ larly when viewed from the perspective of the programs prepared at similar time by M. Hoszowski,F. Kojsiewicz and P. Bartynowski – makes up an interesting document illustrative of the history of the world  of  learning and  instruction in  law.  It is also illustrative of the situation of administrative sciences in the first part of the 19th century.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.