Research on the constitutionality of martial law. Remarks based on the  Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 16 March 2011

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 Moreover, the Author is interested in effects of recognition of currently outdated legislation as unconstitutional.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.

The Results of the Constitutional Tribunal Judicature with  the Deferred Clause in the Administrative Judicial Procedure

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.

Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 22 października 2020 roku dotyczący aborcji eugenicznej spowodował lawinę nienawiści kobiet wobec rządu PiS. Dialog publiczny między kobietami, a obozem władzy stał się monologiem. Rozpoczął się strajk kobiet, pomimo zagrożenia sanitarnego. Strajk kobiet należy do grupy nowych ruchów społecznych, które organizują się spontanicznie za pośrednictwem nowych mediów w przestrzeni wirtualnej. Strajkujące kobiety zaczęły używać języka agresywnego, wulgarnego by podkreślić swoją złość. Język z ulicznych strajków stał się obecny na stronach Facebooka o charakterze feministycznym, lewicowym i proaborcyjnym. Analiza została przeprowadzona na podstawie statystyk treści znajdujących się w części polskojęzycznej mediów społecznościowych, z wyszczególnieniem Facebooka w czasie od 22.10.2020 do 1.01.2021 r.