Constitutional basis of the right to a fair trial (principle of statutory regulation of the judiciary)

The article emphasizes the importance of multidimensional character of principle of statutory regulation of the judiciary. The principle is recognized as an important element of the right to a fair trial. It guarantees judicial independence. The principle bindfulfilling of the judiciary power with the will of the Nation. However recent political crisis connected with the Constitutional Court indicates that the statutes regulating the position of the judiciary should correspond with the substantive and formal constitutional requirements.

The right to a fair administrative trial in the light of the standards arising from the Article 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

The Article 45 of the Polish Constitution establishes the right to a fair trial. It means that everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case, without undue delay, before a competent, impartial and independent court. The right to a fair administrative trial has special character because it is used for protection different human right and obligations that arise from public law (especially administrative and tax law). Implementation of this rules in administrative courts differs from realizing the right in civil and criminal courts. In administrative cases the organ of public administration violates law and because of this, it is one of the parts of the court trial. The administrative courts investigate only legality of act of public administration. Courts are able to annul invalid acts without changing its essence. So administrative courts do not directly effects on individuals rights, freedoms and obligations. Judges are bind by the principle of objective (material) truth, so they are suppose to examine each elements of a case especially facts and related legal norms. The author of the article describes elements and characteristics of the right to a fair administrative trial. There is a description of the personal and objective scope of the right as well.

Right to court in Germany

The term ‘right to court’ is not used by the German constitutional law doctrine. However, the expressions ‘the principle of effective legal protection’ or ‘claim for ensuring justice’ should be treated as its equivalents. German Basic Law does not contain any general provision proclaiming right to court and determining its essential elements. However, ensuring effective judicial protection is considered to be a general constitutional principle and a constitutional right of an individual. It is also acknowledged that everyone has access to court. The latter is supplemented by Article 101, 103 and 104 of German Constitution, which prohibit creation of extraordinary courts and provides that everyone has a right to ‘the statutory judge’ and right to be heard. Moreover the Federal Constitutional Court perceives the rule of law clause as a source of the right to a fair trial. In general it is accepted in Germany that the constitutional standards refering to administration of justice satisfy international standards and in some cases even exceed them. Practical problems in their implementation concern mainly the right to have the case heard in a reasonable time.

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.

Judiciary and Political Parties in Poland – selected problems

The paper discusses the role of the judiciary in relation to political parties in Poland. Primarily, it deals with the statutory right of the judiciary, i.e. the right to exercise control over political parties. The Author’s major concern is to emphasize the particular role played by the Constitutional Court whose responsibility is to control whether the rule of political pluralism is complied with. Additionally, the paper discusses the responsibilities of the Supreme Court and the District Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie) which maintains the register of political parties. Those responsibilities are particularly important as far as the procedure to register a political party is concerned. The text also includes a large number of relevant court decisions.

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.

This study aims to discuss the organizational models of the judicial councils functioning in the three Baltic States - Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. The analysis takes into account the time and direct rationale for establishing the relevant bodies, their composition and the process of selecting the chairperson, the length and recurrence of the term of office, the number of judges in the council, and the competences of the councils. The overview of Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian legal solutions is intended to examine the legal basis of the Judicial Councils, their legal status, composition, and organization, and their competences in the light of the standards developed in Europe. The work was prepared based on a dogmatic-legal method, using elements of historical and comparative analysis.

100 years of defining the Polish model of “separation” of the judiciary – what we had, what we have and what we might want to have

The subject of the study is an analysis of over a hundred years of practice defining the role and political position of courts in Poland. The verification will be subject to compliance in the practice of exercising power not only with constitutional provisions (or indicating the reasons and consequences of their omission), but also with other regulations that accompany the creation and application of specific legal solutions in the context of guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary. At the same time, the assessment of the adopted solutions in terms of respect for the standards developed by international bodies for the protection of individual freedoms and rights and EU bodies was taken into account.

The Concept of Legitimacy on the Example of the Status of a Judge in Polish Constitutional Law

The subject of the analysis is the definition of legitimacy of the systemic status of a judge. The author has previously reconstructed two lexical understandings of the term “legitimacy”, which he defined as “state” and “process,” respectively. The thesis, that the way of defining the term “legitimacy” as “process” is adequate for analyzing the legitimacy of a judge’s constitutional position is the apex for further research. The author has formulated his own definition of legitimacy, referring to the judge’s systemic status. This is a particularly momentous task given the complexity of the construct of legitimacy, as well as the prevailing terminological confusion in the doctrine. The problem of legitimacy with regard to judges is crucial not only in terms of the legitimacy of their constitutional position, but also in terms of a possible finding of lack of legitimacy, given the consequences of this.