The Vanishing Constitution

M. Wyrzykowski
{"title":"The Vanishing Constitution","authors":"M. Wyrzykowski","doi":"10.1017/9781780688008.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Poland, the constitutional crisis continues. The crisis was initiated in autumn 2015 by the combination of three elements: resolutions of the Parliament infringing the law, the President of the Republic and the President of the Council of Ministers. The constitutional crisis concerned the election by the Parliament of three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal to replace the judges already duly elected, the President‘s refusal to swear in the original three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and the refusal of the Prime Minister to publish the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. The Acts passed in 2015 and 2016 regulate the Constitutional Tribunal in a way that is to be considered as violating the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal lost its role as the guardian of the Constitution. Further, the Parliament, in violation of the Constitution, made changes in the organisation and structure of the Supreme Court, inter alia , forcing more than 30 % of the judicial membership into early retirement or interrupting the constitutionally-guaranteed six – year term of office of the First President of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the new regulation regarding the National Council of the Judiciary has encroached on the term of office of the Council‘s judicial members. Moreover, this reform set in motion a process of politicisation of the Council because its new judicial membership was appointed by the Parliament and not – as formerly required – by the assemblies of judges of particular judicial orders. These, as well as many other regulations, indicate a process of a ‘ hostile takeover ‘ of the constitutional order by changing the constitutional order through ordinary legislation: the parliamentary majority does not have the qualified majority required to formally change the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The regulations discussed above violate the basic tenets of the rule of law and have become the subject of an unequivocally negative reaction of international organisations and authorities (the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE), and the United Nations (UN)) as well as associations representing general and constitutional courts. THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS It is somewhat puzzling that there should be a phenomenon of a social movement protecting the constitutional order after the Constitution of the Republic of Poland has been in force for 20 years.","PeriodicalId":373856,"journal":{"name":"European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780688008.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Poland, the constitutional crisis continues. The crisis was initiated in autumn 2015 by the combination of three elements: resolutions of the Parliament infringing the law, the President of the Republic and the President of the Council of Ministers. The constitutional crisis concerned the election by the Parliament of three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal to replace the judges already duly elected, the President‘s refusal to swear in the original three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and the refusal of the Prime Minister to publish the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. The Acts passed in 2015 and 2016 regulate the Constitutional Tribunal in a way that is to be considered as violating the Constitution. The Constitutional Tribunal lost its role as the guardian of the Constitution. Further, the Parliament, in violation of the Constitution, made changes in the organisation and structure of the Supreme Court, inter alia , forcing more than 30 % of the judicial membership into early retirement or interrupting the constitutionally-guaranteed six – year term of office of the First President of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the new regulation regarding the National Council of the Judiciary has encroached on the term of office of the Council‘s judicial members. Moreover, this reform set in motion a process of politicisation of the Council because its new judicial membership was appointed by the Parliament and not – as formerly required – by the assemblies of judges of particular judicial orders. These, as well as many other regulations, indicate a process of a ‘ hostile takeover ‘ of the constitutional order by changing the constitutional order through ordinary legislation: the parliamentary majority does not have the qualified majority required to formally change the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The regulations discussed above violate the basic tenets of the rule of law and have become the subject of an unequivocally negative reaction of international organisations and authorities (the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE), and the United Nations (UN)) as well as associations representing general and constitutional courts. THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS It is somewhat puzzling that there should be a phenomenon of a social movement protecting the constitutional order after the Constitution of the Republic of Poland has been in force for 20 years.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正在消失的宪法
在波兰,宪法危机仍在继续。这场危机始于2015年秋季,由三个因素共同引发:议会违反法律的决议、共和国总统和部长会议主席。宪法危机涉及议会选举宪法法庭的三名法官,以取代已经正式选出的法官,总统拒绝让宪法法庭原来的三名法官宣誓就职,总理拒绝公布宪法法庭的判决。2015年和2016年通过的《宪法法》对宪法裁判所的规定将被视为违反宪法。宪法法庭失去了宪法守护者的作用。此外,议会违反《宪法》,对最高法院的组织和结构进行了改革,除其他外,迫使30%以上的司法成员提前退休,或中断宪法保障的最高法院第一任院长的六年任期。此外,关于国家司法委员会的新条例已经侵犯了该委员会司法成员的任期。此外,这一改革启动了司法委员会政治化的进程,因为其新的司法成员是由议会任命的,而不是像以前所要求的那样由特定司法命令的法官大会任命。这些条例以及许多其他条例表明,通过普通立法改变宪法秩序,“恶意接管”宪法秩序的过程:议会多数不具备正式修改波兰共和国宪法所需的特定多数。上述讨论的条例违反了法治的基本原则,并已成为国际组织和当局(欧盟(EU)、欧洲委员会(CoE)和联合国(UN))以及代表普通法院和宪法法院的协会明确作出负面反应的主题。宪法危机的背景在《波兰共和国宪法》生效20年之后,竟然出现了一场维护宪法秩序的社会运动,这有点令人费解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief at Their Fifth Anniversary: Implementation Lagging Behind? Human Rights Council in Troubled Waters: The EU as a Stabilising Factor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott and Nicholas Hatzis (eds.): Research Handbook on EU Law and Human Rights Rising Populism and its Impact on Women's Rights: Selected Cases from the OSCE Region A Decade of Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights: Exploring Patterns of Repetitive Violations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1