Celem artykułu jest zwrócenie uwagi na prawa językowe Głuchych w Polsce i ich źródło. Prawo Głuchych do polskiego języka migowego wywodzi się z ich niepełnosprawności. Takie podejście jest nieprawidłowe. Tytułowe uprawnienie jest, w moim przekonaniu, prawem naturalnym Głuchego, wywodzącym się z jego godności. Z kolei zasada godności człowieka jest bramą, prowadzącą do jego „pozytywizacji”. Uznanie natomiast konstytucyjnego charakteru prawa do polskiego języka migowego wzmacnia podstawę prawną roszczeń Głuchych wobec państwa, a także uzasadnia prawną ochronę tego języka. Przyznanie głuchym prawa do polskiego języka migowego pozwala na pełne i równe korzystanie z praw i wolności gwarantowanych Konstytucją z 2 kwietnia 1997 r.
EN
The article aims to draw attention to the linguistic rights of the Deaf in Poland and their legal source. Deaf people’s right to Polish sign language stems from their disability. This approach is incorrect. The title entitlement is the natural right of the deaf, derived from his dignity. In turn, the principle of human dignity is the gate leading to its “positivization”. On the other hand, recognizing the constitutional nature of the right to Polish sign language strengthens the legal basis of the deaf ’s claims against the state and justifies the legal protection of this language. The recognition of the right to Polish sign language allows the deaf to the full and equal exercise of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of April 2, 1997.
In the proposed draft position the author points to the incompatibility with Article 45 para. 1 of the Constitution of Article 75 § 4 of the Act – Law on Common Courts System, in so far as it denies the right of appeal to the court against the decision of the Minister of Justice rejecting the request from a judge to be moved to a different place of office. The decision of the Minister, based on his/her own discretion, should be subject to judicial review, as it is taken neither within the scope of administrative supervision over the courts, nor even by means of official superiority, but rather relates to the systemic position of a judge determined by his/her rights and obligations. In the opinion of the author, Article 75 § 1 of the above Act, in so far as it does not specify the conditions for move to another post, is in conformity with Article 47, Article 52 para. 1, Article 65 para. 1 in conjunction with Article 31 para. 3 of the Constitution. This provision contains a mechanism that properly balances the public interest and private interest. On the one hand, it allows the change of place of adjudication established in the appointment document, providing an exception to the principle of stabilization of the office of judge. On the other hand, it guarantees an efficient and fair administration of justice.
The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the form of legal recognition of sign languages, including the formula of constitutionalisation of the Polish sign language. Sign languages are natural and national languages. Their legal recognition proceeds at the international level and the national one. The regulation at the national level takes the form of a statute, although some countries undertake the constitutionalisation of these languages. A possible regulation of the Polish sign language in the Constitution should adopt a subjective formula, which would properly safeguard legal interests of deaf people.
The subject of the assessment contained in the position of the Sejm before the Constitutional Tribunal are provisions of the Civil Code in relation to the doubts of a regional court, whether the application for a court enforcement clause for a bank enforcement title does not interrupt the limitation period for a claim covered by that title against a transferee who is not a bank. In the author’s opinion, the interpretation of the questioned provisions in the process of applying the law, and in particular the limitation of a retroactive effect of interpretation, is vested in courts and it is difficult to conclude that the assessment of the constitutionality of the questioned provisions by the Constitutional Tribunal determined the resolution of the case pending before the court that submitted the question of law. In view of the doubts regarding the admissibility of the question of law, the Sejm should request that the proceedings be discontinued.
The draft Sejm’s position concerns the issue of handing over a vehicle removed from a road and towed to a guarded cark park. A situation in which the vehicle is issued after showing a proof of payment for its compulsory removal and parking was assessed as consistent with the Constitution.
In the social sciences, the attention is drawn to the relationship between instruments of direct democracy and signature requirement, because the latter may block the activity of citizens. Therefore, this paper focuses on signature requirements of local citizen’ initiatives (LCI), which is also analyzed from the perspective of the principle of equality. We identify: the legal threshold of support (LTS) and the actual threshold of support (ATS). The legal threshold is construed as the statutory requirement of support (quantified or specified as a percentage), whereas the actual threshold of support is the quotient of the number of signatures required and the total number of residents in a given district. With respect to the LCI, a district is an area of a municipality, poviat and voivodship. The ATS is an indicator used by us to study the principle of equality.
The application concerns Article 3a of the Act of 28 March 2003 on Railroad Transport, exempting the application of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, to urban, suburban and regional rail passenger transport. In the view of the Human Rights Defender, the above said article – insofar as it indefinitely excludes the application of Article 21 para. 1 of the Regulation – is incompatible with Article 2 in conjunction with Article 69 of the Constitution and Article 9 para. 1(c) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, signed in New York on 13 December 2006. Despite these arguments, the Sejm decided in this case that the contended regulation is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.