Search results

1

Non-textual Elements in Judicial Opinions: Overview

100%

Wojdala M.

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej

|

2023

|

vol. 35

|

issue 2

77-87

PL

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie praktyki wykorzystywania nietekstualnych elementów w uzasadnieniach sądowych, a także wyjaśnienie potrzeby powstania tego nowego terminu oraz sposobu, w jaki został wyłoniony. Realizuję cel poprzez udzielenie odpowiedzi na kilka pytań. Po pierwsze omawiam, jakie niekonwencjonalne elementy pojawiają się w uzasadnieniach sądowych. Następnie argumentuję dlaczego pojęcia obrazu i wizualności nie są adekwatne dla opisu tego zjawiska i wskazuję na potrzebę sformułowania nowego pojęcia. W następnej kolejności odpowiadam na pytanie, co łączy te nietypowe elementy i na tej podstawie proponuję pojęcie nietekstualnych elementów w uzasadnieniach sądowych. Analizuję także, czy wyróżnienie takiej kategorii oznacza, że może być ona traktowana jako homogeniczna. Na koniec rozważam, czy obecność nietekstualnych elementów w uzasadnieniach sądowych jest czymś nowym w rzeczywistości prawnej, a jeśli tak, to jakie jest jej znaczenie dla procesu stosowania prawa.

EN

The objective of the article is to present the practice of using non-textual elements in judicial opinions, as well as to explain the need for a new term and the way in which it was created. In order to do so, several questions have been addressed. First, the elements actually used in judicial opinions are specified. Next, the reasons why terms such as image or visual material cannot adequately describe the phenomenon in question are presented and reasons are offered for the creation of a new term. What the elements have in common is then outlined and the concept of non-textual elements in judicial opinions is introduced. An examination of whether distinguishing this category means that these elements can be treated as a homogeneous group is then presented. Finally, whether the presence of such elements in judicial opinions is new in legal reality is considered and, if so, what their significance is to the functioning of judicial opinions.

2

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

60%

Florjanowicz-Błachut P.

Studia Prawnicze

|

2014

|

issue 4 (200)

33-48

EN

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

3

Rola uzasadnienia sądowego w realizacji prawa do rzetelnego procesu sądowoadministracyjnego– standard strasburski

48%

Grzelak-Bach K.

Studia Prawnicze

|

2014

|

issue 4 (200)

13-31

EN

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.

Refine search results

2 Studia Prawnicze

1 Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej

1 Florjanowicz-Błachut P.

1 Grzelak-Bach K.

1 Wojdala M.

1 2023

2 2014

Non-textual Elements in Judicial Opinions: Overview

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Rola uzasadnienia sądowego w realizacji prawa do rzetelnego procesu sądowoadministracyjnego– standard strasburski