<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The judicial decision of the Constitutional Tribunal from 3rd December 2015 (K/34/15) is the subject of the analysis. In this case the Tribunal considered the matter of the constitutional character of the act on the Constitutional Tribunal from June 2015.The authors focused on the question of justification of the Tribunal opinion regarding the regulations which were the basis for the appointment of five judges of the Constitutional Tribunal by the Sejm of VII term.While discussing the justification of the Tribunal the authors emphasize that the Tribunal justified its opinion, according to which it acknowledged the constitutional basis for the appointment of three individuals and questioned the constitutional character of the same regulations in case of two others, in an entirely superficial manner.The authors present as a significant element of their reasoning the circumstances of adopting by the American Supreme Court in 1803 the adjudication in the Marbury v. Madison case in order to emphasize in this context the weight of rational and thorough argumentation of the grave constitutional matters. Taking the above into account, it is even more clearly visible that in the discussed judicial decision the Constitutional Tribunal limited its reaction to the laconic set of arguments regarding this key matter.</abstract>

The judicial decision of the Constitutional Tribunal from 3rd December 2015 (K/34/15) is the subject of the analysis. In this case the Tribunal considered the matter of the constitutional character of the act on the Constitutional Tribunal from June 2015.The authors focused on the question of justification of the Tribunal opinion regarding the regulations which were the basis for the appointment of five judges of the Constitutional Tribunal by the Sejm of VII term.While discussing the justification of the Tribunal the authors emphasize that the Tribunal justified its opinion, according to which it acknowledged the constitutional basis for the appointment of three individuals and questioned the constitutional character of the same regulations in case of two others, in an entirely superficial manner.The authors present as a significant element of their reasoning the circumstances of adopting by the American Supreme Court in 1803 the adjudication in the Marbury v. Madison case in order to emphasize in this context the weight of rational and thorough argumentation of the grave constitutional matters. Taking the above into account, it is even more clearly visible that in the discussed judicial decision the Constitutional Tribunal limited its reaction to the laconic set of arguments regarding this key matter.

Constitutional Tribunal in an Argument with the President, Government and Parliament of the Polish Republic in 2015

Law and Administration in Post-Soviet Europe

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

The judicial decision of the Constitutional Tribunal from 3rd December 2015 (K/34/15) is the subject of the analysis. In this case the Tribunal considered the...

Constitutional Tribunal in an Argument with the President, Government and Parliament of the Polish Republic in 2015

Publié en ligne: 26 déc. 2019

Pages: 46 - 58

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/lape-2019-0005

Mots clés
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, the President of Polish Republic, Sejm, the President’s prerogative, the Supreme Court of the United States, v.

© 2019 Grzegorz Górski et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Constitutional Tribunal in an Argument with the President, Government and Parliament of the Polish Republic in 2015

Publié en ligne: 26 déc. 2019

Pages: 46 - 58

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/lape-2019-0005

Mots clésConstitutional Tribunal of Poland, the President of Polish Republic, Sejm, the President’s prerogative, the Supreme Court of the United States, v.

© 2019 Grzegorz Górski et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Mots clés
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, the President of Polish Republic, Sejm, the President’s prerogative, the Supreme Court of the United States, v.