The purpose of this analysis is to examine the impact of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 16 July 2025 (ref. no. K 24/24) on the procedure for holding members of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State. In accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, a resolution of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to hold particular persons accountable before the Tribunal of State results in the suspension of the persons concerned from their duties, and such a resolution concerning a member of the National Broadcasting Council is adopted by the Sejm by an absolute majority of votes cast in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of MPs. The Constitutional Tribunal found those provisions to be partially inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The matter is currently of relevance, as proceedings are underway with regard to holding the former Chair of the National Broadcasting Council constitutionally accountable. The analysis leads to the conclusion that, despite the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 16 July 2025, the challenged provisions have not ceased to have legal effect. The main reason for this is that the judgment has not been published in the Journal of Laws. Furthermore, the judgment was issued with the involvement of a person who was not authorised to adjudicate, and is therefore vitiated by a material legal defect.
In 2005, the Environmental Charter became part of the French ‘constitutional bloc’, having been incorporated into the Preamble to the Constitution of the 5th Republic. Since then, lower-level legal acts have been examined for compliance not only with the Constitution, but also with the Environmental Charter. The said document – consisting of 10 articles and a preamble – constitutes an innovative declaration aimed at ensuring the highest standard of environmental protection. By means of the Charter, rights such as the right to live in a sustainable and healthy environment as well as the right of access to information have been permanently incorporated into the French legal order. The said document also sets out the following principles: prevention; caution; sustainable development; and the ‘polluter pays’ principle. One of the major challenges arising from the Charter has been the transposition of its provisions into lower-level legal acts, as well as the practical application and interpretation thereof, both by the constitutional judiciary and national courts.
This article attempts to answer the question whether, when provisions traditionally included in the so-called budget-related acts are introduced – by way of parliamentary amendments – into the State Budget Bill, this could be regarded as the unconstitutional burdening of the State Budget Act. As demonstrated, the issue on which there are varied views in the scholarly legal literature and which is key in determining how to understand the prohibition on the burdening of the State Budget Act is the relationship between that Act and the Public Finance Act. Subsequently, this research paper examines the legal effects of including the provisions of the budget-related acts in the State Budget Act. For the purposes of the article, the content of the 2022–2024 budget-related acts have been taken into account.
This article examines the compliance of Poland’s Quantitative Easing Programme – implemented by the National Bank of Poland in the years 2020–2021 – with the constitutional (Article 220(2) of the Polish Constitution) and EU (Article 123 TFEU) prohibitions of monetary financing. The analysis draws on the CJEU’s case law (Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag; Heinrich Weiss and Others). It is determined that the actions of the Polish central bank complied with EU law as regards the bank’s Structural Open Market Operations, and it is noted that the Treaty standard should be considered when assessing whether there has been a violation of the Constitution. The findings may be of significance for proceedings concerning the constitutional accountability of the President of the National Bank of Poland.
The immunities of the European Union have, in principle, been available to its institutions and other bodies, as well as to their members, officials, and other servants, and members of their families. However, in one of its recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that – in view of the special nature of the European System of Central Banks, which comprises EU and national authorities – the privileges and immunities of the European Union should also be available to the governors of the national central banks of the EU Member States, when they act in their official capacity as members of the European Central Bank. The author of this analysis critically assesses the above judgment, primarily because it does not take into account that all privileges and immunities must be interpreted in a strict sense. However, the said judgment is a fact, and its effect is that the governors of the national central banks of the EU Member States have obtained EU immunity from legal proceedings in relation to all official activities undertaken by them as members of the internal bodies of the European Central Bank. Another effect of the above judgment is that, in the event of initiating proceedings with regard to the constitutional accountability of the President of the National Bank of Poland, the competent authorities conducting those proceedings should establish loyal cooperation with the relevant institutions of the European Union. The aim of the cooperation is primarily to determine whether the immunity from legal proceedings, enjoyed by the President of the National Bank of Poland, also extends to proceedings regarding his constitutional accountability.
This review focuses on two volumes of commentary on the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland which relate to the Constitutional Tribunal. The authors of the reviewed volumes, contributing to the multi-author commentary series on the Polish Constitution published by Difin, are two Polish law professors: Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski and Hubert Izdebski. Their volumes of commentary – which make an excellent read, having been well-edited – present an analysis of the aforementioned constitutional norms in the context of the practical application thereof, with a view to the impact of the constitutional crisis on the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal. Those volumes contribute to the ongoing debate on the constitutional judiciary in Poland and the significance of the constitutional provisions that regulate the status and powers of the Polish constitutional court.
The shortening of parliamentary terms is known in parliamentary systems, where it serves as a means of managing conflicts between the legislature and the executive, and – in a broader sense – supporting the institutional stability of the state. It has a long tradition in France. President Emmanuel Macron’s decision in June 2024 came as a surprise, has raised a number of political and institutional questions, and will certainly be the subject of critical analyses for a long time to come. Although it is difficult to predict the long-term effects of the said decision, it has been clear from the start that it caused institutional confusion and social disappointment. Moreover, the consequences of the decision may be even more serious for the state than those resulting from the previous difficulties in the relations between parliament and government. The new experience is thought-provoking and allows us to look at the mechanism in question from a different perspective.
