Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Piotr Krzysztof Marszałek, Najwyższe władze wojskowe w systemie ustrojowym II Rzeczypospolitej, 2011

100%

Malec D.

Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne

|

2013

|

tom 65

|

nr 2

466-471

2

Profesorowie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego i tworzenie prawa II Rzeczpospolitej Wybrane zagadnienia i postaci

100%

Malec D.

Z Dziejów Prawa

|

2019

|

tom 12

371-384

EN

The centenary of Poland’s regaining independence is conducive to reflections on the achievements of the last 100 years, including the legal achievements of the interwar period. The Codification Commission, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2019, played an important role in the creation of the law of the Second Republic of Poland. Professors at the Jagiellonian University, including F.K. Fierich, the first President of the Commission in 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W.L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzy- muski, took an active part in its work. The work of the commission on the Polish nature conser- vation law of 1934 was inspired by professor at Jagiellonian University, W. Szafer. The influence of Cracow scholars on the shape of law was also exercised through participation in the works on the Constitution of 17 March 1921, participation in debates and discussions on the shape of vari- ous legal solutions in the field of, among others, the system of academic schools and the training of lawyers, shaping borders, creating acts of executive authorities by virtue of their functions as prime minister and ministers (among others, A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estreicher, K.W. Ku- maniecki, S. Kutrzeba, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).

DE

Das hundertjährige Jubiläum der Erlangung der Unabhängigkeit durch Po- len ist ein Anlass, über das Schaffen der letzten hundert Jahre, einschließlich des juristischen Schaffens der Zwischenkriegszeit, nachzudenken. Die Kodifizierungskommission, die im Jahre 2019 ihr 100-jähriges Bestehen feiert, spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Schaffung des Rechts der Zweiten Polnischen Republik. Professoren der Jagiellonen-Universität beteiligten sich aktiv an ihrer Arbeit, darunter F.K. Fierich, der erste Präsident der Kommission 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W.L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzy- muski. Die Arbeiten der Kommission an dem polnischen Naturschutzrecht von 1934 wurden vom Professor der Jagiellonen-Universität W. Szafer inspiriert. Der Einfluss der Krakauer Gelehrten auf die Rechtsform erfolgte auch durch die Teilnahme an den Arbeiten an der Verfassung vom 17. März 1921, durch die Teilnahme an Debatten und Diskussionen über die Form verschiedener rechtlicher Lösungen, u.a. im Bereich der Struktur der akademischen Schulen und Juristenaus- bildung, Gestaltung der Grenzen, Schaffung von Akten der Organen der Exekutive, was sich aus der Funktion des Premierministers und Ministers ergab (u.a. A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estrei- cher, K.W. Kumaniecki, S. Kutaże, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).

PL

Stulecie odzyskania niepodległości przez Polskę sprzyja refleksjom na temat dorobku ostatnich 100 lat, w tym dorobku prawnego okresu dwudziestolecia międzywojennego. Istotną rolę w tworzeniu prawa Drugiej Rzeczpospolitej odegrała Komisja Kodyfikacyjna, obchodząca w 2019 r. setną rocznicę utworzenia. W jej pracach brali aktywny udział profesorowie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, m.in. F. K. Fierich, pierwszy Prezydent Komisji w latach 1919-1928; F. Zoll, S. Gołąb, T. Dziurzyński, W. L. Jaworski, S. Wróblewski, M. Rostworowski, A. Górski, E. Krzymuski. Prace komisji nad polskim prawem ochrony przyrody z 1934 r. zainspirował profesor UJ W. Szafer. Wpływ krakowskich uczonych na kształt prawa odbywał się także poprzez udział w pracach nad Konstytucją z 17 marca 1921 r., udział w debatach i dyskusjach nad kształtem różnych rozwiązań prawnych w zakresie m.in. ustroju szkół akademickich i kształcenia prawników, kształtowania granic, tworzenia aktów organów władzy wykonawczej z racji pełnienia funkcji premiera oraz ministerialnych (m.in. A. Benis, M. Bobrzyński, S. Estreicher, K. W. Kumaniecki, S. Kutrzeba, J. Nowak, W. Wróblewski).

3

Uwagi nad książką: Marek Krzymkowski, Rada Stanu Księstwa Warszawskiego, wyd. Ars boni et aequi, Poznań 2011, s. 299

100%

Malec D.

|

PL

Remarks on the book: Marek Krzymkowski Rada Stanu Księstwa Warszawskiego, Ars boni et aequi, Poznań 2011, s. 299 The State Council of the Duchy of Warsaw has been the subject of numerous analyses by various authors, including W. Sobocinski, H. Izdebski, and W. Witkowski, whose publications became part of the achievement of Polish scholarship. Given the current state of research, the task of providing a comprehensive description of the institution and devoting a whole monograph to it was very difficult. Undoubtedly, the author of the book has managed to gather together and order the scattered information, which enables the reader to fully comprehend the nature and importance of the tasks set before the institution in question, but the book does not contain many new findings. It was based on a very thorough bibliographical research, and the author confirmed his position of an expert on the history and administration of the Duchy of Warsaw. It will certainly find many readers interested in the history of the Duchy of Warsaw, and the law and administration on the Polish lands in the nineteenth century. Also worth noting is the systematic presentation of the history of state councils in Napoleonic Europe which points out both similarities and differences in their organization, competences and functioning.

4

Międzynarodowa konferencja naukowa dla uczczenia jubileuszu ABGB w Pradze

100%

Malec D.

Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne

|

2012

|

tom 64

|

nr 1

316-317

PL

Międzynarodowa konferencja naukowa dla uczczenia jubileuszu ABGB w Pradze

5

The First Amendment to the President’s Ordinance of 6 Feb. 1928. The Statute on the Structure of Common Courts of Law as a Subject of the Sejm Debate in 1928. Selected Problems

100%

Malec D.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

|

2016

|

tom 25

|

nr 3

EN

The first all-Poland Statute on the Structure of the Common Courts of Law was initially being elaborated in the Second Republic’s Codification Commission but eventually it assumed a final form of Ordinance issued by the Republic’s President on 6 Feb. 1928. The Ordinance was equipped with the force of law. When compared with the provisions of the March Constitution of 1921, the regulations of the Ordinance diminished in particular the scope of the principle of irremovability of judges from their office. This gave rise to the dissatisfaction of the milieu of lawyers, and particularly the judges. The works on the amendment to the Ordinance were started prior to the Ordinance coming into force, and namely they started when there were filed with the Sejm the amendment projects drafted by the clubs of deputes, and specifically inter alia by the Parliamentary Association of Polish Socialists, by the National Club, by the Polish Peasant Party “Liberation” and the Party of Peasants. Also the Ministry of Justice emphasized the need for amending the Ordinance. In view of the fact that the calendar of Sejm debates did not foster the work of the Juristical Commission (the Sejm session being adjourned in June 1928), the National Club decided, in November 1928, to file the Bill on the postponing (by one year) the coming into force of the enactment of common courts of law structure. In the Sejm, the Bill was subjected to the debate during three sessions and eventually the lower house passed the law on the postponing (until 30 January 1930) the coming into force of the new provisions. However, this enactment failed to come under consideration of the Republic’s Senate. As a result, despite the alleged victory of the Sejm in its struggle with the executive power, the Ministry of Justice implemented its own image of the new organization of the administration of justice and, while exploiting the temporary suspension of the principle of irremovability of judges, got rid of those of them whose views did not comply with the political line promoted by the Sanation (Sanacja) Camp. Among those who were dismissed there was the First President of the Supreme Court W. Seyda and other Supreme Court judge A. Mogilnicki, known for his critical attitude toward the new provisions. The dismissal of W. Seyda caused a considerable critical reaction of the public and even induced the National Democratic Party members to try to pass the vote-of no confidence vis-à-vis Minister of Justice S. Car who was responsible for the introduction of the 6 Feb. 1928 Ordinance and for making staff changes in the judicature. In February 1929, the question of amendment was again subjected to the debate of the parliament which finally adopted, on 4 March 1929, the Statute that liberalized a series of contested principles. Yet despite this, the hopes for further changes in the system of administration of justice were shattered by next alterations that were introduced, and particularly those of August 1932, which laid out the tendency to further interfering by the Ministry with the independence of judiciary. It was, inter alia, W. Makowski who, during the December debate on the administration of justice, expressed his criticism to the principle of the separation of powers and the concept of preserving balance between them. These last ideas were reflected in the ever more energetic works that tended toward the drafting of a new Constitution. When the latter was in fact adopted, it rejected the principle of separation and the balancing of powers.

PL

Pierwsze w II Rzeczypospolitej ogólnopolskie prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, choć było przedmiotem prac prowadzonych w Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej II Rzeczypospolitej, to przybrało ostateczną postać rozporządzenia Prezydenta RP z mocą ustawy z dnia 6 lutego 1928 r. Jego treść, a w szczególności zmniejszenie w porównaniu z Konstytucją marcową z 1921 r. zakresu nieusuwalności sędziowskiej, od razu wzbudziła niezadowolenie środowiska prawników, w tym zwłaszcza sędziów. Prace nad nowelizacją rozporządzenia rozpoczęły się jeszcze przed jego wejściem w życie, gdy do Sejmu II kadencji trafiły projekty klubów poselskich, miedzy innymi Związku Parlamentarnego Polskich Socjalistów, Klubu Narodowego, PSL „Wyzwolenie” i Stronnictwa Chłopskiego. Na potrzebę korekty przepisów zwracało uwagę także Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości. Wobec niesprzyjającego dla sejmowej Komisji Prawniczej kalendarza obrad (przerwanie sesji sejmowej w czerwcu 1928 r.) w listopadzie 1928 r. zdecydowano o zgłoszeniu (Klub Narodowy) projektu ustawy o odroczeniu o jeden rok wejścia w życie prawa o ustroju sądów powszechnych. Debacie nad tym projektem Sejm poświęcił trzy posiedzenia, by ostatecznie 18 grudnia 1928 r. uchwalić ustawę odraczającą wejście w życie nowych przepisów do 1 stycznia 1930 r. Ustawą nie zdążył jednak zająć się Senat RP. W rezultacie, mimo pozornego zwycięstwa Sejmu w toczonej w parlamencie II kadencji walki z władzą wykonawczą, Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości zrealizowało swoją wizję nowej organizacji wymiaru sprawiedliwości i pozbyło się, korzystając z czasowego zawieszenia zasady nieusuwalności sędziów, osób nieodpowiadających linii politycznej obozu sanacyjnego, w tym między innymi sędziów Sądu Najwyższego (wśród nich I Prezesa SN W. Seydy i krytyka nowych przepisów A. Mogilnickiego). Dymisja W. Seydy wywołała duży rezonas, a nawet skłoniła ugrupowania endeckie do podjęcia próby przeforsowania votum nieufności dla odpowiedzialnego za wprowadzenie rozporządzenia z dnia 6 lutego 1928 r. i zmiany kadrowe w sądownictwie, dotyczące zwłaszcza zwolenników endecji, ministra sprawiedliwości S. Cara. Choć w lutym 1929 r. sprawa nowelizacji wróciła pod obrady parlamentu, który ostatecznie uchwalił 4 marca 1929 r. ustawę liberalizującą wiele zasad, to nadzieje na dalszą zmianę systemu wymiaru sprawiedliwości przekreśliły kolejne zmiany, w tym zwłaszcza przeprowadzona w sierpniu 1932 r., wytyczająca między innymi kierunek dalszego ingerowania w zasadę niezawisłości sędziowskiej. Krytyka podziału i równowagi władz, wyrażona podczas grudniowej debaty nad systemem wymiaru sprawiedliwości między innymi przez W. Makowskiego, znajdowała swoje odzwierciedlenie w coraz bardziej aktywnych pracach nad nową konstytucją, ostatecznie zasadę tę odrzucającą.

6

Obywatelstwo państwa polskiego w świetle orzecznictwa Najwyższego Trybunału Administracyjnego 1922–1939

100%

Malec D.

Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica

|

2015

|

tom 14

|

nr 2

73-96

EN

After Poland restored its independence in 1918, the subject of Polish citizenship was regulated by the provisions of international law, particularly those found in the Versa- illes Treaty of 24 June 1919, as well as by those formulated in the Treaty with Austria signed in St. Germain en Laye on 10. Sept. 1919, those laid down in the Treaty of Riga of 18 March 1921, and additionally, by the provisions of domestic law, namely the provisions of the Statute on Citizenship of the Polish State of 20 Jan. 1920. It was as early as during the work on the aforementioned Statute that there appeared problems that, in the years which followed, became detectable in decisions taken by the Supreme Administrative Tribunal. It was the latter that – within the scope of its competence – controlled the legality of decisions made on the occasion of adjudicating in matters concerned with the application of provisions on citizenship of the Polish state. In the judicial decisions of the Tribunal, which was established in 1922, there dominated those concerned with the certiﬁcation of citizenship for which there applied the individuals who acquired the citizenship by virtue of law. The Tribunal also frequently decided in matters referring to making an option of citizenship, the option being allowed by the Versailles Treaty. The Tribunal cautiously appraised the proceedings designed to expel an individual from the territory of Poland. What the Tribunal considered to be a defect in the proceedings was inter alia too general a justiﬁcation of decisions that referred to the refusal of granting citizenship to the person applying for it. Although the doctrine of the time regarded the act of granting citizenship as the decision that the compe- tent organ made within its discretionary power, the Supreme Administrative Tribunal oversaw each case to ensure that the boundaries of the discretionary power were not exceeded. Likewise, in each case the Tribunal considered itself to be the organ that was competent to check the regularity of proceedings. In each case the Tribunal made a pe- netrating interpretation of provisions and would repeatedly return to the most diﬃcult questions. Among the latter there were inter alia the interpretation of such notions as aﬃliation with the commune, domicile and the place of settling and military service as titles that justiﬁed the acquisition of citizenship. As a result of its control over the ad- ministrative practice, the Tribunal managed to reveal many infringements of provisions. This led to the quashing of decisions that were subject to complaints. In this respect the activities of the Tribunal deserve credit.

7

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii Grzegorza Smyka Administracja publiczna Królestwa Polskiego w latach 1864–1915 Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin 2011, s. 456

100%

Malec D.

|

tom 5

|

nr 4

375–379

EN

The monograph written by Grzgorz Smyk and devoted to public administration in th Kingdom of Poland in 1864-1915, shows – against a broad comparative background – the problems of organizing and shaping of the administrative organs as well as the doctrinal basis of the functioning of administration and the transformation of the latter. The author of the monograph verifies the thesis, firmly formulated in the research, on the full Russification and unification of the discussed administration with that of the Russian Empire. In his discourse the author exploits abundant source material, particularly the normative one. The conclusions to which he arrives are based on large bibliography and wide formal and dogmatic analysis. The discussed volume is characterized by the original, innovative internal outlay that refers to the systematics of the general part of administrative law.

8

Wincenty Szpor (1796–1856) i jego program wykładu umiejętności politycznych. Z dziejów Katedry Umiejętności Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

63%

Malec D. , Malec J.

|

tom 3

PL

Wincenty Szpor (1796–1856) was a Cracow advocate and the Senator of the Free City of Cracow in the years 1848–1850. Likewise, he lectured on political skills and statistics at the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University. In the years 1827, 1830, 1834, 1847 he repeatedly entered the competition for the Heard of the Chair of Political Skills. On the successive competitions he unsuccessfully rivalled with Ferdynand Kojsiewicz. As a result it was only after the Kojsiewicz’s death that he arrived at the position of the deputy professor. After 1848, due to political reasons, the Austrian authorities did not agree to stabilize his position. It was in 1828 that W. Szpor, while fulﬁlling the competition requirements for the Chair, submitted to the Commission his ample program of the lecture on political skills. The program suggested by Szpor was well prepared and clear in its form and contents. It was based rather on the assumptions of the Enlightenment era and only to a slight extent it drew upon the assumptions of the spontaneously developing administrative sciences. Therefore in such form the lecture doubtless fell short of the expectations of the mid‐19th century which was the time when Szpor eventually started his much desired academic career. That way or another, Szpor’s program – particu‐ larly when viewed from the perspective of the programs prepared at similar time by M. Hoszowski,F. Kojsiewicz and P. Bartynowski – makes up an interesting document illustrative of the history of the world of learning and instruction in law. It is also illustrative of the situation of administrative sciences in the ﬁrst part of the 19th century.