Sprawiedliwość prawnomaterialna a proceduralna – kilka uwag na temat napięć między różnymi postaciami sprawiedliwości w prawie cywilnym

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (0) ◽  
pp. 111-0
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kurosz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Substantive Law

The article analyzes the concept of justice in both procedural and substantive aspects of civil law, with regards to John Rawls’ notion of “procedural justice”. The basic problem of the article is the question if each outcome of a fair procedure is just by the token of the fairness of the procedure. The author argues that such a standpoint, claiming that the procedure itself creates a just decision, will be incompatible with Article 45 paragraph 1 of the Polish Constitution. This paragraph grants the right to just adjudicature, which takes into account the whole substantive law. There are areas in law where conflicts between the procedural and the substantive justice are possible. Such an area is the adversary trial proceedings and evidentiary proceedings. The Court of Justice of the European Union emphasizes that there are such groups of legal entities (eg. consumers), for which it is necessary to regard ex officio all of facts pointing to the unjust treatment of consumer. The similar point of view was expressed by the Supreme Court of Poland. The Supreme Court of Poland allowed an evaluation of a claim which includes principles of justice, even if the defendant doesn’t take any position. This belief agrees with the standpoint of E. Waśkowski, who emphasized that the sentence should be “rightful”.

scholarly journals Hiszpania: postanowienie Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 9 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie specjalnej o numerze 20907/2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5(160) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Dziedzic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Prison Sentence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court ruled on the legal consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras – the supporter of the independence of Catalonia convicted of sedition and misappropriation of public funds. Mr O. Junqueras was elected Member of the European Parliament while he was in provisional detention, but after the trial stage of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been opened. The CJEU judgment concerned the scope of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs. The Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the CJEU interpretation, that Mr Junqueras enjoyed the immunity. However, the prison sentence passed on him deprived him of his MEP status and therefore a request to waive the immunity in this particular case was not applicable.

scholarly journals Derecho a la salud vs. derecho de defensa / Right to health vs. right of defense

2018 ◽  
pp. 164-170
Author(s):  
Nadia Virginia Copello
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Benefits ◽  
The Right

La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina revocó una sentencia que condenaba a una Obra Social al cumplimiento de prestaciones médicas. En el novedoso caso están en juego el derecho a la salud, a la cobertura médica integral de personas con discapacidad y el derecho de defensa, más precisamente, el respeto por el debido proceso, siendo esto último la base para así decidir en favor de la demandada.   The Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation revoked a sentence that condemned a Social Work to the fulfillment of medical benefits. In the new case, the right to health, the comprehensive medical coverage of people with disabilities and the right to defense are at stake, more precisely, respect for due process, the latter being the basis for deciding in favor of the defendant.

Compliance with European Environmental Law—Deficiencies and Approaches: The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sobotta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Considerations

The article discusses the contribution of the ECJ to the reduction of compliance deficiencies with regard to European environmental law. The Court is not a specialised environmental court but the supreme court of the European multilevel legal system. Therefore its contribution is primarily characterised by a concern for effective and uniform application of EU law in general while specific environmental considerations do not figure as prominently.

scholarly journals The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-172
Author(s):  
Václav Stehlík ◽  
David Sehnálek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

RECOURSE PERIOD TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT THROUGH THE PRISM OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iryna Balakarieva ◽  
◽  
Krystyna Rutvian ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Errors ◽  
The One ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of regulating the recourse period to the administrative court from the point of view of due process. Clear up the issue to what extent the consolidation and regulation of the recourse period qualifies the requirements of the legal procedure, namely: clear legislative regulation; inadmissibility of violation of the rights, freedoms and interests of the parties; clear structuredness and regulation. The scientific work investigates the essence of the term circulation term and considers the feasibility of introducing it. An attempt was also made to compare the recourse period with the limitation, arguments are given why the introduction of the terms of appeal in administrative proceedings is not identical to the limitation in civil proceedings. Different positions are considered, referring to the practice of the Supreme Court and the opinions of scientists, why, on the one hand, the limitation cannot be introduced in the administrative process from the point of view of the principle of legal certainty, and on the other hand, how the recourse period violates the right to access to justice. The main attention is paid to the role of the Supreme Court in the formation of approaches to the application of limitations. The concept of contra legem, which is inherent in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, is considered and is used in cases where there is a need to deviate from the enshrined norm at the legislative level in order to avoid literal application of the law and not make an absurd or unfair decision. The thesis is emphasized, despite the fact that the Supreme Court sometimes deviates from the formally prescribed norms, however, this is the essence of the cassation proceedings: it is an additional guarantee of the protection of subjective rights by correcting judicial errors, as well as a kind of judicial control. The specific decisions of the Supreme Court are considered, in which the approaches to the practice of applying the recourse period have been changed. On the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it was investigated how the Supreme Court by its decisions affects and changes the recourse period fixed at the legislative level, the key positions of the Supreme Court are highlighted, which today are guiding for the subjects of appeal to the administrative court.

scholarly journals Sentencias Arbitrarias: la falta de objetividad frente a la defensa de derechos fundamentales / Arbitrary Sentences: the lack of objectivity against the defense of fundamental rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 206-213
Author(s):  
Antonela Bordignon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

El presente artículo analizará el fallo dictado por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, a través del cual, hacen lugar al recurso extraordinario y deja sin efecto la sentencia impugnada por la demandada en la causa “C.T., N c/OSDE s/amparo de Salud”.  El órgano supremo de Justicia de la Nación consideró que la alzada carecía de fundamentos que dieran sustento a su decisión; así como también existía una clara omisión en la valoración de las pruebas aportadas por la parte demandada, lo que la colocaba en una situación desventajosa. Entiende la Corte que se está frente a otra de las tantas sentencias arbitrarias. ¿Incide entonces que se trate de derechos fundamentales, como es el derecho a la salud? ¿Pierden objetividad los magistrados cuando se encuentran involucrados esta clase de derechos? Se intentará dilucidar a continuación.   This article will analyze the sentence handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, through which, it leaves the sentence contested by the defendant in the case “CT, N c / OSDE s / amparo de Salud” without effect. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation considered that the elevation lacked grounds to support its decision; as well as there was a clear omission in the assessment of the evidence provided by the defendant, which placed it in a disadvantageous situation. The Court understands that it is facing another of the many arbitrary sentences. Does it imply that these are fundamental rights, such as the right to health? ¿Do magistrates lose objectivity when this kind of rights is involved? Attempts will be made to clarify below.

scholarly journals Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (20) ◽  
pp. 160-187
Author(s):  
Laura Šāberte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Court ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Objective Investigation

In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.

scholarly journals La cobertura integral de prestaciones a las personas con discapacidad / The comprehensive coverage of benefits for people with disabilities

2018 ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
Ángeles María Báez
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of First Instance

El presente trabajo versará sobre el análisis de una polémica sentencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación en la que se decide a favor de la Obra Social del Poder Judicial de la Nación, la cual había impugnado la resolución que la condenaba a prestar cobertura íntegra a una persona con discapacidad. El fundamento de la Corte: la omisión por parte del Tribunal de Primera Instancia de la aplicación de la resolución OSPJ 822/13 que establece las condiciones de cobertura de la prestación de asistencia domiciliaria de las personas con discapacidad, que es compatible con la Ley 24.901. Sin duda alguna, un caso controvertido en el que se encuentra en juego el derecho a la salud, la protección de las personas con discapacidad y el alcance de la cobertura de las obras sociales.   The present work will deal with the analysis of a controversial sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in which it is decided in favor of the Social Work of the Judicial Power of the Nation, which had challenged the resolution that condemned it to provide coverage integrates a person with a disability. The basis of the Court: the omission by the Court of First Instance of the application of the resolution OSPJ 822/13 that establishes the conditions of coverage of the provision of domiciliary assistance for persons with disabilities, which is compatible with Law 24,901. Undoubtedly, a controversial case in which the right to health is at stake, the protection of people with disabilities and the scope of coverage of social works.

scholarly journals El derecho a la salud de personas con discapacidad y su cobertura por parte del Estado / The right to health of people with disabilities and their coverage by the State

2018 ◽  
pp. 171-178
Author(s):  
María Florencia Blanco Pighi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

El derecho a la salud es reconocido por la Constitución Argentina, pero, como todo derecho, no es absoluto. La Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, mediante el fallo en análisis, establece ciertos requisitos para asegurar la cobertura por parte del Estado, de prestaciones que garanticen el acceso a este derecho para personas con discapacidad. El voto en disidencia establece que, muchas veces, apegarse a requisitos formales puede implicar cercenar el goce efectivo del derecho a la salud, que es de carácter constitucional.   The right to health is recognized by the Argentine Constitution, but, as every right, is not absolute. The Supreme Court of Justice, through the sentence to analyze, establishes certain requirements to ensure coverage by the State of benefits that guarantee access to this right for people with disabilities. The dissident vote establishes that, often, adhering to formal requirements may imply clogging the effective enjoyment of the right to health, which is constitutional in nature.

Religious Arguments in the Public Sphere: A View from Israel

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-257
Author(s):  
Gidon Sapir ◽  
Daniel Statman
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right ◽  
Religious Considerations

It is commonly believed that, from a liberal point of view, there is something problematic in government action rooted in religious considerations. We begin by showing exactly what kind of religious considerations might thought to be ruled out as a basis for such action. We then discuss at length the approach expressed by the Supreme Court of Israel, according to which legislation and other government actions based on religious considerations are problematic because they violate the right to freedom from religion of non-religious citizens. We reject the court’s interpretation of this right and conclude that the court has failed to explain why government action based on religious considerations is illegitimate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document