Is It Polexit Yet? Comment on Case K 3/21 of 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Constitutional Law Review Pub Date : 2023-01-19 DOI:10.1017/S1574019622000396
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, W. Sadurski
{"title":"Is It Polexit Yet? Comment on Case K 3/21 of 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland","authors":"Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, W. Sadurski","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The application submitted by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to the Constitutional Tribunal, in which he challenged the legality of the European Court of Justice judgments inconvenient to the current Polish government, came at a time when, after months (or even years) of wavering and hesitation, the EU finally began to enforce the Polish government’s compliance with EU law and principles. The ‘judgment’ of the Constitutional Tribunal was handed down with an uncharacteristic (for the Constitutional Tribunal these days) speed on 7 October 2021. In contrast, disclosure of full reasons for the decision has suffered unusual delay: as a matter of fact, they have not been published even as this Case Note is prepared for publication (see n. 7 below). (It is important to note that these proceedings have been invalid from the beginning, due to the incorrect composition of the judges’ panel, as explained below, in the opening paragraph of the next part of this Case Note.) Polish and other European lawyers were","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000396","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The application submitted by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to the Constitutional Tribunal, in which he challenged the legality of the European Court of Justice judgments inconvenient to the current Polish government, came at a time when, after months (or even years) of wavering and hesitation, the EU finally began to enforce the Polish government’s compliance with EU law and principles. The ‘judgment’ of the Constitutional Tribunal was handed down with an uncharacteristic (for the Constitutional Tribunal these days) speed on 7 October 2021. In contrast, disclosure of full reasons for the decision has suffered unusual delay: as a matter of fact, they have not been published even as this Case Note is prepared for publication (see n. 7 below). (It is important to note that these proceedings have been invalid from the beginning, due to the incorrect composition of the judges’ panel, as explained below, in the opening paragraph of the next part of this Case Note.) Polish and other European lawyers were
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
是Polexit吗?波兰宪法法庭对2021年10月7日K 3/21案的评论
总理马特乌什·莫拉维茨基向宪法法庭提交的申请对欧洲法院判决的合法性提出了质疑,这对现任波兰政府来说是不方便的。在经历了数月(甚至数年)的动摇和犹豫之后,欧盟终于开始强制波兰政府遵守欧盟法律和原则。宪法法庭的“判决”于2021年10月7日以不同寻常的速度(对目前的宪法法庭来说)作出。相比之下,披露该决定的全部原因却遭遇了不同寻常的拖延:事实上,即使在本案例说明准备出版之时,这些决定也没有出版(见下文第7条)。(需要注意的是,这些诉讼程序从一开始就无效,原因是法官小组的组成不正确,如下文本案例说明下一部分开头一段所述。)波兰和其他欧洲律师
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
2.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.
期刊最新文献
How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices A Doctrinal Approach to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Sweden Constitutional Courts as Guarantors of EU Charter Rights: A Rhetorical Perspective on Constitutional Change in Austria and Germany Constitutional Referrals by Ordinary Courts: A Platform for Judicial Dialogue and Another Toolkit for Judicial Resistance? Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022
×
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