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

Results found: 6

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
EN
In his position, the Sejm requested the Constitutional Tribunal to state that to the extent, in which provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for a three-month period for filing complaint concerning the resumption of proceedings in case the judgment was based on a counterfeit or falsified document, and to the extent that the failure to meet this deadline results in the rejection of the complaint, conform to the Constitution. In the opinion of the Sejm, an allegation of a disproportionately short deadline is unjustified, as the deadline of three months to perform a specific procedural activity is one of the longest ones provided for in the Polish civil procedure and does not differ from the ones provided for in the civil procedural laws of other European countries. The practice of application by common courts of the provision in question also justifies the position indicating conformity to the Constitution.
EN
According to the author of the proposed Sejm’s draft position the indicated provision, being the subject of the Warsaw District Court’s question of law, conforms to the Constitution. Court referendaries perform tasks related to legal protection, other than in administration of justice. In case of filling a complaint against a court referendary’s decision in enforcement proceedings, the court shall hear the case as a court of second instance, in accordance with the provisions on appeals. The complaint against the decision may be appealed only in cases, in which a court decision may be appealed. Proceeding complaints against bailiff’s activities does not constitute “a case” with the meaning of Article 45 para. 1 of the Constitution. The legal norm, pursuant to which it is not possible to appeal against the court referendary’s decision on the complaint regarding bailiff’s activities, does not infringe the constitutional principle of procedural /justice.
EN
In the draft of the Sejm’s position regarding the constitutional complaint concerning the provision of the Tax Ordinance, the author considers the provision which concerns the property liability of a member of the management board for the company’s liabilities towards the state creditor collect‑ ing social insurance contributions to be constitutional, as the provision indicated in the complaint does not disproportionately interfere with the property rights of members of the management board of a limited liability company. The allegation of unconstitutionality, in the view of the author of the position, is based on the erroneous assumption that members of the management board of a company employed under an employment contract and other employees of the company are similar entities, but the rights granted to employees holding the position of members of the man‑ agement board mean that their situation should be unequivocally distinguished from the one of other employees of the company.
EN
In the assessment of the legitimacy of the constitutional complaint, it was stated that the questioned provision of the Financial Instruments Trading Act to the extent that it allows to consider as a prohibited act placing an order or concluding transactions in accordance with the special regulations established for stock exchange trading by a company operating on a regulated market that affect the volume of trading in company shares and may affect the company’s position in indices published by the company, but do not mislead or may not mislead other investors as to the price of shares, is consistent with the Constitution.
EN
The article presents the Sejm’s position on assessing the compatibility of Article 1 para. 9 of the Act of 15th December 2000 on Housing Cooperatives – providing for the exclusion of the application of the provisions on shares and entry fees as well as the obligation to submit a declaration in order to be admitted as a member of a cooperative, with the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The author refers to the constitutional complaint in SK 102/22 case, considering the possibility of a housing cooperative rejecting a claim for admission as a member of a housing cooperative by the owner of a residential property located in the common property managed by the cooperative. Analysis focuses on the Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law, freedom of association and protection of property with respect to the rights of housing cooperatives as indicated in the Act on Housing Cooperatives, in particular, the right to decide on the acquisition of cooperative membership.
EN
The author of the opinion concludes that the provision of the Act on Credit Unions, which is the subject of the control indicated in the application of the General Public Prosecutor, is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits the General Meeting of the National Credit Unions from allocating more than 10% of the balance surplus of the National Credit Unions to the resources fund. According to the promoter, this prohibition constitutes an interference with ownership and other property rights. Yet the competence of the Financial Supervision Authority to approve model contracts concerning the activities of the National Credit Unions was considered to be consistent with the constitutional model of a social market economy based on freedom of economic activity, private ownership and solidarity, dialogue and cooperation between social partners.
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.