wykładnia prawa

  • Spór o wyroki interpretacyjne Trybunału Konstytucyjnego – głos w dyskusji

    Author: Marcin Dąbrowski
    E-mail: m_dabrowski@wp.eu
    Institution: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
    Year of publication: 2017
    Source: Show
    Pages: 29-54
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2017.02.02
    PDF: ppk/36/ppk3602.pdf

    The article consists of few parts. At the beginning, the author discusses a definition of interpretative verdicts and a history of the dispute between The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal over this kind of judgments. The author doesn’t present arguments that are described in literature but climes that the dispute concernes three problems: legality of interpretative verdicts, their binding force and interpretative verdicts as a base for reopening proceedings. In the second part, two arguments against delivering interpretative verdicts are formed. The author claims that the Constitutional Tribunal should limit a number of such judgments because there is no legal ground for interpretative verdicts in the Constitution and because they abridge independence of judges of the Supreme Court and other courts. In the last part of the article, the author describes a genetic cause of the litigation between the Tribunal and courts. It is claimed that the dispute has been generated by dissentions between methods of interpretation of legal acts used by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal takes advantage of the method of derivation and the Supreme Court usually uses the method of clarification. These methods are in contrary to each other and because of this they are the base of the dispute.

  • Uwag kilka o sformalizowanych instrumentach wykładni prawa administracyjnego w działalności sądów administracyjnych

    Author: Dominika Tykwińska-Rutkowska
    E-mail: tykwinska@prawo.ug.edu.pl
    Institution: Uniwersytet Gdański
    Year of publication: 2017
    Source: Show
    Pages: 107-131
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2017.02.06
    PDF: ppk/36/ppk3606.pdf

    The main purpose of this article is to present some of the formalized instruments of judicial interpretation of administrative law by administrative courts. There are no doubts that administrative courts take part in the process of interpretation of administrative law by using different means. The most popular instrument is a court judgment – court interprets law for the purpose of issuing a decision. The administrative courts’ participation in the interpretation of law should be also linked to the Supreme Administrative Court’s resolutions. No matter which of the described formalized instruments of the interpretation of law is used by administrative courts, the outcome of the interpretation process contributes to the development of non-codified administrative law and its science.

  • Oryginalizm Antonina Scalii jako teoria wykładni prawa

    Author: Grzegorz Maroń
    Institution: Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
    Year of publication: 2010
    Source: Show
    Pages: 23-52
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2010.04.02
    PDF: ppk/04/ppk402.pdf

    This article discusses one of the contemporary American theories on interpretation, i.e. plain meaning originalism. The propagator and co-author of this theory is Antonin Scalia – Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United State. Scalia’s originalism is a doctrine about how judges ought to interpret statutes and constitution according to their original meaning. Therefore we can define it with textualism based on language competence of the primary legislator and primary addressees. Originalism uses interpretative, language and system directives. In general it refuses using function and purposefulness. What determines the meaning of law is legal codes and tradition. According to Scalia law does not change automatically together with changes of social needs and expectations. He criticizes the concept of “living constitution” regarding it as a source of judicial discretionality. Members of parliament, elected in a democratic voting, should update the law, not judges.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart