PL EN RU
Problems of interpretation of law in accordance with the Constitution – Polish construction in historical and comparative aspects
 
Подробнее
Скрыть детали
1
Faculty of Law and Administration Lazarski University, Poland
 
 
Дата публикации: 2019-12-17
 
 
Studia Politologiczne 2019;52
 
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА:
СТАТЬЯ:
In the light of art. 188 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland The Constitutional Court adjudicates on the compliance of laws and other normative acts with the Constitution. The interpretation of law in accordance with the Constitution has been a key issue since the beginning of the jurisprudential activity of Polish Constitutional Court. It is stressed on the ground of the American doctrine that the problem of interpreting law in line with the constitution raises the need to compare the content of a controlled act with its constitutive pattern. This type of interpretation was defined as an interpretation in harmony with the Constitution. In American constitutionalism two concepts of constitutional interpretation can be distinguish: Living Constitution and Originalism. Nowadays, one can see the emergence of the third way of interpreting the constitution which allows to eliminate the shortcomings of the two mentioned above. This concept, referred to as Non Originalism (or Living Originalism). The model of judicial review was adopted in the USA whereas the model of the constitutional court was introduced in Europe. Austria is widely regarded as the cradle of constitutional judiciary. Hans Kelsen designed a system of constitutional review. He provided the Constitutional Court with the power to scrutinize abstractly the legality of legal acts in terms of their compliance with the Constitution. It was not until the 1960s that the so-called interpretation of laws in accordance with the Constitution appeared in the case-law of this body. The cataclysm of fascism and Nazism ruined constitutional theories based on the primacy of the constitutional law. As the founders of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany of May 23, 1949 were conscious of that, they adopted the solutions of the Austrian model whose essence was the examination of the conformity of legal acts with the constitution. The discussion on the correct methods of interpreting the constitution is the “Archimedes point” of constitutional law. The activity of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the achievements of the constitutional law in this country had the greatest influence on Polish judicial practice. The Polish name of this institution is a translation of the German term fervassungskonforme Auslegung von Gesetzen.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Article has been screened for originality
ЛИТЕРАТУРА (29)
1.
J. M. Balkin, Living Originalism, Cambridge–London 2011.
 
2.
B. Banaszak, M. Bednarczyk, Aktywizm sędziowski we współczesnym państwie demokratycznym, Warsaw 2012.
 
3.
A. Bator, A. Kozak, Wykładnia prawa w zgodzie z konstytucją, [in:] S. Wronkowska (ed.), Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej, Cracow 2005.
 
4.
Z. Czeszejko-Sochacki, Sądownictwo konstytucyjne w Polsce na tle porównawczym, Warsaw 2003.
 
5.
A. Dziadzio, Monarchia konstytucyjna w Austrii 1867-1914. Władza – obywatel – prawo, Cracow 2001.
 
6.
A. Dziadzio, Ochrona konstytucyjności prawa w Europie XIX wieku, «Studia z Dziejów Państwa Polskiego» 2008, item. 11.
 
7.
K. Grzybowski, Galicja 1848–1914. Historia ustroju politycznego na tle historii ustroju Austrii, Cracow–Wrocław–Warsaw 1959.
 
8.
M. Hermann S. Sykuna (eds.), Wykładnia prawa. Tradycja i perspektywy, Warsaw 2016.
 
9.
J. T. Hutchens, A New Textualism: Why Textualists Should Not Be Originalists, «Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy» 2006–2007, vol. 16, no. 2.
 
10.
L. D. Jellum, The Theories of Statutory Construction and Legislative Process in American Jurisprudence, [in:] M. Araszkiewicz, K. Płeszka (eds.), Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking, Heidelberg–New York–Dordrecht–London 2015.
 
11.
G. Kellermann, Verfassungsinterpretation. Das Grundgesetz als normative Ressource im gesellschaftlichen Wandel, Schwalbach 2011.
 
12.
H. Kelsen, Istota i rozwój sądownictwa konstytucyjnego, Warsaw 2009.
 
13.
M. Labijak, Rozwiązania prawno-ustrojowe Republiki Weimarskiej w perspektywie historycznej i porównawczej, «Studia Iuridica Toruniensia» 2014, vol. 14.
 
14.
P. Laidler, Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki: od prawa do polityki, Cracow 2011.
 
15.
T. Maunz, G. Dürig et al., Grundgesetz Kommentar, München 1958.
 
16.
L. Morawski, Wykładnia w orzecznictwie sądów. Komentarz, Toruń 2002.
 
17.
G. Roellecke, Das Paradox der Verfassungsauslegung, Paderborn–München–Wien–Zürich 2012.
 
18.
B. L. Ross, Against Constitutional Mainstreaming, «University of Chicago Legal Review» 2011, vol. 78.
 
19.
F.C. v Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, vol. 1, Berlin 1840.
 
20.
A. Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton 1997.
 
21.
A. Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, «University of Cincinnati Law Review» 1988–1989, vol. 57.
 
22.
A. Scalia, B. A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text, St. Paul 2012.
 
23.
Schäffer H., Verfassungsgericht und Gesetzgebung, [in:] H. Schäffer, W. Berka, H. Stolzlechner, J. Werndl (eds.), Staat – Verfassung – Verwaltung. Festschrift anlässlich des 65. Geburtstages von Prof. D.Dr. D.Dr. H. c. Friedrich Koja, Wien–New York 1998.
 
24.
M. Smolak (ed.), Wykładnia Konstytucji. Aktualne problemy i tendencje, Warsaw 2016.
 
25.
T. Stawecki, Operatywna wykładnia konstytucji w świetle badań empirycznych, [in:] L. Leszczyński, A. Szot (eds.), Wykładnia operatywna prawa – perspektywa teoretyczna i dogmatyczna, Toruń 2017.
 
26.
T. Stawecki, J. Winczorek (eds.), Wykładnia Konstytucji. Inspiracje, teorie, argumenty, Warsaw 2014.
 
27.
P. Tuleja, Stosowanie Konstytucji RP w świetle zasady jej nadrzędności (wybrane problemy), Cracow 2003.
 
28.
R. Wahl, Verfassungsänderung – Verfassungswandel – Verfassungsinterpretation, [in:] Verfassungsänderung, Verfassungswandel, Verfassungsinterpretation: Vorträge bei deutsch – japanischen Sympozien in Tokyo 2004 und Freiburg 2005, Berlin 2008.
 
29.
E. A. Young, Constitutional Avoidance, Resistance Norms and the Preservation of Judicial Review, «Texas Legal Review» 2000, vol. 78.
 
ISSN:1640-8888
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top