One of the politically momentous and legally precedential constitutional problems of recent years which had to be faced by the Polish constitutional court has been the dispute whether it is possible to exclude the applicable statute defining the organization and procedure of the CT proceedings as a basis for adjudication.An analysis of the judgment of the Tribunal addressing that issue proves that the Polish constitutional court excluded the possibility that the same regulation could serve simultaneously as the object of control and the basis for control proceedings.This results from the essence of constitutional control of the law which in such arrangement of its key elements would simply repeal itself, i.e. would lead to its own invalidation.Subordination of constitutional judges exclusively to the Constitution extends to all actions they perform in serving their office and other consubstantial manifestations of exercising the power to judge.This is a derivative of jurisprudential responsibilities of the Tribunal, which include both passing a final judgment as to compliance of challenged statutes, as well as other acts of application of law.Art. 195 (1) in fine of the Polish Constitution lays down a competence norm for a CT judge to refuse, in specific circumstances, to abide by the CT Act. One of the analytical assumptions is recognition of the finality of CT judgments.The possibility to exclude a provision of the CT Act is an action in the area of application of law.Determination of the legal framework for passing judgments has nothing in common with constitutional control of challenged statutes.Those actions derive from totally different orders and their goals are differe.
The paper aims at analyzing the phenomenon of judicial activism in Poland against the background of a resolution of the formation of the combined Civil Chamber, Criminal Chamber and Labor Law and Social Security Chamber of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2020 (BSA I-4110-1/20). The author discusses the Supreme Court’s powers to resolve divergences in the interpretation of law and then provides an analysis of the nature of the resolution of the Supreme Court. The considerations made in the context of the paper lead to the conclusion that in situations of a threat to the rule of law the courts not only have a right but also an obligation to take active measures to protect the common good.
PL
Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 23 stycznia 2020 r. (BSA I-4110-1/20) Celem artykułu jest analiza zjawiska aktywizmu sędziowskiego w Polsce na tle uchwały składu połączonych izb: Cywilnej, Karnej oraz Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 23 stycznia 2020 r. (BSA I-4110-1/20). Autor omawia kompetencję Sądu Najwyższego do rozstrzygania rozbieżności w wykładni przepisów prawa, a następnie dokonuje oceny znaczenia uchwały Sądu Najwyższego w kontekście zjawiska aktywizmu sędziowskiego. Rozważania podjęte na gruncie niniejszej pracy prowadzą do wniosku, że w sytuacji zagrożenia dla praworządności, sądy nie tylko mają prawo, lecz także obowiązek podjąć aktywne działania na rzecz ochrony dobra wspólnego.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.