• Badanie konstytucyjności stanu wojennego. Uwagi na tle wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 16 marca 2011 r.

    Author: Bohdan Zdziennicki
    Institution: Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Prawa im. Heleny Chodkowskiej w Warszawie
    Year of publication: 2012
    Source: Show
    Pages: 163-180
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2012.03.07
    PDF: ppk/11/ppk1107.pdf

    The Article concerns the power of the Constitutional Tribunal for examination of currently out-of-dated legislation. It was assumed that the judgment of Constitutional Tribunal of 16 March 2011 stating unconstitutionality of the State Council decrees of 12 December 1981 on martial law is of fundamental importance. Historical aspects of martial state may still evoke understandable political and ideological emotions, which however should be excluded from legal considerations. The Author reconstructs assumptions presented by the Constitutional Tribunal, and afterwards provides analysis from the point of view of constitutional standards in force. Moreover, the Author is interested in effects of recognition of currently outdated legislation as unconstitutional. The text and presented ideas are constructed to inspire further discussions.

  • Skutki wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z klauzulą odraczającą w postępowaniu sądowoadministracyjnym

    Author: Dawid Daniluk
    Institution: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
    Year of publication: 2011
    Source: Show
    Pages: 119-134
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2011.04.06
    PDF: ppk/08/ppk806.pdf

    Under the Art. 190 para. 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal come into force from the day of its publication. However, the Constitutional Tribunal is able to specify another date for the loss of validity of a normative act. Such a period cannot exceed 18 months in relation to a statute or 12 months in relation to other normative act. According to the Art. 272 para. 1 of the act Proceeding before the administrative courts in connection with the Art. 190 para. 4 of the Constitution a party can demand reopening proceedings, or quashing the decision when the Constitutional Tribunal judged about the non-conformity of the act to the Constitution, an international agreement or statute, of a normative act on the basis of which a legally effective judgment of a court, a final administrative decision or settlement of other matters was issued. Above mentioned legal regulations put the courts into hard situation, because the judgment of the court, which has been pronounced according to the legal act, which has been declared by the Constitutional Tribunal as unconstitutional, could, after the end of the validity, be resumed by reopen proceeding. There are contrary opinions how to solve the presented problem. Both the judicial decisions and the legal doctrine present two different positions: • the court must apply the legal provisions, which have been declared by the Constitutional Tribunal as unconstitutional, because they remain a part of the legal system, till the moment they are removed from the legal order after the period of postponement, • the court is able to refuse to apply the unconstitutional legal provisions. The text discusses different points of view on that topic as well as legal consequences of deferment of the date by the Constitutional Court on which a normative act loses its validity.

Wiadomość do:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart