Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autonomous Constitutional Interpretation

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Certain works in the most recent Polish constitutional law literature suggest that there is acceptance of the principle or the concept of autonomous interpretation of a constitution (autonomy of interpretation of constitutional terms). The Constitutional Tribunal also makes reference to this in numerous rulings. Paradoxically, however, that concept is not very popular in legal theory. It might seem that Polish legal theoreticians and philosophers do not appreciate the concept of interpretation of a constitution devised through practice with the support of constitutional law doctrine. It might, however, mean that opinions on autonomous interpretation of Polish Constitution are nothing more than rhetorical arguments formulated ad hoc not a coherent concept or a theory. This text is an attempt to analyse this concept and its potential in discussions surrounding application of the Polish Constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For some other decisions of Polish Constitutional Tribunal see official page: http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng.

  2. By a “thesis” I mean an argument, statement, suggestion or a complex of arguments of such kind, used by an author in order to focus on and explain certain characteristic elements of a concept or certain features of a phenomenon, enabling a reader to understand key (core) elements of this concept or phenomenon. The concept of “thesis” became vastly popular due to a dispute on legal positivism and its “Social Thesis”, “Separation Thesis”/“Thesis of Separation”/“Separability Thesis”, “Fallibility Thesis”, “Neutrality Thesis”, “Sources Thesis”, “Autonomy Thesis”, “Pre-emption Thesis” and other [see 42, pp. 91–92; 19, p. 119 et sqq.].

  3. Article 79 Sect. 1: “In accordance with principles specified by statute, anyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed, shall have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal for its judgment on the conformity to the Constitution of a statute or another normative act upon which basis a court or organ of public administration has made a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in the Constitution”.

References

  1. Alexy, Robert. 1992. Rights, legal reasoning and rational discourse. Ratio Juris 5(2): 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnaud, André-Jean. 1995. Legal pluralism and the building of Europe. In Legal polycentricity. Consequences of pluralism in law, eds. H. Petersen, and H. Zahle. Aldershot: Darthmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aroney, Nicholas. 2009. The implied rights revolution—balancing means and ends. In Constitutional advancement in a frozen continent: Essays in honour of George Winterton, eds. H.P. Lee, and Peter A. Gerangelos. Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ault, Hugh J., and Brian J. Arnold. 2004. Comparative income taxation: A structural analysis. The Hague: Aspen/Kluwer Law Intl.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barber, Sotirios A., and James E. Fleming. 2007. Constitutional interpretation: The basic questions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bentkowska, Anna. 2003. Legal insecurity? ECJ, sovereignty and Polish courts on the eve of EU membership. Yearbook of Polish European Studies 7.

  7. Bix, Brian. 1999. H.L.A. Hart and the hermeneutic turn in the legal theory. Southern Methodist University Law Review 52.

  8. Bix, Brian. 2007. Joseph Raz and conceptual analysis. APA Newsletter on Philosophy of Law 6(2).

  9. Bix, Brian. 2003. Law as an autonomous discipline (Chapter 43). In The Oxford handbook of legal studies, eds. P. Cane, and M. Tushnet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brison, Susan J., and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. 1993. Contemporary perspectives on constitutional interpretation. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brożek, Bartosz. 2004. Defeasibility of legal reasoning. Kraków: Zakamycze.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Demande de décision préjudicielle présentée par l’Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Allemagne) le 14 juillet 2009—Procédure d’extradition contre Gaetano Mantello (Affaire C-261/09), Journal officiel de l’Union européenne (2009/C 220/50).

  13. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. Oxford: Hart Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking rights seriously (new impression with a reply to critics). London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eskridge, William N., Jr. Dynamic statutory interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  16. Ferrari, Franco. 2007. Remarks on the autonomous interpretation of the Brussels regulation, in particular of the concept of “place of delivery” under Art. 5(1)(b), and the Vienna Sales Convention (on the occasion of a recent Italian court decision). Revue De Droit Des Affaires Internationales/International Business Law Journal.

  17. Fisher, Louis. 2008. Interpreting the constitution: More than what the Supreme Court says. Extensions, Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma.

  18. Fiss, Owen M. 1982. Objectivity and interpretation, Stanford Law Review 34.

  19. Füßer, Klaus. 1996. Farewell to ‘legal positivism’: The separation thesis unravelling. In The autonomy of law: Essays on legal positivism, ed. R.P. George. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Galligan, Denis, and Marcin Matczak. 2005. Strategies of judicial review. Exercising judicial discretion in administrative cases involving business entities [A report prepared as part of the Ernst & Young Better Government Programme], Warsaw, available at: http://www.ey.com/PL/en/Industries/Government—Public-Sector/Report_Strategies-of-Judicial-Review.

  21. Garlicki, Leszek. 2003. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, t. III [Constitution of the Republic of Poland. A Commentary. Volume III], Warsaw.