This article examines the specific possibility of using random selection in political decision-making. The central question addressed is whether and how lotteries can be employed in the context of political decision-making. To answer this question, the article employs a historical and political argumentative strategy. It traces the historical development and contemporary status of lotteries, including their advantages and disadvantages as well as potential applications in various spheres of life. It then discusses the concept of random selection of individuals in politics. The analysis focuses on the selection of citizens to participate in small-scale deliberative forums (so-called mini-publics), i.e. democratic innovations, which in Poland primarily take the form of citizens’ assemblies. The article discusses the objectives and principles underlying the random selection of participants as well as identifies how a more intensive use of the random selection method for choosing decision-makers may benefit political decision-making. The argument is based on an extensive literature review and an analysis of documents and data available in public records, carried out using the desk research method.
On 23 October 2025, the conference entitled ‘The Role of Courts in a Democratic State Ruled by Law – Diagnosis and Prospects’ was held at the University of Warsaw. The conference was co-organised by the Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland, the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw, and the Students’ Constitutional Law Society – ‘The Legislator’. The aim of the event – attended by numerous legal scholars and practitioners – was to provide a platform for an academic exchange of views on the judicial system, inspired by the monograph entitled Rola sądów w demokratycznym państwie prawa [The Role of Courts in a Democratic State Ruled by Law].
During the American Founding era, there were two competing ways of interpreting the Constitution of the United States of America as well as two competing concepts of federalism. Within the George Washington Administration, the exponents of those competing views were, on one side, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton (writing as ‘Pacificus’) and, on the other side, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (on whose behalf Congressman James Madison participated in the written debate, using the pen name ‘Helvidius’). The first public written exchange between the two opposing sides occurred on the occasion of establishing the Bank of the United States: A. Hamilton endorsed a loose interpretation of the US Constitution, whereas T. Jefferson advocated for a restrictive interpretation thereof. In this article, the author presents the second act of that dispute, the subject of which was the scope of presidential powers after G. Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793. The dispute turned out to be the beginning of the widening of the scope of presidential powers, ultimately leading to the establishment of the ‘imperial presidency’.
The aim of this analysis is to answer two interrelated questions. The first ones concerns the constitutionality of the effect of the Sejm’s adoption of a resolution to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland or the Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State – i.e. the suspension of those individuals from their duties. The second question concerns the majority of votes required for the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to adopt a resolution to hold the said persons constitutionally accountable, in the light of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 11 January 2024 (ref. no. K 23/23). An analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions as well as of the views expressed in legal literature has led the author to conclude that, under the current legal framework, the Sejm’s resolution to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland or the Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State results, in both cases, in the suspension of those individuals from their duties. Regarding the President of the National Bank of Poland, such regulation raises doubts as to its compatibility with European Union law. This article also analyses the implications of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 11 January 2024, with a view to answering the question of whether the judgment constitutes a ruling issued in breach of the law, within the meaning of the Sejm’s resolution of 6 March 2024. The author expresses the view that the said judgment – having been published in the Journal of Laws – is valid despite the criticism expressed in legal literature. Consequently, in the author’s opinion, the adoption of a resolution by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland accountable before the Tribunal of State requiresa three-fifths majority of the statutory number of MPs.
This article examines the compliance of Poland's Quantitative Easing Programme - implemented by the National Bank of Poland in the years 2020-2021-with the constitutional (Article 220(2) of the Polish Constitution) and EU (Article 123 TFEU) prohibitions of monetary financing. The analysis draws on the CJEU's case law (Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag; Heinrich Weiss and Others). It is determined that the actions of the Polish central bank complied with EU law as regards the bank's Structural Open Market Operations, and it is noted that the Treaty standard should be considered when assessing whether there has been a violation of the Constitution. The findings may be of significance for proceedings concerning the constitutional accountability of the President of the National Bank of Poland.
The purpose of this analysis is to examine the impact of the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 16 July 2025 (ref. no. K 24/24) on the procedure for holding members of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State. In accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, a resolution of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to hold particular persons accountable before the Tribunal of State results in the suspension of the persons concerned from their duties, and such a resolution concerning a member of the National Broadcasting Council is adopted by the Sejm by an absolute majority of votes cast in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of MPs. The Constitutional Tribunal found those provisions to be partially inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The matter is currently of relevance, as proceedings are underway with regard to holding the former Chair of the National Broadcasting Council constitutionally accountable. The analysis leads to the conclusion that, despite the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 16 July 2025, the challenged provisions have not ceased to have legal effect. The main reason for this is that the judgment has not been published in the Journal of Laws. Furthermore, the judgment was issued with the involvement of a person who was not authorised to adjudicate, and is therefore vitiated by a material legal defect.
This article examines the specific possibility of using random selection in political decision-making. The central question addressed is whether and how lotteries can be employed in the context of political decision-making. To answer this question, the article employs a historical and political argumentative strategy. It traces the historical development and contemporary status of lotteries, including their advantages and disadvantages as well as potential applications in various spheres of life. It then discusses the concept of random selection of individuals in politics. The analysis focuses on the selection of citizens to participate in in Poland primarily take the form of citizens' assemblies. The article discusses the objectives and principles underlying the random selection of participants as well as identifies how a more intensive use of the random selection method for choosing decision-makers may benefit political decision-making. The argument is based on an extensive literature review and an analysis of documents and data available in public records, carried out using the desk research method.
The aim of this analysis is to answer two interrelated questions. The first ones concerns the constitutionality of the effect of the Sejm's adoption of a resolution to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland or the Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State - i.e. the suspension of those individuals from their duties. The second question concerns the majority of votes required for the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to adopt a resolution to hold the said persons constitutionally accountable, in the light of the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 11 January 2024 (ref. no. K 23/23). An analysis of constitutional and statutory provisions as well as of the views expressed in legal literature has led the author to conclude that, under the current legal framework, the Sejm's resolution to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland or the Chairman of the National Broadcasting Council accountable before the Tribunal of State results, in both cases, in the suspension of those individuals from their duties. Regarding the President of the National Bank of Poland, such regulation raises doubts as to its compatibility with European Union law. This article also analyses the implications of the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 11 January 2024, with a view to answering the question of whether the judgment constitutes a ruling issued in breach of the law, within the meaning of the Sejm's resolution of 6 March 2024. The author expresses the view that the said judgment - having been published in the Journal of Laws - is valid despite the criticism expressed in legal literature. Consequently, in the author's opinion, the adoption of a resolution by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to hold the President of the National Bank of Poland accountable before the Tribunal of State requires a three-fifths majority of the statutory number of MPs.
In the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the question whether federal district courts had the authority to issue universal injunctions against the executive branch. President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 of 29 January 2025-which concerned the citizenship of individuals born in the US-had been challenged in a number of federal district courts by various individuals and entities. Those courts had issued universal injunctions, barring executive officials from applying the said Order to anyone, not just the plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court ruled that universal injunctions appeared to exceed the historically established equitable powers granted to federal courts by Congress. As a result, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the aforementioned injunctions so that complete relief could be provided solely to the plaintiffs with standing to sue.
The shortening of parliamentary terms is known in parliamentary systems, where it serves as a means of managing conflicts between the legislature and the executive, and - in a broader sense - supporting the institutional stability of the state. It has a long tradition in France. President Emmanuel Macron's decision in June 2024 came as a surprise, has raised a number of political and institutional questions, and will certainly be the subject of critical analyses for a long time to come. Although it is difficult to predict the long-term effects of the said decision, it has been clear from the start that it caused institutional confusion and social disappointment. Moreover, the consequences of the decision may be even more serious for the state than those resulting from the previous difficulties in the relations between parliament and government. The new experience is thought-provoking and allows us to look at the mechanism in question from a different perspective.
This article attempts to answer the question whether, when provisions traditionally included in the so-called budget-related acts are introduced-by way of parliamentary amendments - into the State Budget Bill, this could be regarded as the unconstitutional burdening of the State Budget Act. As demonstrated, the issue on which there are varied views in the scholarly legal literature and which is key in determining how to understand the prohibition on the burdening of the State Budget Act is the relationship between that Act and the Public Finance Act. Subsequently, this research paper examines the legal effects of including the provisions of the budget-related acts in the State Budget Act. For the purposes of the article, the content of the 2022-2024 budget-related acts have been taken into account.
This review focuses on two volumes of commentary on the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland which relate to the Constitutional Tribunal. The authors of the reviewed volumes, contributing to the multi-author commentary series on the Polish Constitution published by Difin, are two Polish law professors: Kazimierz Micha & lstrok; Ujazdowski and Hubert Izdebski. Their volumes of commentary-which make an excellent read, having been well-edited-present an analysis of the aforementioned constitutional norms in the context of the practical application thereof, with a view to the impact of the constitutional crisis on the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal. Those volumes contribute to the ongoing debate on the constitutional judiciary in Poland and the significance of the constitutional provisions that regulate the status and powers of the Polish constitutional court.
In 2005, the Environmental Charter became part of the French 'constitutional bloc', having been incorporated into the Preamble to the Constitution of the 5th Republic. Since then, lower-level legal acts have been examined for compliance not only with the Constitution, but also with the Environmental Charter. The said document - consisting of 10 articles and a preamble - constitutes an innovative declaration aimed at ensuring the highest standard of environmental protection. By means of the Charter, rights such as the right to live in a sustainable and healthy environment as well as the right of access to information have been permanently incorporated into the French legal order. The said document also sets out the following principles: prevention; caution; sustainable development; and the 'polluter pays' principle. One of the major challenges arising from the Charter has been the transposition of its provisions into lower-level legal acts, as well as the practical application and interpretation thereof, both by the constitutional judiciary and national courts.
