Interpreting Law Through International Judicial Dialogue by Polish Courts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2020.4.2.181Keywords:
dialogue, international judicial dialogue, jurisprudence, courts, case-law, globalisation, comparative constitutionalism, Polish lawAbstract
International judicial dialogue is a new method of law interpretation that gains popularity in analyses of legal scholars and still raises a lot of doubts both on its existence as well as its definition. This paper will deal with the application of this technique by Polish courts. In the first place, it will be explained what international judicial dialogue actually means. Afterwards, the paper will in detail discuss problems connected to the use of this method on the basis of decisions of Polish courts, first, by presenting examples of a proper, decorative and failed dialogue, and then by emphasizing complications caused by this method in the Polish jurisprudence. It will be also explored whether there exists a real dialogue, meaning that not only Polish courts receptively refer to judgments of international and foreign courts, but there is also some level of reciprocity in those references. At the end of the paper, the advantages and disadvantages of this method will be deliberated. In this part, I will suggest some solutions permitting mitigation of some adverse effects s of this technique.
References
Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej. Lista sądów powszechnych. Retrieved from: https://dane.gov.pl/dataset/985,lista-sadow-powszechnych/resource/3873/table (31.12.2019).
Cambridge Dictionary. Definition of “dialogue” Retrieved from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dialogue (31.12.2019).
Collins Dictionary. Definition of “dialogue” Retrieved from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dialogue (31.12.2019).
Czaplińska, A. (2017). The Preliminary Reference Procedure as an Instrument of Judicial Dialogue in the EU – the CEE Perspective. In A. Wyrozumska (Ed.), Transnational Judicial Dialogue on International Law in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 297–332). Łódź: Łódź University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-707-7.06.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. (2016). Selected Decisions 1991-2015. Ljubljana: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. ISBN: 978-961-90589-5-4.
Deutsches Institut Für Normung E. V. Information und Dokumentation - Richtlinien für Titelangaben und Zitierung von Informationsressourcen (ISO 690:2010).
Górski, M. (2017). The Dialogue between Selected CEE Courts and the ECtHR. In A. Wyrozumska (Ed.), Transnational Judicial Dialogue on International Law in Central and Eastern Europe (p. 503). Łódź: Łódź University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-707-7.05.
Grove, T.L. (2001). The International Judicial Dialogue: When Domestic Constitutional Courts Join the Conversation. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114 (1), 2049-2073.
L’Heureux-Dubé, C. (1998). The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court. Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 34 (1), 15-40.
Matusiak-Frącczak, M. (2017). The Polish Ordinary Courts in Dialogue on International Law. In A. Wyrozumska (Ed.), Transnational Judicial Dialogue on International Law in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 333–364). Łódź: Łódź University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-707-7.07.
Kirby, M. (2008). Transnational judicial dialogue, internationalisation of law and Australian judges. Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 9 (6), 171-189.
Krzemińska-Vamvaka, J. (2017). Administrative Courts and Judicial Comparativism in Central and Eastern Europe. In A. Wyrozumska (Ed.), Transnational Judicial Dialogue on International Law in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 197–232). Łódź: Łódź University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-707-7.04.
Law, D.S. and Chang, W.-C. (2011). The limits of global judicial dialogue. Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, 523-577.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Definition of “dialogue” Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialogue (31.12.2019).
Meuwese, A. and Snel, M. (2013). ‘Constitutional Dialogue’: An Overview. Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 9 (2), 123-140. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.231
Miles Prince, M. (Ed.). (2015). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. 20th edition. Harvard: Harvard Law Review Association.
New York University School Of Law. (2006). Guide to foreign and international legal citations. Retrieved from: https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Final_GFILC_pdf.pdf (31.12.2019).
Nolan, D. and Meredith, S. (2012). OSCOLA: Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities. 4th edition. Oxford: Hart.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Definition of “dialogue” Retrieved from: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dialogue (31.12.2019).
Skomerska-Muchowska, I. (2017). The Dialogue of CEE Constitutional Courts in the Era of Constitutional Pluralism. In A. Wyrozumska (Ed.), Transnational Judicial Dialogue on International Law in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 103–196). Łódź: Łódź University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18778/8088-707-7.03.
Thesaurus Dictionary. Definition of „dialogue” Retrieved from: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dialogue (31.12.2019).
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Hague, 25.10.1980.
European Convention on State immunity, Basel, 16.5.1972.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966.
OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and Capital, Paris, 30.7.1963.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York, 20.11.1989.
International Court of Justice, Case concerning the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), judgment, 2002 I.C.J. Rep. 3 (14 February).
International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening, judgment, 2012 I.C.J. Rep. 99, (3 February).
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 15 February 2007, Lechouritou, C-292/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:102.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 21 April 1993, Volker Sonntag, C-172/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:144.
European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey, app. no. 21987/93, 18 December 1996.
European Court Of Human Rights, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 35763/97, 21 November 2001.
European Court Of Human Rights, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 35763/97, 21 November 2001, joint dissenting opinion of judges Rozakis and Caflish, joined by judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto and Vajić.
European Court of Human Rights, Ergi v. Turkey, app. no. 23818/94, 28 July 1998.
European Court of Human Rights, G.N. v. Poland, app. no. 2171/14, 19 July 2016.
European Court of Human Rights, James and Webster v. United Kingdom, app. no. 7601/76, 7806/77, 13 August 1982.
European Court of Human Rights, Jones and others v. United Kingdom, app. nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, 14 January 2014.
European Court of Human Rights, Kalogeropoulou and Others v. Greece and Germany, app. no. 59021/00, 12 December 2002.
European Court of Human Rights, Kelly and Others v. UK, app. no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001.
European Court of Human Rights, K.J. v. Poland, app. no. 30813/14, 1 March 2016.
European Court of Human Rights, Marcx v. Belgium, app. no. 6833/74, 13 June 1979.
European Court of Human Rights, McElhinney v. Ireland, app. no. 31253/96, 21 November 2001.
European Court of Human Rights, Moczulski v. Poland, app. no. 49974/08, 19 November 2011.
European Court of Human Rights, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, app. no. 41615/17, 6 July 2010.
European Court of Human Rights, Oller Kamińska v. Poland, app. no. 28481/12, 18 January 2018.
European Court of Human Rights, Özgür Uyanik v. Turkey, app. no. 11068/04, 23 March 2010.
European Court of Human Rights, Platform Ärzte für das Leben v. Austria, app. no. 10126/82, 21 June 1988.
European Court of Human Rights, Rouiller v. Switzerland, app. no. 3592/08, 22 July 2014.
European Court of Human Rights, R.S. v. Poland, app. no. 63777/09, 21 July 2015.
European Court of Human Rights, Velikova v. Bulgaria, app. no. 41488/98, 18 May 2000.
European Court of Human Rights, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, app. no. 26083/94, 18 February 1999.
Austria, Austrian Constitutional Tribunal, SV 2/08, G 80/08 (30 September 2008).
Czechia, Constitutional Court, Pl. ÚS 11/04, (26 April 2005).
Czechia, Constitutional Court, Pl. ÚS 19/08 (26 November 2011).
France, Constitutional Council, 2007-560 DC (20 December 2007).
France, Court of Cassation, 00-87215 Qaddafi (13 March 2001).
Germany, Federal Tribunal [2011] XI ZR 33/10.
Germany, Federal Constitutional Court [1963] 2 BmV 1/62.
Germany, Federal Constitutional Court [2006] 1 BvR 357/05.
Germany, Federal Constitutional Court [2009] 2 BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/09, 2 BvR 1259/08, and 2 BvR 182/09.
Greece, Special Supreme Court, Perfectory Voiotia v. Germany (Distomo), 111/2000 (4 May 2000).
Greece, Special Supreme Court, Margellos v. Germany, 6/2002 (17 September 2002).
Hungary, Constitutional Court, 143/2010 (12 July 2010).
India, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai, West Asia Maritime Ltd. v. DIT [2008] 111 ITD 155.
Israel, Supreme Court, Public Committee Against Torture on Israel v. The State of Israel et al., Case HCJ 5100/94.
Israel, Supreme Court, The Center for the Defence of the Individual v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, Case HCJ 3278/01.
Israel, Supreme Court, Marab v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, Case HCJ 3239/02.
Italy, Court of Cassation, Ferrini v. Germany, 5044/2004 (11 March 2004).
Italy, Court of Cassation, Civitella, 1072/08 (21 October 2008).
Latvia, Constitutional Tribunal of Latvia, 2008-35-01 (7 April 2009).
Malaysia, decision in Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, OA Pte Ltd v. DGIR, case no. PKR 651, IFBD Case Law re DTC Malaysia/Singapore (30 May 1996).
Mexico Décimo Tercer Tribunal Colegiado En Materia Administrativa Del Primer Circuito, D.A. 562/2011-9995, re DTC México/Canada (20 August 2012).
Poland, Law on aviation of 3 July 2002, Polish Official Journal 2002, no. 130/1112.
Poland, Law on road traffic of 20 June 1997, Polish Official Journal 1997, no. 98/602.
Poland, Białystok Provincial Court, II Ca 217/16, 15 April 2016.
Poland, Białystok Appellate Court, I ACa 833/12 (21 January 2013).
Poland, Białystok Appellate Court, I ACa 617/13 (20 December 2013).
Poland, Łódź Appellate Court, I ACa 662/12 (1 October 2012)
Poland, Łódź Appellate Court, I ACa 931/14 (30 December 2014).
Poland, Warsaw Appelate Court, I ACa 1166/13 (11 March 2014).
Poland, Wroclaw Appellate Court, II AKz 542/10 (26 October 2010).
Poland, Supreme Court, R 133/16 (2 March 1926).
Poland, Supreme Court, II C 413/37 (31 August 1937).
Poland, Supreme Court, C 365/48 (14 December 1948).
Poland, Supreme Court, II CR 172/56 (26 March 1958).
Poland, Supreme Court, II CKN 321/99 (18 August 1999).
Poland, Supreme Court, I CKN 776/00 (26 September 2000).
Poland, Supreme Court, IV CS 202/13 (28.2.2014).
Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 1395/16 (18 May 2018).
Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 1477/16 (5 June 2018).
Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 1540/16 (6 June 2018).
Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 1773/16 (6 June 2018).
Poland, Supreme Administrative Court, II FSK 170/17 (22 January 2019).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, P 1/94 (8 November 1994).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 13/94 (14 March 1995).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, P 1/95 (11 September 1995).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 21/99 (10 May 2000).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 34/99 (28 June 2000).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, P 8/00 (4 October 2000).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 12/03 (18 February 2004).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 18/04 (11 May 2005).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, P 38/07 (3 July 2008).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 23/11 (30 September 2008).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 32/29 (24 November 2009).
Poland, Constitutional Tribunal, K 1/12 (12 December 2012).
Slovakia, Constitutional Court, Pl. ÚS 99/11 (11 December 2013).
Singapore, Supreme Administrative Court, E.2011/1367, K.2013/1281 re DTC Turkey/USA (10 April 2013).
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 17.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26.
United States of America, District Court (New York), Hirsch v State of Israel and State of Germany [1997] 962 F. Supp. 377.
United States of America, DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [1985] 623 F. Supp. 246 (D.D.C. 1985).
United States of America, DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany [1994] 26 F.3d 1166.
United States of America, United States Court of Appeals, 2ND Circuit, Smith v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya [1995] 886 F. Supp. 306.
United States of America, United States Court of Appeals, 9TH Circuit, Liu v. Republic of China [1989] 892 F.2d 1419.
United States of America, Supreme Court of the United States, Republic of Austria v. Altmann [2004] 03-13, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) 327 F.3d 1246.
United States of America, Supreme Court of the United States, Rasul v. Bush [2004] 03-334, 542 US 466 (2004) 321 F. 3d 1134.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Bratislava Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Author(s) transfers copyright to the Article to the Publisher of the Journal by the Licence Agreement.
The Author(s) retains rights specified in the Licence Agreement.
The readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all of the Article of the Journal and use them for any other lawful purpose under specified Creative Commons Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
