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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article deals with the notion of the so-called provisions of repressive nature, addressed from the perspective of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal. In one of its early judgments in this area, the Tribunal defi nes them as provisions whose aim is to subject a citizen to a form of punishment or sanction. Indeed, in the system of law one can fi nd a group of legal regulations whose application is connected with imposition of something that is intended to be undesirable or painful, reaching sometimes such intensity that could be compared with application of sanctions prescribed by criminal law. Nevertheless, those regulations have not been formally defi ned by the legislator as aspects of criminal responsibility. This includes, above all, disciplinary responsibility, responsibility of collective entities, responsibility exercised under the Lustration Act or responsibility for administrative penalties. This situation raises questions on how the constitution specifi es the minimum standard of guarantees for the individual subjected to these regulations and whether they are covered by the constitutional notion of criminal responsibility. The article provides an analysis of almost twenty-year long judicial practice of the Constitutional Tribunal in relation to establishing the meaning of the said notion and determining its scope and content. The conclusions arising from these remarks indicate that no satisfactory or uniform concept has been so far developed in this respect. As a result, doubts have arisen as to the application of appropriate constitutional patterns, including those connected with criminal responsibility.
EN
The presented article is devoted to the issue of admissibility of an appeal to a court against the transfer of a judge by a decision of the president of a court from one division to another division. The current statutory regulation, which does not provide for the possibility of an appeal to a court in every case of such a transfer, does not seem to be in line with the considerations made in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgement of 6 October 2021 in case C-487/19, hence it is necessary to determine their relevance for jurisprudence in Poland and to juxtapose those considerations with, i.a., the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, taking into account the issue of judicial independence and the right to a court.
EN
The article discusses interpretative and limited judgments in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland. These judgments are of great significance in the judicial control of law’s conformity to the Constitution. They were distinguished following the departure from the original, dichotomic division of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgments into those deciding the full and unambiguous consistency or inconsistency of an act with the Constitution. The article defines interpretative and limited judgements, and describes their roles and functions. An interpretative judgement is a decision in which the Constitutional Tribunal decides the conformity or non-conformity of a relevant act to the Constitution in its given interpretation. Its aim is not to eliminate non-uniformity or divergence in the interpretation of legal regulations, but to eliminate from all potential interpretative variants of a relevant act the one that is inconsistent with the Constitution. A limited judgement is a decision in which the Constitutional Tribunal decides the conformity or non-conformity of an act to the Constitution in a specific (subjective, objective or time) scope of its application. A limited judgement aims to decide whether a legal regulation whose interpretation is unambiguous, is consistent with the Constitution in a given scope of its application. The article also describes advantages and disadvantages of interpretative and limited judgements, accounting for the relevant views in the doctrine and jurisprudence in this respect, and examines the number of these judgements against the general number of judgements concerning the constitutionality of law that were passed by the Constitutional Tribunal in recent years.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy problematyki wyroków interpretacyjnych i zakresowych w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Polsce. Wyroki te odgrywają istotną rolę w sądowej kontroli zgodności prawa z konstytucją. W nauce prawa zaczęto je wyróżniać wraz z odejściem od pierwotnego, dychotomicznego podziału wyroków TK na wyroki stwierdzające całkowitą i jednoznaczną zgodność lub niezgodność przepisu z konstytucją. Opracowanie definiuje wyroki interpretacyjne i zakresowe oraz charakteryzuje ich rolę i funkcje. Wyrok interpretacyjny jest orzeczeniem, w sentencji którego TK stwierdza zgodność lub niezgodność z konstytucją przepisu prawnego w określonym jego rozumieniu. Jego zadaniem nie jest usuwanie niejednolitości i rozbieżności wykładni przepisów prawa, lecz eliminacja tego spośród możliwych wariantów interpretacyjnych kontrolowanego przepisu, który jest niezgodny z konstytucją. Wyrok zakresowy jest orzeczeniem, w sentencji którego TK stwierdza zgodność albo niezgodność z konstytucją przepisu prawnego w określonym (podmiotowym, czasowym lub przedmiotowym) zakresie jego zastosowania. Wyrok zakresowy zmierza do rozstrzygnięcia, czy przepis prawny, którego rozumienie nie budzi wątpliwości, jest zgodny z konstytucją w pewnym zakresie jego zastosowania. Opracowanie prezentuje również wady i zalety wyroków interpretacyjnych i zakresowych, biorąc pod uwagę poglądy doktryny i orzecznictwa w tym zakresie, oraz analizuje liczbę tych wyroków na tle ogólnej liczby orzeczeń wydawanych w ostatnich latach przez TK w przedmiocie konstytucyjności prawa.
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.