O postrzeganiu i badaniu przez językoznawców wartości konstytucyjnych. Recenzja publikacji: Ewa Gorlewska, Słownictwo aksjologiczne w Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Znaczenie tekstowe a konotacje potoczne

The author of the article presents the review of the monograph written by Ewa Gorlewska. The monograph is based on research methods used in linguistics. E. Gorlewska classifies her book to the “language of values” (axiolinguistics). The author of the review simultaneously assigns it to constitutional juryslinguistics. The monograph consists of two parts. The first one contains an analysis of dictionary and textual meanings of the names of constitutional values. The second presents their colloquial understanding by young Poles. E. Gorlewska argues that the textual meanings of constitutional values differ from its colloquial understanding by twenty-year-olds and claims that there are some differences between the constitutional hierarchy of values and the hierarchy of values of young people. The author of the article finds the monograph very valuable, interesting and of significant importance for constitutional law.

Glosa do Uchwały Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 30 listopada 2020 r., sygn. akt II OPS 1/20

In the commented resolution, the Supreme Administrative Court expressed the position that the deadline specified in Article 318(1) of the Environmental Protection Law is a procedural period. The position of the Supreme Administrative Court is not accurate, because the structure of this provision, the subject matter of the relationship referred to in Article 318 of the Act, as well as the evaluation of the regulation from the systemic perspective, lead to the conclusion that the analysed period is of a substantive nature and cannot be reinstated.

Działalność ustawodawcza wolnych sejmów w czasach Rady Nieustającej (1778–1786)

The author discusses the legal framework of the legislative activity of ‘free’ (that is, not confederated) Sejms. He discusses parliamentary practice between 1778 and 1786 after a thorough analysis of the king’s legislative initiative with special emphasis on proposals submitted by the throne, and the role played by the Permanent Council in drafting laws. The author argues that numerous bills drafted by envoys had little impact on the results of Sejms because after the election and control of the executive authorities ended, there was no time to examine the drafts. Sejm decisions could be divided into two categories: a) decisions made before the separation of two chambers – concerning elections (of executive and judiciary authorities) and vote of acceptance for the Permanent Council; and b) legislative decisions made during further proceedings, with a special subcategory in the form of provisions related to the control over executive powers. The author also provides a quantitative analysis of legislative output between 1778 and 1786.

Parlamentaryzm Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego XIV–XVIII w.

