Pewność i jakość prawa a starorzymskie i współczesne czynniki prawotwórcze w Polsce

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-89
Author(s):  
Beata Jolanta Kowalczyk

This publication analyzes three legislative factors functioning in Roman law, i.e., the activity of a praetor – creating law through appropriate handling of processing means and sanctions, jurisprudence – whose opinions by ius publice respondendi, had the force of law in force, and the emperor – who, as the supreme judge, issued decrees which were binding interpretations of the law as well as rescripts, which were replies to individual inquiries of citizens on legal matters. The aim of this analysis is to find their modern counterparts. The content of the article includes selected forms of law-making activity of these entities, which will be juxtaposed with contemporary activities of the judiciary which creates “precedents”, interprets and subsides the law, as well as elected officials who prepared binding interpretations of the law, e.g., within the tax law and the Court of Justice of the European Union which issued rescripts and decrees equivalent to the activity undertaken by the emperor in Roman law. As a result, an attempt is made to demonstrate whether, and if so, to what extent, their activities affect the quality and reliability of the law formed currently.

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-89
Author(s):  
Anna Kęskiewicz

The use of dogmatic-legal, empirical and linguistic semantics methodology is focused on sharing for better understanding of the law. Therefore, views on European jurisprudence have been presented in the paper. Without a doubt, the law-making nature of European Union law takes into account the field of environmental protection. Articles in law define the tasks that are important from the point of view of European legislation. The written nature of these determinants of the reasoning of the possibilities of environmental protection plays an important role in the interpretation of environmental law.


2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick

It is an honour to be invited to give this year’s Mackenzie Stuart Lecture. Jack Mackenzie Stuart was a distinguished graduate of this University and of ours in Edinburgh. As a member, and subsequently the President, of the Court of Justice of the European Communities he made a great contribution to the cause of European integration through implementing the laws of the Communities, subsequently the ‘European Union’. As well as performing the ordinary tasks of judging and also latterly of presiding over the Court’s business, he was an apparently tireless publicist for that cause throughout Europe, but most particularly at home in the UK. By seeking to make the work of his Court and the law it administered less mystifying to the ordinary citizen and to the lawyerly public, he made it also less threatening.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>


Author(s):  
Viktoriya Kuzma

This article presents the current issues in the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. It is pointed out that the division of international law into branches and institutions, in order to ensure the effective legal regulation of new spheres of relations, led to the emergence of autonomous legal regimes, even within one region, namely on the European continent. To date, these include European Union law and Council of Europe law. It is emphasized the features of the established legal relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union at the present stage. It is determined that, along with close cooperation between regional organizations, there is a phenomenon of fragmentation, which is accompanied by the creation of two legal regimes within the same regional subsystem, proliferation of the international legal norms, institutions, spheres and conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is revealed that some aspects of fragmentation can be observed from the moment of establishing relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, up to the modern dynamics of the functioning of the system of law of international organizations, the law of international treaties, law of human rights. Areas and types of fragmentation in relations between international intergovernmental organizations of the European continent are distinguished. One way to overcome the consequences of fragmentation in the field of human rights is highlighted, namely through the accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Considerable attention has also been paid to defragmentation, which is partly reflected in the participation of the European Union in the Council of Europe’s conventions by the applying «disconnection clause». It is determined that the legal relations established between an international intergovernmental organization of the traditional type and the integration association sui generis, the CoE and the EU, but with the presence of phenomenon of fragmentation in a close strategic partnership, do not diminish their joint contribution into the development of the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. Key words: defragmentation; European Union; European Court of Human Rights; Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; conflict of jurisdictions; «disconnection clause»; Council of Europe; Court of Justice of the European Union; fragmentation; sui generis.


