SC: Lessee Cannot Challenge Eviction After Landowner Withdraws Plea  ||  SC: Appointment Contrary to Recruitment Advertisement Constitutes Fraud on Public  ||  SC: Bribe Given to Intermediary Alone Insufficient to Establish Public Servant's Guilt under PC Act  ||  SC: AO Cannot Revive Assessment Concluded by Settlement Commission under Income Tax Act  ||  SC: Insurer's Office Location Alone can't Confer Jurisdiction for Claim under MV Act  ||  Calcutta HC: Mutual Consent Divorce Justifies Quashing S.498A IPC Cruelty Case under HMA  ||  Delhi HC: Mere 2-Year Delay in Arbitral Award does not Warrant Setting Aside  ||  Kerala HC: Courts can't Insist on Identifying Unknown Parties in John Doe Suits  ||  Supreme Court: Army Must Prove Disability Was Unrelated to Service to Deny Pension  ||  SC: Grant of Fishing Rights by Deed is a Transfer of Immovable Property, Qualifies as Lease    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved