In the commented judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) once again approached the balancing of mutual trust and fundamental rights of individuals in asylum cases, particularly in Dublin III transfers of asylum seekers. The presumption of trust implies that all Member States are considered safe countries for third-country nationals. The presumption of compliance by Member States with their EU law obligations is rebuttable; however, it applies only when “systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State occur, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union”. In the judgment, the CJEU continues and strengthens the established jurisprudence regarding transfers under the Dublin III Regulation. The Court upheld the principle of mutual trust between EU Member States as essential for the functioning of the Dublin system, while identifying another category of serious, potentially systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants. Although the CJEU upheld the principle, in the commented judgment it introduced an interpretation of Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation that requires competent authorities (courts) to conduct a more thorough verification of the legal and humanitarian situation in other Member States. The significance of the judgment is revealed in its impact on future jurisprudence. It also sheds light on recent changes in Polish asylum law.
This study examines the institution of the reminder introduced by the Act of 7 April 2017 amending the Act – Code of Administrative Procedure and certain other acts. The new remedy was intended to effectively reduce instances of failure to issue an act within the prescribed time or of conducting proceedings in a manner clearly contrary to the requirements arising from the principle of expeditious proceedings. In practice, however, the fundamental causes of inaction and delays in the conduct of administrative proceedings have not been eliminated, while new problems have emerged – this time related to the structure of the reminder itself. The study aims to assess the functioning of the reminder institution from the point of view of more than seven years of practice in its application and to identify practical problems in this area.
This article explores the pervasive phenomenon of visual clutter in Poland. Its primary objective is to advance philosophical, empirical, and legal arguments supporting the introduction of restrictions on the placement of advertising installations in public space. It demonstrates that such measures are grounded in well-established axiological and constitutional principles within the Polish legal framework. The analysis indicates that efforts to reduce visual clutter necessarily entail limitations on certain individual rights, in particular the right to private property and the freedom of economic activity. In this context, the article engages with a fundamental issue: the tension between private and public interests. It argues that the protection of the aesthetic quality of public space constitutes a legitimate basis for according primacy to the public interest. Ultimately, the article contends that restricting outdoor advertising serves to align public spaces with the principles of W. Tatarkiewicz’s “Great Theory of Western Aesthetics”, emphasizing order, harmony, and proportionality.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been repeatedly accused of employing a sophisticated strategy of lawfare, i.e., a strategic and abusive application of international law to further its aims, especially in connection with South China Sea territorial disputes. This article aims to challenge this widely held view. It first introduces the concept of lawfare and highlights its inherent analytical problems. Then it describes the Chinese historical relationship with international law and doctrinal approach to lawfare. Finally, the article examines the maritime dispute between the PRC and the Philippines that was referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration to demonstrate that there is little evidence that China engages in methodical warfare, though the PRC undeniably tries to shape the norms of public international law for its own benefit.
This methodological paper reflects on the problems of research about the relationship between oppressed social groups and the legal system. The starting point is to notice that oppression is not addressed but is rather reinforced by the legal system. Besides, the stronger the oppression that is mediated by social structures or based on the direct exercise of power, the more important it is to use low intervention, particularly qualitative methods. In the first part of the paper, we focus on two main areas: (1) general literature on socio-legal methodology and (2) reflections on specific sociological methods of law and their potential applications. We conclude that the problem raised by this paper appears only sporadically, mostly in connection with specific research projects. So, there are no elaborated answers or even in-depth discussions in the literature of the sociology of law about this methodological problem. Therefore, in the second part of the paper we attempt to provide a starting point for such a debate. We briefly present the methods that, with appropriate reflexivity, we consider suitable for researching the relationship between oppressed groups and the legal system. We discuss narrative interviewing, legal storytelling, legal ethnography, and critical discourse analysis, briefly describing these methods and providing concrete examples of research that demonstrate their suitability for this purpose.