  22. Gebauer, Martin. 2000–2004. Uniform law, general principles and autonomous interpretation. Uniform Law Review.

  23. Gerards, Janneke H. 2008. Fundamental rights and other interests: Should it really make a difference? In Conflicts between fundamental rights, ed. E. Brems. Antwerp.

  24. Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz, and Andrzej Grabowski. 1997. Normy programowe w konstytucji. In Charakter i struktura norm konstytucji, ed. J. Trzciński. Warsaw.

  25. Grozdanovski, Ljupcho. 2010. An autonomous interpretation of the concept of ‘same acts’ in the European Arrest Warrant. http://www.unige.ch/ceje. Actualité du 1 Dec 2010.

  26. Haak, Krijn F. 2006. The liability of the carrier under the CMR. The Hague (1986). Cited from: M. Clarke, National judges facing gaps in the CMR: British case-law. Uniform Law Review.

  27. Habermas, Jürgen. Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (trans: Rehg, William.). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

  28. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1997. The concept of law (2nd ed., Clarendon Law Series). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  29. Hermeneutics. In Routledge dictionary of literary terms, available at: http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/hermeneutics-5-tf/.

  30. Informations Provenant des Institutions et Organes de L’union Européenne Conseil. Convention concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale signée à Lugano le 30 octobre 2007. Rapport Explicatif par M. Fausto Pocar (Professeur de droit international à l’Université de Milan) (2009/C 319/01), Journal officiel de l’Union européenne 23.12.2009, C 319/32.

  31. Janis Mark, W., Richard S. Kay, and Anthony Wilfred Bradley. 2008. European human rights law: Text and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kelsen, Hans. 1942. Judicial review in legislation. A comparative study of the Austrian and the American constitution. The Journal of Politics 4(2).

  33. Kress, K.J. 1987. The interpretive turn. Ethics 97: 834–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lasota, Marek. 2005. Wykładnia autonomiczna w europejskim prawie wspólnotowym—kilka uwag na przykładzie pojęcia ‘sąd’ [Autonomous interpretation in European community law—several remarks on the concept of ‘court’]. In Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej, ed. S. Wronkowska. Kraków: Zakamycze.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Letsas, George. 2004. The truth in autonomous concepts: How to interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law 15.

  36. Letsas, George. 2007. A theory of interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Matczak, Marcin, Matyas Bencze, and Zdenek Kühn. 2010. Constitutions, EU law and judicial strategies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Journal of Public Policy 30.

  38. Mikołajewicz, Jarosław. 2008. Zasady orzecznicze Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Zagadnienia teoretycznoprawne [Principles of jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal]. Poznań.

  39. Moore, Michael S. 1989. The interpretative turn in modern theory: A turn for the worse? Stanford Law Review 41.

  40. Nakjavani, Erik. 1981. Phenomenology and theory of literature: An interview with Paul Ricoeur. Modern Language Notes 96.

  41. Paczolay, P. 2008. Consensus and discretion: Evolution or erosion of human rights protection? In Dialogue between judges, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe. Strasbourg.

  42. Postema, Gerald. 1996. Law’s autonomy and public practical reason. In The autonomy of law: Essays on legal positivism, ed. R.P. George. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Powell, H. Jefferson. 1987. Consensus and objectivity in early constitutional interpretation: An approven thesis. Texas Law Review 65.

  44. Proposition de Règlement du Parlement Européen et du Conseil sur la Loi Applicable aux Obligations non Contractuelles (“Rome II”), Commission Des Communautés Européennes, Bruxelles, Le 22.7.2003, COM(2003) 427 Final, 2003/0168 (COD).

  45. Quinn, James P. 2004. The interpretation and application of the United Nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. International Trade and Business Law Review 9.

  46. Rączka, Magdalena. 2005. Wykładnia prawa konstytucyjnego [Interpretation of Constitutional Law]. In Wykładnia prawa i inne problemy filozofii prawa, ed. L. Morawski. Toruń.

  47. Raz, Joseph. 1993. On the autonomy of legal reasoning. Ratio Juris 6(1).

  48. Richmond, Catherine. 1998. Preserving the identity crises: Autonomy, system and sovereignty in European law. Law and Philosophy 16.

  49. Rosenfeld, Michael. 1993. Executive autonomy, judicial authority and the rule of law: Reflections on constitutional interpretation and the separation of powers. Cardozo Law Review 15.

  50. Sadurski, Wojciech. 2003. Constitutional justice. East and west: Democratic legitimacy and constitutional courts in post-communist Europe in comparative perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sadurski, Wojciech. 2005. Rights before courts: A study of constitutional courts in post-communist states of central and Eastern Europe. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Safjan, Marek. 2007. Transitional justice: The Polish example, the case of lustration. European Journal of Legal Studies 1(2). Available at: http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/7711.

