Constitutional Reviews of Incomplete Regulations in Poland

IF 0.6 Q2 Social Sciences Utrecht Law Review Pub Date : 2019-05-10 DOI:10.18352/ULR.498
P. Radziewicz
{"title":"Constitutional Reviews of Incomplete Regulations in Poland","authors":"P. Radziewicz","doi":"10.18352/ULR.498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Polish legal order distinguishes between two types of incomplete regulations: legislative omissions and oversights. Omissions take place when a regulation (required because of the need for the application of the Constitution or for the performance of specific constitutional obligations) is missing in the system of law. Legislative oversights occur when a normative act is in force but, from the constitutional point of view, it is formulated fragmentarily. The former are not subject to Constitutional Tribunal (CT) control, whereas the latter are embraced by its competence. The existence of incomplete regulations is one of the most important yet still unresolved problems faced by the CT. Therefore, it constitutes a permanent source of discrepancies in CT judgments. The article posits that all incomplete regulations – both omissions and oversights – should be controlled by the CT. However, for the CT to do so, the Constitution should be amended, a special control procedure should be established and a new type of judgment should be introduced, which would consist of finding a statute unconstitutional without derogating it from the system of law. The expansion of the CT’s competence corresponds with the function and axiology of the operation of a contemporary constitutional court that should effectively and completely eliminate all violations of the Constitution arising from inactivity by the legislator.","PeriodicalId":44535,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Polish legal order distinguishes between two types of incomplete regulations: legislative omissions and oversights. Omissions take place when a regulation (required because of the need for the application of the Constitution or for the performance of specific constitutional obligations) is missing in the system of law. Legislative oversights occur when a normative act is in force but, from the constitutional point of view, it is formulated fragmentarily. The former are not subject to Constitutional Tribunal (CT) control, whereas the latter are embraced by its competence. The existence of incomplete regulations is one of the most important yet still unresolved problems faced by the CT. Therefore, it constitutes a permanent source of discrepancies in CT judgments. The article posits that all incomplete regulations – both omissions and oversights – should be controlled by the CT. However, for the CT to do so, the Constitution should be amended, a special control procedure should be established and a new type of judgment should be introduced, which would consist of finding a statute unconstitutional without derogating it from the system of law. The expansion of the CT’s competence corresponds with the function and axiology of the operation of a contemporary constitutional court that should effectively and completely eliminate all violations of the Constitution arising from inactivity by the legislator.
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
波兰不完整法规的宪法审查
波兰法律秩序区分了两类不完整的法规:立法疏漏和疏忽。当法律体系中缺少一项法规(由于适用宪法或履行特定宪法义务的需要而需要)时,就会出现遗漏。当一项规范性法案生效,但从宪法的角度来看,它是零散制定的时,就会出现立法疏忽。前者不受宪法法庭的控制,而后者则受其管辖。不完整法规的存在是CT面临的最重要但仍未解决的问题之一。因此,它构成了CT判断差异的永久来源。该条款认为,所有不完整的法规——包括遗漏和疏忽——都应由CT控制。然而,CT要做到这一点,就应该修改宪法,建立一个特别的控制程序,并引入一种新型的判决,即在不减损法律体系的情况下认定法规违宪。CT职权范围的扩大符合当代宪法法院运作的职能和价值观,该法院应有效彻底消除立法者不作为导致的所有违反宪法的行为。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Field Experiments Examining Trust in Law: Interviewer Effects on Participants with Lower Educational Backgrounds Legitimacy as Expressed versus Legitimacy as Experienced: Methodologies to Assess an Elusive Concept Towards Evidence-Based Legitimacy Interventions in EU Law: Challenges and Directions for Empirical Research Digitalisation of Enforcement Proceedings (Re)defining Conflicts: Democratic Legitimacy in Socially Sensitive Court Cases
×
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