The Democratic State Ruled by Law Clause as a Fundamental Rule of Limiting Restrictions on Constitutional Rights and Freedoms

Despite the introduction to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 of a number of detailed regulations (principles) previously derived from the democratic state ruled by law clause, its importance for the discourse around the limits of legislative interference in the sphere of individual rights and freedoms remains relevant. The author of this text focuses on the analysis of the multifaceted nature of the impact of this fundamental principle on the process of interpretation and application of legal provisions. The text outlines the issues related not only to the scope of direct application of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, but also its importance for reasoning about the constitutional axiology which significance for the assessment of the legality (proportionality) of interference by the legislative authority with the domain of constitutional rights and freedoms is becoming ever clearer.

Extraordinary Complaint as an Instrument for Controlling the Compliance of Final Judgments with Art. 2 of the Constitution of Poland

The Supreme Court is responsible for administering justice through extraordinary control of final court judgments in order to ensure their compliance with art. 2 of the Polish Constitution. In this paper, the research hypothesis is the significance of the functioning of an extraordinary complaint due to the principle of a democratic state ruled by law that it affirms. The research hypothesis was verified by the method of analyzing the functioning of an extraordinary complaint. Considerations on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court of May 8, 2019, file ref. no. I NSNc 2/19 allowed to confirm the hypothesis and to draw a conclusion that the protection afforded by the presented control measure is an important instrument for supporting effective administration of justice, and the presented task of the Supreme Court concerning the compliance of judgments with Art. 2 of the Constitution is an important and necessary competence.

Constitutional Courts in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia)

The functioning of the constitutional courts is a European standard, widely accepted also in post-Soviet countries. The following paper looks at the basic legal provisions of the constitutional courts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia from a comparative perspective. While Armenia and Georgia undertake some democratic reforms, Azerbaijan remains a consolidated autocracy, what justifies such comparisons. It argues that despite being in line with European practice, there is no one model of a South Caucasus of the constitutional judiciary. The most important differences affect the nomination of judges, the scope of competencies, and the subjects eligible to submit the complaints. The study did not confirm the hypothesis that the model of the constitutional judiciary in Azerbaijan, as an authoritarian state, differs significantly from the more democratic models of Armenia and Georgia.