The analysis points out that the Crimean peninsula remains an integral part of the territory of Ukraine, as the annexation of the area by the Russian Federation is null and void under the law due to the breach of generally applicable rule of international law concerning the prohibition of aggression. Therefore, only Ukraine is authorized to manage the airspace above the region. In case of any aviation accident in the territory of Crimea, it is not permissible for International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to recognize the competence of Russia in relation to carry out the investigation. Moreover, such recognition cannot ensue from an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, except for the delegation of responsibilities to investigate the accident in which a Russian plane has been involved.
Opinion on the Declaration of the Presidents of the Assemblée nationale of France, the Chambre des Députés of Luxembourg, of the Bundestag of Germany, and of the Camera dei Deputati of Italy of 14 September 2015. “Greater European Integration – the Way Forward”
The treaty is aimed at strengthening the economic pillar of the economic and monetary union by solution which requires national governments to have budgets in balance or in surplus. The author claims that those provisions of the Fiscal Stability Treaty which contain more rigorous solutions than those provided in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are contrary to that Treaty. He also claims that several proposals are vague and can raise doubts about their accordance with the Law of European union. Proposals that multiplies solutions of primary law are in comply with the Law of European Union. In the author’s view ratification procedure of this Treaty should be taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
Strengthening their Role in Shaping the EU policy (COM (2018) 703 final): The communication is a general and preliminary document of a political nature. It is a result of work on the reform of the European Union started in 2017 and the work undertaken in 2017 and 2018 at the initiative of the Commission by the Task Force in the scope of the above principles, in relation to a broadly understood action for better lawmaking. The Communication “identifies ways to strengthen the role of subsidiarity and proportionality in shaping the EU policy. In particular, it initiated follow-up activities of the Commission in relation to the recommendations of the Task Force and ways to highlight areas in which others should act”. In the author’s opinion, the document is unsatisfactory due to the limited set of suggestions for changes and their superficiality. The communication does not formulate any broader vision of action.
Having assessed the EU documents, the author states that the proposed decision does not have social, economic or financial consequences. When assessing documents legally, the author states that the recommendations and the determination of a clear risk are two separate acts of the Council, the recommendations of which are a an act adopted prior to the one concerning the identification of the clear risk. Consequently, the recommendations cannot be part of the statement of a clear risk. The defective nature of the Commission’s proposed decision makes it difficult to assess the impact. The contradiction of this decision with the TEU should be challenged by the European Parliament during the consent procedure or by the Court of Justice in the course of the follow-up procedure.
Despite the fact that the Act S.447 is an act of American domestic law, it is important for United States’ foreign policy towards covered countries. Its specific repercussion are difficult to predict. The Act contains a negative assessment of the Polish legislation and its execution within restitution of properties nationalised during the period of the Holocaust and within the provisions regarding nationalisation issued by communist authorities after 1944, in the context of targets and assumptions of the Holocaust Era Assets Conference 2009. The currently binding Polish legislation, as well as administrative and judicial practice do not meet criteria set out in the Act S.447. Despite that critical assessment, a satisfaction from Poland’s property which is situated on USA’s territory, is impossible due to judicial and execution immunity applying to that property.
The subject of the opinion is an analysis of the degree of implementation of provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961 in the Polish legal system, in particular: determination of the rules of the Conventions which are present in Polish law; an analysis of possible inconsistencies between the Conventions and Polish law; an indication of legislator’s obligations that would arise, if Poland became bound by these Conventions.
The opinion deals with the legal status of international arrangements concluded by Polish provinces (voivodships). These arrangements, according to the author, are not international agreements, as – under the Constitution of the Republic of Poland – provinces do not have competence to conclude such agreements. Provinces are only allowed to join international association of local communities that are not international organizations.
The author of the opinion analyzes the Agreement in terms of competence to sign and conclude it, as well as the grounds for its provisional application. In his opinion, the Agreement was written as if it were fully subject to the exclusive competence of the Union. In such case, the Council would be empowered alone to sign and conclude of the Agreement on the part of the whole EU, and to start its provisional application. However, on the basis of the scope of its regulation, the Agreement may be considered as concerning the area not covered only by exclusive competence and, therefore, its signing, provisional application and final binding force should occur on the basis of cooperation between the European Union and its Member States under the principle of sincere cooperation. Hence, it should be assumed that the Council can make decisions on these activities but, essentially, the effectiveness of these activities will depend on whether all the Member States make them also.
The European Commission’s White Paper illustrates predictions about the future of functioning of the European Union. The Commission conducts a general analysis and describes in detail reactions to current challenges and threats which the European Union faces. The Commission does not notice any need to fundamentally reform the Union. The White Paper does not trigger directly any legal consequences and is not legally binding in light of the EU and Polish legal systems. The Council of Ministers found that the Commission’s proposition of a multi-speed development of the European Union may be unacceptable from the perspective of Poland.
The submitted bill raises serious legal concerns. In the sense of international law, Poland is already legally bound by the ATP Agreement on the basis of accession and the resolution adopted by the Council of Ministers on 30 October 1982. From the perspective of the Constitution and international law which binds Poland, ratification of the Agreement without prior giving notice of denunciation is unacceptable. The author proposes three alternatives: the publication of the full text ad ATP Agreement, the ratification of the amendments to the ATP Agreement or denunciation of the Agreement under Article 12 thereof together with its ratification of the co-existing with the changes in accordance with Article 89 para. 1 of the Constitution.
In the light of existing international law it is not possible to hold the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation criminally or civilly responsible before the courts of other countries (except for an action before the Russian courts) or the International Criminal Court. Claiming compensation from the Russian Federation for shooting the Malaysia Airlines aircraft is available before the Russian in compliance with Russian law, or before international courts only through interstate litigation, provided that the parties agree to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice or international arbitration and that the preconditions of responsibility are fulfilled. Claiming is also possible in the context of diplomatic protection, and – in case of actions by individuals against Russia – only before the European Court of Human Rights, after exhaustion of domestic legal remedies and demonstrating that Russia has committed a violation of the rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950.
Opinion of the Venice Commission about amendments to the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 2016 was prepared upon the request of the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Witold Waszczykowski. In his request, he identified the constitutional issues to be examined by the Commission. As stated by the Commission itself, the opinion referred to the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal. In its Opinion, the Commission makes an assessment, recommendations and suggestions, at the same time declaring its continuing support. In this respect, it did not go beyond the standard procedure, which does not prejudge the issue of whether it is right in its assessments. The Polish authorities are not legally bound by the findings of the Commission’s Opinion which, however, contains some recommendations and suggestions that deserve response.
The Directive sets out the principles for the collection, storage and processing of passenger data. It was implemented in Poland in the form of a statute that significantly detailed the regulation of the Directive. The National Passenger Information Unit was established under the statute. The transposition raises no legal objections.
The subject of this opinion is to discuss the powers of the European Union Affairs Committee of the Sejm addressed to the Council of Ministers under the provisions of the Treaty and the Standing Orders of the Sejm. According to the author, the Committee is entitled to request information from the representative of the Council of Ministers on the draft acts on the agenda of the European Council, whereas it may not request information on the specific position to be taken by the Prime Minister during a meeting of the European Council.
The author, trying to determine the correct procedure for ratification of Council Decision 2020/2053 on the system of own resources of the European Union, considers this issue from the perspective of Polish and European Union law. In his considerations he also refers to historical arguments. The author concludes that the Council Decision should be ratified according to the procedure set out in Article 89 para. 1 of the Polish Constitution.
The opinion discusses the European Commission’s communication on key aspects of the rule of law in the Member States, including clarifying the issue of the rule of law in the European Union, its relevance to the effective functioning of the Union, the importance of the rule of law mechanism, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rule of law in the Member States. The author states that the competences of the Commission to independently formulate the general concept of the rule of law and to take actions assessing the Member States from its perspective should be critically assessed.
The author acknowledges the necessity for a comprehensive regulation of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Polish law. However, he remains critical towards the bill in question. He considers the solutions concerning the concept of implementing judgments to be defective. The author also indicates errors related to the proposed manner of implementing judgments, in particular to the problem of issue of individual and general measures, the so-called just satisfaction, as well as to determining the scope of executive duties of the state.
In the author’s view, the judgment of the FCC concerning activities of the European Central Bank regarding the primacy of EU law over national law is of significance, due into the authority of the German constitutional court. However, it does not translate directly to foreign conditions. The view expressed in the judgment is that the ultra vires doctrine forms limits to the principle of primacy of European Union law over member state law. As a result, the principle of primacy may only be binding within the scope of the European Union law. Moreover, criteria of assessment of EU’s legislative activity and ECJ’s jurisprudence are drafted from the perspective of the ultra vires doctrine.
The European Commission Communication on the Conference on the Future of Europe is a contribution to the inter-institutional discussion on the convening and operation of the Conference and its results. From this perspective, it is a working document, not a final one, which would cause the necessity to take a clear and comprehensive position. In the author’s opinion, the draft inter-institutional declaration on the Conference will be of key importance.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.