Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

Poland’s highest court faces constitutional crisis - (14 Mar 2016)

Constitution

The Council of Europe released a report expressing dismay over constitutional amendments by the Polish Government altering the functioning of the country’s Constitutional Court. President Andrej Duda of Poland signed the Constitutional Tribunal Bill in December 2015, which is seen to reduce the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal. Some of the amendments included raising the number of judges required to hear cases as a full bench, and requiring a two-thirds majority rather than the previous simple majority in favour of the decision. Powers are also introduced allowing the President and Minster of Justice of Poland to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judge of the Tribunal, while preventing re-election of judges. A ruling by the Tribunal striking down the law has been withheld from the public.

The amendments have exposed the fragility of democratic framework in Poland; and appeals for involvement of the European Union have elicited little concrete support. The Venice Commission, looking into recent developments, stated “a simple legislative act, which threatens to disable constitutional control, must itself be evaluated for constitutionality”. The Commission also found no evidence purporting unreasonable delay and pendency before the Tribunal – only four cases pending since 2012 – requiring such an “immediate and a far-reaching reaction” by the government. Damning was its opinion of December 2015 amendments: “Rather than speeding up the work of the Tribunal these amendments, notably when taken together, could lead to a serious slow-down of the activity of the Tribunal and could make it ineffective as a guardian of the Constitution.”

Tags : POLAND   CONSTITUTIONAL COURT   EFFECTIVENESS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved