Jump to content

Talk:Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three of them replaced judges whose nine-year terms had expired?

[edit]

The three judges were elected in October, but their terms start in November. So the terms had not expired before the election. As far as I know the English is quite precise to describe such facts.Xx236 (talk)

On October 8, 2015 the Polish Parliament (Sejm) elected five new Polish Constitutional Court judges. Three judges retired in early November, [1] The question when a new judge may be elected isn't answered here. Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So rather were supposed to replace five judges, whose terms were almost, but not quite, over - three of them retired in November and two in December.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Civic Platform elected five new judges for the tribunal in early October, when opinion polls showed the party was likely to lose the October 25 elections. Parliament named three replacements for judges whose nine-year terms had expired, and two more whose terms were almost, but not quite, over HerkusMonte (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a reliable source, why don't you reference it after had expired?
First October, next November. had expired in October but expired in November? Politico lies.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct timeline: Elections in October. Terms off three judges expire in November. Terms of two judges expire in December [1]. All judges were appointed before elections although terms were due to after elections.31.0.67.168 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Kris[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wpolityce.pl/polityka/270931-koncza-sie-kadencje-trojga-sedziow-trybunalu-konstytucyjnego-prof-rzeplinski-wystapil-o-natychmiastowe-powolanie-ich-nastepcow

The Polish Constitutional Court crisis ... Constitutional Tribunal

[edit]

Court or Tribunal? There is no reason to use two different names in one phrase.Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use two different names of the same subject? Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xx236 I just read this, post and have no clue what you are talking about, though it sounds reasonable. I see no editor responded.
My advice: ping people if you want responses, otherwise this post is for naught. you seem fairly direct and decisive, so why not using username (ping) and diff (=precise reference info) in your post? Just saying...--Wuerzele (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The official English name of the court is the Constitutional Tribunal. The title should be fixed.Zagraniczniak (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would add following links to the press releases (and judgements) of the Constitutional Tribunal itself (in English):

  • Decision of 03.12.2015 in case K 34/15 on Act of 25.06.2015 [2]
  • Decision of 09.12.2015 in case K 35/15 on Act of 19.11.2015 [3]
  • Decision of 07.01.2016 in case U 8/15 on Sejm's resolutions of 25.11.2015 (invalidating the election of 5 judges on 08.10.2015) and of 02.12.2015 (new election of 5 judges) [4]
  • Decision of 09.03.2016 in case K 47/15 on Act of 22.12.2015 [5] (corrected ----Bancki (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Decision of 11.08.2016 in case K 39/16 on Act of 22.07.2016 [6]
  • Decision of 07.11.2016 in case K 44/16 on Act of 22.07.2016 [7] (art. 16 : how the Tribunal proposes candidates for its (Vice-)President) (addition---Bancki (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The Venice Commission issued two opinions on the matter:

  • on the Act of 22.12.2015: Opinion of 11.03.2016 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2016)001 "on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland"
  • on the Act of 22.07.2016: Opinion of 14.10.2016 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2016)026 "on the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal"

(see also Opninion of 11.12.2017 doc. nr. CDL-AD(2017)031 "on the Draft Act amending the Act on the National Council of the Judiciary; on the Draft Act amending the Act on the Supreme Court, proposed by the President of Poland, and on the Act on the Organisation of Ordinary Courts") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bancki (talk • contribs) 08:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Venice Commission also published English translations of the acts of parliament:

The European Commission issued :


The European Parliament adopted three resolutions:


Excellent links. But integrating them could make this big article even bigger. This sort of info hidden in a chronological list of "reactions" might not be so clear to the reader. It could be time to WP:SPLIT off into a wider article covering the various European reactions (E Parliament, E Commission, E Court of Justice) to the 13 laws modifying the Polish judicial structure over 2015–2017. The WP:NAME of the article with the wider topic would probably have to be descriptive. I don't have any good proposals for a name... In terms of dates, as of Feb 2018, the series of events is not finished, so putting 2015–2018 in the title might still require changes in 2019, 2020, or later. Boud (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

prohibition of the presumption of correctness

[edit]

In October 2015 Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) party appointed five Constitutional Tribunal judges. 3 of them to replace judges whose terms were to expire on November 6, 2 of them to replace judges whose terms were to expire in December. On October 25, the Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) party won parliamentary election. Polish constitution require that Constitutional Tribunal judges are appointed by parliament which is in power on the date when new Constitutional Tribunal judge can be appointed. [1]. This was not the case, because it was unknown in October 2015 when after election new parliament and government will took power. It was possible that it would happen before November 6. Article 7 of Polish constitution introduces prohibition of the presumption of correctness [2] So, maybe all five judges were appointed in October 2015 incorrectly? 31.0.67.168 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Kris[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://ipo.trybunal.gov.pl/ipo/dok?dok=F490571841%2FK_34_15_wyrokTK_2015_12_03_ADO.pdf trybunal.gov.pl
  2. ^ http://prawo.money.pl/orzecznictwo/sad-najwyzszy/postanowienie;sn;izba;wojskowa,iw,,wk,22,04,7119,orzeczenie.html money.pl

Relation between this article and the main one

[edit]

The relation between this article, Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis (2015 – ongoing) versus Polish constitutional crisis needs to be sorted out. The titles suggest that this one is more specifically on the Constitutional Tribunal itself, while the broader article is about the rule of law and democratic backsliding more broadly. Is this the intention? If yes, then both articles still have ongoing status. Boud (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more in pl:Kryzys wokół Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Polsce#Uchwała Sejmu X kadencji z dnia 6 marca 2024: the TK declared Parliament's motion to be invalid. A pair of update draft laws of parliament is described in English - approved by the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 16 July (yesterday). Boud (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_Constitutional_Tribunal_crisis_(2015_–_ongoing)&oldid=1264652596"