This article aims to present the beginnings and development of the forms of parliamentarism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania when it was an independently functioning state and after its Union with the Crown of Poland, which gave rise to a new state in Europe called the Commonwealth. Lithuanian parliamentarism developed through a long process of evolution of representative institutions. The most important role was played by a group of magnates (the so-called lords and princes) holding the highest offices in the state and the Church, and appointed by the ruler. This group formed the Council of Lords, an advisory body to the grand dukes; during the Commonwealth ruler’s rare stays in Lithuania, the Council took over many of his prerogatives, becoming the most important legislative, executive, and judicial body of the state, except for the grand duke himself. The strong position of the Council of Lords (and in fact, a few of its most important members holding the most prominent offices) influenced for centuries the political life of Lithuania, dominated by powerful families, almost constantly playing the role of the so-called hegemons, even after they were formally equated in law with the common nobility in 1563. The Lithuanian nobility, on the other hand, was slowly gaining in the sixteenth century the right to participate in the parliamentary life of the state. In principle, however, Lithuanian nobles were deprived of the legislative and control initiative; their role was accepting and executing the ruler’s decisions agreed with the Council of Lords. Thus, they were interested in acquiring the rights of the Polish nobility, and consequently, in the Union with the Polish Crown. The establishment of the Commonwealth resulted in the incorporation of Lithuanian representatives from the senatorial group and poviat (county; Polish: powiat) nobility to the General Sejm of the Crown, in which, however, they could not play a significant role due to their small number compared to their Polish counterparts. In such a situation, it was important for the Lithuanians to maintain the principle of liberum veto, for in this way they could prevent the adoption of constitutions contrary to their interests. Throughout the whole history of the Commonwealth, the Lithuanians made efforts to ensure that their representation corresponded to the popular definition of the state of both nations (Polish and Lithuanian), and not one of its three equal provinces (Greater Poland, Little Poland, Lithuania). However, in the parliamentary system, their only success was the periodic separation of the constitutions for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from those of the whole state. Even so, Lithuania was treated as one of three provinces, which was reflected in the election of a Lithuanian deputy as Sejm marshal every third Sejm, in the composition of Sejm commissions (1/3 of seats for Lithuanians), and finally in holding of every third Sejm in Lithuania (since 1676). While preparing the Lithuanian state for the union with Poland, King Zygmunt II Augustus carried through substantial political and legal reforms in 1564–66. He introduced a new administrative division, a uniform system of parliamentary institutions (district assemblies, bicameral Sejm), and a new code of civil criminal and administrative law (the so-called Second Lithuanian Statute in 1566). This system was much clearer, simpler, and better thought-out than the one in force in the Polish Crown. Each of the poviats of a province (i.e. voivodeship, some being single-poviat ones), was to meet for deliberations in a specific place (in fact, the capital town of this poviat), gathering local senators and the land owners (Latin: possessionati), and deliberate under the direction of the ‘lord’ of a given administrative unit, i.e. a bishop or voivode in poviats, and, from 1764 on, local marshals in non-voivodeship poviats, ex officio. The law stipulated who should attend a given sejmik under pain of penalties, how long a sejmik may be in session, how many deputies could be elected (only two in each poviat for ordinary Sejms), what remuneration each of them was to receive for their function. During parliamentary debates, Lithuanian senators and deputies often debated separately at the so-called provincial sessions (similar to the nobility from Greater and Little Poland) to prepare the constitutions for their own province and, possibly, take a common position on state issues. Since in Lithuanian law, only general sejms existed, for a long time Lithuanians did not recognise convocation and coronation Sejms as such, did not always participate in them, and did not agree to include them among the alternate ones (that is, for the marshal from Lithuania to head). Until the early eighteenth century, there were cases of calling by rulers or by the citizens of the Grand Duchy themselves of the so-called Lithuanian convocations, i.e. quasi-Sejm assemblies of Lithuanian estates, for deliberations to take decisions (mainly taxes) of a comprehensive nature. This process was initiated by Stefan Batory, but Lithuanians did not welcome the convocations as contrary to the provisions of the Union. The so-called general sejmik (held first at Vawkavysk [Wołkowysk] and then Slonim), where a common position was to be agreed on matters important for the entire state and Lithuania itself, soon came to an end. Lithuanian magnates were not interested in such a gathering, and the nobility (despite the occasional attempts to revive the institution) did not have the strength or the willingness to strive for its functioning. The function of the coordinator of common positions was then taken over by the provincial sessions mentioned above. In conclusion, it should be noted that before the union with Poland (Union of Lublin) in 1569, the Lithuanians had their own tradition and solutions of the parliamentary system, clearly different from those of the Crown. Their reforms of 1564–66 prepared the state to function within the Polish parliamentarism, but the 1569 Union did not establish a new Sejm of the Commonwealth – representatives of the Grand Duchy (senators and deputies) were only incorporated into the existing Sejm of the Crown. They functioned within it, but they certainly did not play an important role, most often dominated by the much more numerous, more politically sophisticated, and feeling their political strength deputies of the Crown. For a long time, the deputies from Lithuania were more at the disposal of their magnate patrons. Enjoying temporary successes and failures, they struggled to break free from their political tutelage (especially from the hegemons of the Radziwiłł, Chodkiewicz, Sapieha, Pac, and Czartoryski families) until the collapse of the state. The functioning of the Lithuanians within the parliamentary system (sejmiks, Sejm) shared with the Poles was also one of the most important factors of their linguistic and cultural Polonisation, clearly visible in the resolutions of sejmiks (they started to be written down in Polish) already at the end of the sixteenth century.

Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów 1572–1668

In 1572–1668 the Sejm of the Commonwealth of Two Nations underwent constant evolution. The greatest changes occurred at the time of the first interregnum (1572–74) after the death of the last Jagiellonian monarch – Zygmunt Augustus (1572). This was the time of the emergence of two types of new Sejms (convocation and election ones), functioning exclusively during the interregnum. The Henrician Articles (1574) resolved that the Sejm was to debate only for six weeks, and that the monarch was compelled to convoke it at least once every two years. The extraordinary Sejm was established in 1613 – it could be convened in cases of urgent needs and it sat for two or three weeks. The Parliament was composed of three estates: the king, the Senate, and the deputies as well as two chambers. The upper chamber (Senate) consisted of senators nominated by the monarch on a lifelong basis, and the lower chamber (Chamber of Deputies) – of deputies of the noble estate elected at pre-Sejm sejmiks (Polish: sejmiki). An integral part of the Parliament was composed of the Sejm court, both appellant and trying gravest crimes. The Crown and Lithuanian Tribunal, established in 1578–81, assumed appellation competences from the Sejm court. Tribunal judges were elected every year for a year-long term of office at special sejmiks known as deputational or deputy (judicial), which constituted a forum; here deputies presented to the voters accounts of their parliamentary activity. At the turn of 1591, post-Sejm or relational (debriefing) sejmiks were convened after the closure of the Sejm debates; here deputies presented reports concerning their parliamentary activities. The growing composition of the Parliament was associated with an expansion of state territory as a result of victorious wars waged against Muscovy. New bishoprics, voivodeships, and sejmiki were established. There were 140 senators in 1572, and 150 during the 1630s. Analogously, the number of deputies grew from 166 to 180. The Sejm acted upon the basis of a consensus, and thus was obligated to take into account the stand of the minorities. In 1652, the protest of a single deputy for the first time rendered further Sejm debates impossible. From then on, the Polish-Lithuanian Parliament constantly succumbed to a degradation process.

Niezależność Narodowego Banku Polskiego a relacje z Parlamentem RP

The position of the NBP at the time of the common market and progressive Europeanisation of the economy and all areas of community life was particularly important. Currently, in the time of the global crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, encompassing both the supply and demand side of the world economy, the role of the central bank is increasing. Without its involvement, there would be no effective protective measures, aimed at mitigating the decline in GDP growth in Poland and protecting jobs. The central bank, together with the Polish Government and Parliament, is of key importance for Poland’s economic development, while the independence of the NBP is of major significance for its credibility in financial markets. That is why it is so important to try to answer the questions what the independence of the NBP is and whether constitutional and statutory regulations of the relations between the Parliament of the Republic of Poland and the central bank do not breach this independence.

Instytucja partii politycznej w Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 1997 r.

The study addresses the problem of to what extent and in what scope do the regulations concerning political parties, resulting from the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, determine the ordinary legislator? The analysis is made from the perspective of the triad of notions: freedom – duty – responsibility.

Dychotomiczny podział referendów dotyczących integracji europejskiej. Europejskie referenda bottom-up

One of the permanent instruments shaping the acquis communautaire are national referendums, which, although they have a different legal basis in each country, due to their scope, are combined into a common category of referendums on European integration (European referendums). Followed shortly by revision referendums, membership referendums were the first to appear in the integration process. The said referendums are part of the process of the top-down law Europeanisation. They do not, however, exhaust the catalogue of referendums on European integration, which also includes bottom-up Europeanisation national referendums. Because in each case of referendums it is possible to clearly indicate the type of Europeanisation (top-down, bottom-up) which they implement – it seems that this process may become the basis for the internal diversification of European referendums. The aim of the article is to propose a dichotomous division into European top-down and bottom-up referendums, and to analyse the categories of European bottom-up referendums. Six referendums organised after the TL’s entry into force were analysed. These are referendums that took place in: Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Hungary.

Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego w sprawach ze skargi nadzwyczajnej w sprawach cywilnych i karnych

The article presents the issues related to the new extraordinary appeal introduced in December 2017 in the form of an extraordinary complaint. The intention of this article is to present how the premises of this complaint are understood by the Supreme Court. The conditions for the admissibility of an extraordinary complaint are defined in an evaluative and vague manner, therefore the analysis of their perception by the Supreme Court will allow for the presentation of this special extraordinary measure, which occupies a special place in comparison with other existing extraordinary appeal measures.

Działania antykryzysowe w obszarze kultury w trakcie pandemii SARS-CoV-2. Stan obecny i wnioski de lege ferenda w zakresie zwiększenia partycypacji obywatelskiej oraz instytucjonalnej

The aim of the article is to analyse alternative legal solutions in the field of supporting cultural institutions during the epidemic. A review of the activities of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage in the area of supporting cultural institutions in Poland during the epidemic as of May 2020 was carried out. Based on the analysis, de lege ferenda conclusions regarding new possibilities of financing the activities of such institutions were identified. The authors present legal solutions concerning the transfer of 1% PIT, deduction of donations, issue of revenue bonds and financing in the form of treasury securities. The conclusions of the research conducted by the authors are embedded in the area of economic analysis of law (Law&Economics).