Author(s):  
Bernard Stirn

Chapter 3 shows that the confluence of the law of the European Union and of the European Convention on Human Rights is a European legal order worthy of the name. It outlines the law of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty, setting out its principles and the ways in which competences are shared in the EU post Lisbon, between the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter further sets out the outline of the system of rules of the European Union. Then the chapter turns to the characteristics of what has been termed a Europe of human rights, and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in conjunction with domestic courts, police the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the chapter brings together the law of the European Union and the ECHR.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber

The first chapter introduces the reader to the enhanced cooperation mechanism through an overview of the cornerstones of the law-making procedure, the aim and purpose of the procedure, and via a thorough differentiation between the political and the legal dimension of enhanced cooperation law-making. A clear differentiation between legal and political dimensions of enhanced cooperation law-making is particularly important for the success of differentiated law-making within the European Union. If the political intention expressed by Art 20 of the TEU were understood as a strict legal requirement, the entire mechanism of enhanced cooperation would be unstable, unclear, and ineffective.


2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick

It is an honour to be invited to give this year’s Mackenzie Stuart Lecture. Jack Mackenzie Stuart was a distinguished graduate of this University and of ours in Edinburgh. As a member, and subsequently the President, of the Court of Justice of the European Communities he made a great contribution to the cause of European integration through implementing the laws of the Communities, subsequently the ‘European Union’. As well as performing the ordinary tasks of judging and also latterly of presiding over the Court’s business, he was an apparently tireless publicist for that cause throughout Europe, but most particularly at home in the UK. By seeking to make the work of his Court and the law it administered less mystifying to the ordinary citizen and to the lawyerly public, he made it also less threatening.


Author(s):  
José Bonet Navarro

Con ocasión de las cuestiones prejudiciales formuladas ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre el control de cláusulas abusivas en el llamado «expediente de jura de cuentas», la Abogada General concluye que la regulación del procedimiento es inadecuada conforme al derecho de la Unión. Indirectamente, pone también en evidencia graves defectos en la regulación, principalmente porque se invaden funciones que corresponden exclusivamente a la jurisdicción. En la reforma procesal que seguirá en el caso de que la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, y también en la reforma que debería seguirse en caso contrario, deberá garantizarse el control de oficio y suficiente de las cláusulas abusivas por el titular de la potestad jurisdiccional.On the occasion of the preliminary rulings exercised before the Court of Justice of the European Union on examination ex officio of possible unfair terms in the expedient called «manifestation of accounts», the General Counsel concludes that the procedure is inappropriate according to the law of the Union. Indirectly, it reveals serious defects in regulation, mainly because it invades exclusive domains of the jurisdiction. In the procedural reform that will continue in the event that the Sentence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and also in the reform that should be followed otherwise, the ex officio control of the abusive clauses by the judge must be guaranteed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-352
Author(s):  
Balingene Kahombo

Abstract This paper reviews the relevance of the Western Sahara cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union to international law. These cases relate to the contestations of the consistency of a number of economic agreements concluded between the European Union (EU) and the Kingdom of Morocco, as well as the EU acts that approved them, with the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The issues arising from these disputes include the legality of the Court’s jurisdiction to review the validity of a treaty which is already in force between parties and the rules of international law that the contested legal instruments have violated, perhaps entailing their invalidity under EU law. While the Court has rightly found that none of the aforementioned agreements is applicable to Western Sahara—since their territorial scope does not extend to a territory which is not subject to Moroccan sovereignty——this paper tries to answer a different question as to whether the Court’s decisions are in line with international law. It is demonstrated that though the Court’s competence to rule on the validity of EU unilateral acts is obvious, the establishment of its power to review the validity of a treaty which is in force, such as the fisheries agreement of 2006, is dubious because of the inconsistency of such power with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In any event, the question which remains to be solved—and which was not submitted to the Court—pertains to the determination of the effects of the illegal application of the EU-Morocco agreements to Western Sahara on the rights of its people. It is concluded that such an application has violated the law of occupation and eventually international human rights law. These violations do not touch upon the validity of the contested legal instruments but relate to the question of responsibility for a wrongful act stemming from the illegal application of those agreements to occupied Western Sahara in a manner which is harmful to the interest of its people.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed Odermatt

On December 21, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed an action brought by the Front Polisario challenging a decision of the Council of the European Union (EU) approving the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom Morocco on the reciprocal liberalization of certain agricultural products. The CJEU held, based on the relevant rules of international law applicable between the EU and Morocco, that the agreement did not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. Apart from its obvious political overtones, the judgment is significant in further developing the CJEU's approach to the law of treaties and the principle of self-determination in international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document