Conclusiveness of the constitutional argumentation as a criterion of the evaluation of creative interpretation

• Autorzy: Tomasz Grzybowski

Warianty tytułu

PL

Konkluzywność argumentacji konstytucyjnej jako kryterium oceny prawotwórstwa interpretacyjnego

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

PL

The article presents briefly the discussion about problem of the so-called creative (law-making) interpretation of the Constitution. Author indicates that previous concepts of the creative interpretation offered by the Polish legal doctrine did not deliver a noncontroversial criteria, which could mark difference between declaratory and creative constitutional argumentation. This problem is also connected with the political question about judicial activism and the limits (legitimacy) of the third power, ergo the questions that are currently arising during the ongoing constitutional crisis in Poland. For that reason the alternative solution is proposed, namely to perceive the stable interpretative practice (for instance a line of precedents, or settled case law, etc.) as the cutoff point for the declaratory/creative interpretation. From this point of view every unjustified (revolutionary instead of the evolutionary) change of settled interpretation of the Constitution should be evaluated as invalid. Nevertheless, presented conception is not fully elaborated and have some weak points, i.e. matters which need to be developed to make it applicable in the interpretation practice. Especially there is lack of the analogous (precedential) doctrine in the Polish legal culture, which excludes possibility to precisely indicate the state of stable interpretation practice from one side, and proper correction of the previous case law on the other.

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Krakowski Instytut Prawa Karnego Fundacja
• Czasopismo: Constitutional Review
• Rocznik: 2018
• Numer: 3

Daty

wydano

2019-03-16

online

2019-03-16

Twórcy

autor

Tomasz Grzybowski