Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Die Auseinandersetzung um den Verfassungsgerichtshof in Polen (2015-2016)

Andrzej Dziadzio

doi:10.5771/0030-6444-2018-1-21

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–2
- 3–4 EDITORIAL 3–4
- 5–104 AUFSÄTZE 5–104
  - 5–20 Der Streit um den Verfassungsgerichtshof in Polen 2015-2016 Piotr Czarny Piotr Czarny 5–20
  - 21–38 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Die Auseinandersetzung um den Verfassungsgerichtshof in Polen (2015-2016) Andrzej Dziadzio Andrzej Dziadzio 21–38
  - 39–49 Die Verfassung als Maßstab, die Nichtbeachtung des VerfGHG – das Urteil des polnischen Verfassungsgerichtshofs vom 9. März 2016 Szymon Pawłowski Szymon Pawłowski 39–49
  - 50–64 Medienfreiheit in Polen Tina de Vries Tina de Vries 50–64
  - 65–89 Leistungsverwaltung in Russland – das System der staatlichen und kommunalen Dienstleistungserbringung Julian-Ivan Beriger Julian-Ivan Beriger 65–89
  - 90–104 Mediation als Appropriate Dispute Resolution im tschechischen und slowakischen Rechtssystem Michal Malacka Michal Malacka 90–104
- 105–106 AUS DER FORSCHUNG 105–106
  - Bogusław Banaszak – ein Nachruf Rainer Arnold Rainer Arnold
- 107–123 AUS DEM SCHRIFTTUM 107–123
- 124–130 AUS JUSTIZ UND RECHTSPRECHUNG IN OSTEUROPA 124–130
- 131–135 AUS DER RECHTSPRECHUNG DES EGMR 131–135
- 136–138 ABSTRACTS 136–138
- 139–140 AUTOREN 139–140
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
Access

OER Osteuropa Recht , page 21 - 38

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Die Auseinandersetzung um den Verfassungsgerichtshof in Polen (2015-2016)

Autoren

Andrzej Dziadzio

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/0030-6444-2018-1-21
- ISSN: 0030-6444
- ISSN online: 2366-6730
Zusammenfassung

The aim of the article is to present a historical, political, and legal perspective on the constitutional dispute between the parliamentary majority formed after the 2015 election and the Constitutional Tribunal. The article discusses the origin and course of the conflict over the appointment of new judges to the Tribunal, with an emphasis on the legal aspect. In the public discourse, the legal side of the Constitutional crisis of 2015-2016 has been pushed to the background as a part of the opposition’s effort to delegitimize the new government. The article presents a view that the position of the Constitutional Tribunal in the political conflict was not neutral. The legal analysis presents the controversial decisions of the Tribunal and actions of its president that supported the political narration imposed by the opposition.

Abstract

The aim of the article is to present a historical, political, and legal perspective on the constitutional dispute between the parliamentary majority formed after the 2015 election and the Constitutional Tribunal. The article discusses the origin and course of the conflict over the appointment of new judges to the Tribunal, with an emphasis on the legal aspect. In the public discourse, the legal side of the Constitutional crisis of 2015-2016 has been pushed to the background as a part of the opposition’s effort to delegitimize the new government. The article presents a view that the position of the Constitutional Tribunal in the political conflict was not neutral. The legal analysis presents the controversial decisions of the Tribunal and actions of its president that supported the political narration imposed by the opposition.
Share