The relationship rules limiting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen  in emergencies and in the state of normal functioning of the state

The issue of permissibility of limitation of the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens in extraordinary measures causes a lot of problems. They are consequence the imposition two different regulations relative the limitations: the general regulation appearing from article 31 paragraph 3 Constitution and the special regulation including in the Chapter XI Constitution concerning exclusively the extraordinary measures. The answer for the question, when and in which circumstances it shall adapt the special rules concerning the limitation of the freedoms and rights in extraordinary measures and when the general regulations appears from article 31 paragraph 3 Constitution, depends on a few matters. Firstly, it depends on the type of introducing extraordinary measure.Secondly, it depends on the type of the freedom or right, which it have to be limited. The next problem, it is the method of interpretation and applying the rules concerning the limitations. In this area, the rule of proportionality in interpretation of the Constitutional Tribunal is of great importance.

The fundamental human right to dignity is the cornerstone of European legal culture. The right has been provided for in international, European, and national legal instruments. Its role as a benchmark reference for all other human rights has developed into a self-standing and self-executing right, especially under the new EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This evolution from the traditional role of the right to dignity is analysed in case study based on a real case before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic in 2015. The analysis brings forward a reflection about the need to respect the concept of dignity and how it actually is observed in the European context.

Criticism of the structure and application of the constitutional principle of proportionality

The proportionality principle, both in the jurisprudential practice of constitutional courts and in the literature, is considered as the basic criterion for the assessment of the state’s activities in terms of its compliance with a constitution. However, this does not change the fact that part of the doctrine for various reasons considers the test of proportionality to be an imperfect tool, thus raising critical remarks both towards the (theoretical) construction of the principle of proportionality, as well as the practice of its application being flawed.

The term “freedom” comes from the Latin language and is derived from the words liber – free, independent and libertas – freedom. In general, freedom means no coercion and the ability to act according to your own will, which also means making choices under all available options. Freedom appears both in the preamble and in many pro- visions of the Polish Constitution. Of the greatest significance is Article 31, which indicates that “Human freedom is subject to legal protection” (paragraph 1) and that “Everyone is obliged to respect the freedoms and rights of others. No one shall be compelled to do what he is not required by law” (paragraph 2). After these guarantees, the principle of proportionality – is included in paragraph 3 – indicating on the basis of which premises and criteria restrictions of freedoms and rights may be introduced. This provision implies three specific, detailed rules regarding the restriction of liberty: a) the principle of the exclusivity of the law; b) the principle of proportionality and c) the principle of preserving the essence of freedom and rights. The constitutional legislator has formulated in Art. 31 par. 3 also a closed catalog of limitation clauses that allow the restriction of freedom and human rights. These are the following premises: a) the premise regarding state security and public order; b) the premise regarding environmental protection; c) the premise regarding the protection of public health and morals and d) the premise regarding the freedoms and rights of others. The scope of freedom regulated by Art. 31 is universal because it applies to all freedoms and rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution.

The subject of the article is the analysis of the provisions of the Art. 35 (2) of the Act on Local Referendum against the background of the Art. 31 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, creating the conditions for admissibility of formulating restrictions on the use of constitutionally specified provisions the rights and freedoms of the individual. The aim of the study is to determine whether the statutory regulation under review remains compliant with the constitutional principle of proportionality regarding the citizen’s right to a court. The main thesis is that the disposition of the Art. 35 (2) of the Local Referendum Act does not infringe the individual’s rights related to the pursuit of claims related to unreliable referendum campaigns.

Comments on the (un)constitutionality of sanctions for violating the professional independence of a pharmacist by an entity running a pharmacy

The aim of the study is an attempt to assess the constitutionality of the provision of Art. 103 sec. 2 point 10 of the Pharmaceutical Law Act, amended by the Pharmacist Profession Act of 10 December 2020. This provision extends the scope of the sanction of withdrawal of a pharmacy authorization to cases of violation of the professional independence of a pharmacist by the entity running it (entrepreneur), as provided for in Art. 35 sec. 2 of the Pharmacist Profession Act. Critical analysis was also applied to the parliamentary discussions on the need to clarify the nature of the violation in question with the criterion of „persistence” in the context of the admissibility of using vague terms in the law. According to the thesis of the study, the resignation from this criterion seriously questions the compliance of Art. 103 paragraph 2 point 10 Pharmaceutical Law Act in connection with Art. 35 sec. 2 Pharmacist Profession Act with the principle of specificity of law, the principle citizens’ trust in the state and the law it enacts, as well as the principle of legal certainty and legal security, and the principle of proportionality of interference in the sphere of freedom of economic activity and property right.

Constitutional Standards and a Financial Penalty for Violation of the Obligation to Notify Prefect About the Purchase or Sale of a Vehicle

The application of administrative sanctions, especially in the financial dimension, in the context of the protection of individual rights, is particularly important in connection with the development of this type of administrative influence in the public sphere. In establishing them, compliance with the constitutional standards imposed on administrative fines, in relation to the principle of proportionality of regulations, is an issue of particular importance in view of their development. Currently, such a matter is the penalty provided for in the Road Traffic Act, which is imposed on the vehicle owner due to the breach of the obligation to notify the staroste within 30 days about the sale or purchase of the vehicle. The fulfillment of this obligation is secured by a severe financial sanction. Due to the scope of the impact of the penalty, basically covering every transaction and doubts as to the correct definition and application of provisions, noticeable, inter alia, in the jurisprudence of administrative courts, this issue should be considered important both for the theory of law and the practice of its application. The statutory solutions adopted in this respect are worth assessing in terms of their compliance, in particular with the constitutional principle of proportionality, because it is noticeable that it has been omitted in the implementation of the goal which was the basis for introducing this sanction.

Balancing Constitutional Rights and Freedoms in Judicial Application of Law

The article analyzes the issue of the cognition of courts to weigh constitutional rights and freedoms, both in relation to vertical and horizontal relations. The view is defended that the courts are obliged to apply the weighing mechanism to constitutional rights – pursuant to Art. 31 sec. 3 and Art. 31 sec. 2 sentences 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The constitutional adequacy of the final determination of the conditional priority relationship between the competing principles of law by the legislator is being examined. It is shown that the conclusiveness and correctness of establishing this relationship require weighing the principles in concreto sensu stricto, which can only take place at the stage of judicial application of the law. However, this does not mean that there is a gap in the Polish system of protection of individual rights and freedoms.

Signs of Crimes in the Light of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

The article discusses the role of constitutional principles in the process of constructing and assessing the characteristics of crimes in a democratic state ruled by law. In particular, the text discusses the essence of the features of a prohibited act and indicates the scope of criminal liability under Art. 42 section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and describes the impact of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege and the principle of proportionality on the issue of the characteristics of crimes. The conclusions drawn from this analysis may become an indication for the legislator on how to construct the elements of prohibited acts so that these regulations are consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. These features constitute the basis for the accusation and also set the limits of the activities of law enforcement agencies. Their role in protecting legal order is therefore invaluable.