The short article discusses the competences of ombudsmen in Sweden and Finland in relation to the judiciary. These institutions have controlling and supervisory powers in relation to courts of law, including the determination of the accountability of judges and typical competences of a prosecutor. The Author points out the necessity to read provisions of the constitutions and acts regulating the discussed competences in the light of the principle of the judiciary’s independence. Still, the supervisory rights of ombudsmen in Sweden and Finland are very well developed and may refer to issues approaching closely the sphere of jurisdiction. When assessing the solutions presented, the Author points out the fact that the ombudsmen in both countries have worked out respective practices aimed at such use of available means of control so they cannot be accused of a reasonable and too extended interference with the judiciary sphere.

The Juridical power in selected postyugoslave states – Slovenia and Croatia

The government in the Republic of Slovenia is organized on the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Judicial power is exercised by the courts. The judiciary is autonomous and independent. The courts administer justice according to the Constitution and law, as well as according to international agreements and treaties in force. Judges and lay assessors participate in the administration of justice in conformity with the law. In the Republic of Slovenia the administration of justice is carried out by 44 district courts, 11 regional courts, 4 higher courts: labour courts and social court, Higher Labour and Social Court, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia. In addition to courts with general jurisdiction, there are 4 labour courts and 1 social court. There are responsible for ruling on individual and collective labour-related disputes and on social disputes. For second-degree ruling the Higher Labour and Social Court is responsible.

Judicial Power in a Crisis of Constitutional Democracy

The article is devoted to the problems of changing the position of the judiciary in Poland in the conditions of crisis of constitutional democracy. Two basic research hypotheses are verified. First of all, after 2015, Poland was one of the countries revising its liberal-democratic political foundations. Such foundations undoubtedly include: the rule of law, the principle of constitutionalism and the principle of division and balance of power. Secondly, the political position of the judiciary has been defined in the liberal-democratic Constitution of the Republic of Poland in a way appropriate for the protection of the above mentioned values, but the political practice shows that the lack of proper will to implement the constitutional provisions (using the arithmetic advantage in parliament without the recognition of minority rights) may violate the „backbone” of constitutional democracy.

If not the Constitutional Tribunal, then What? On Dispersed Constitutional Review in Poland

The discussion on the model of constitutional review of law in Poland gained a new dimension after 2016 in connection with the ongoing constitutional crisis. First of all, there is a question of whether, irrespective of the competences of the Constitutional Tribunal, on the grounds of the binding constitutional provisions, also courts may review the constitutionality of statutory provisions in the process of their application. Although after 1997 the principle became established that the Constitutional Tribunal had exclusive competence to review the constitutionality of acts in Poland, a clear change in this respect is now visible both in doctrine and jurisprudence. The majority of doctrinal representatives justify the admissibility of dispersed judicial review by the inability of the Constitutional Tribunal to perform its basic function, treating it as something exceptional, incidental, determined by the doctrine of necessity. The aim of this paper is to present the debate on the admissibility of dispersed judicial review on the grounds of the Polish Constitution, as well as to indicate the possible directions of its development.