  53. Shiner, Roger A. 2005. Legal institutions and the sources of law (Serie: A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence), vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Siltala, Raimo. 2000. A theory of precedent. From analytical positivism to a post-analytical philosophy of law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sitarz, Julia. 2008. Recent changes to the legal professions of Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Poland. Connecticut Law Review 40.

  56. Solum, Laurence B. 2008. The Aretaic turn in constitutional theory. Public Law And Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Research Paper No. 04-03.

  57. Stack, Kevin M. 2004. The divergence of constitutional and statutory interpretation., University of Colorado Law Review 75.

  58. Stawecki, Tomasz. 2009. Independence of the legal professions and the rule of law in post-communist society. In Niezależność sądownictwa i zawodów prawniczych jako fundamenty państwa prawa. Wyzwania współczesności/Independence of the judiciary and legal profession as foundations of the rule of law. Contemporary challenges, eds. T. Wardyński, and M. Niziołek. Warsaw: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Stawecki, Tomasz. 2009. Internal multicentrism and judicial review. In Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory, eds. M. Zirk-Sadowski, M. Golecki, and B. Wojciechowski. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stawecki, Tomasz, Wiesław Staśkiewicz, and Jan Winczorek. 2009. Polycentrism and fragmentation. The impact of constitutional tribunal rulings on the Polish legal order. A report on the study conducted under the E&Y Program Better Government. Warsaw: Ernst & Young. Available at: http://www.ey.com/PL/en/Industries/ Government-Public-Sector/Debate_Constitutional-Tribunal.

  61. Stoljar, Natalie. 2003. Interpretation, indeterminacy and authority: Some recent controversies in the philosophy of law. The Journal of Political Philosophy 11(4).

  62. Trzciński, Janusz. 1999. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Komentarz [Constitution of the Republic of Poland. A commentary]. Warsaw.

  63. Tuleja, Piotr. 2006. Podstawowe problemy związane z interpretacją Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Basic problems relating to the interpretation of Constitution in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal] In Księga XX-lecia orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. Warsaw: Constitutional Tribunal.

  64. van den Brink, A. (Ton). 2010. Fit for all practical purposes? Constitutionalism as a legitimising strategy for the European Union. In The dynamics of constitutionalism in the Age of globalisation, eds. M. Frishman, and S. Muller. The Hague: Hague Academic Coalition.

  65. Vezyrtzi, Anastasia. 2009. Jurisdiction and international sales under the brussels I regulation: Does forum shopping come to an end? Columbia Journal of European Law Online 15.

  66. Vorabentscheidungsersuchen nach Art. 35 EU (in der Rechtssache C-261/09), eingereicht vom Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Deutschland) mit Entscheidung vom 29. Juni 2009, beim Gerichtshof eingegangen am 14. Juli 2009, in dem Verfahren über die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls Genge Gaetano Mantello; in: R. Cafari Panico, S. Delle Monache, V. Roppo, Aktuelle Entwicklungen im europäischen Vertrags- und Gesellschaftsrecht. Frankfurt (Oder): C.F. Muller.

  67. Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. Legislators’ intentions and unintentional legislation. In Law and interpretation: Essays in legal philosophy, ed. A. Marmor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Waluchow, Wil. 2008. Constitutionalism. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/constitutionalism/.

  69. Whittington, Keith E. 2000. Dworkin’s “Originalism”: The role of intentions in constitutional interpretation (critical essay). The Review of Politics 62(2).

  70. Wojciechowski, Bartosz. 2004. Dyskrecjonalność sędziowska. Studium teoretyczno-prawne [Judicial discretion. Legal and theoretical study]. Toruń: Marszałek.

  71. Wolfe, Christopher. 2006. From constitutional interpretation to judicial activism: The transformation of judicial review in America. First Principles Series 2.

  72. Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1987. An outline of a general theory of legal interpretation and constitutional interpretation. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica 32.

  73. Ziegler, Katja S. 2009. Strengthening the rule of law, but fragmenting international law: The Kadi decision of the ECJ from the perspective of human rights. Human Rights Law Review 9: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1976. Practical logic (with the Appendix in “Deontic Logic” by Z. Ziemba), Warsaw: PWN—Polish Scientific Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland/Boston, USA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

  75. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 1993. The instrumentalization of law and legal culture in Eastern European countries. In Law, justice, and the state. studies in justice, democracy, nationality, national states, and supra-national states from the standpoints of legal theory, social philosophy, and social science, Reykjavik.

  76. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2009. European judicial governance and legal philosophy. In Between complexity of law and lack of order. Philosophy of law in the era of globalization, eds. B. Wojciechowski, M. Zirk-Sadowski, and M. Golecki. Torun.

  77. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2009. Soft Kelsenism versus Multicentrism: Some remarks on theoretical foundations of European law. In Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory, eds. B. Wojciechowski, M. Zirk-Sadowski, and M. Golecki. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2006. Transformation and integration of legal cultures and discourses—Poland. In Spreading democracy and the rule of law?, ed. W. Sadurski. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2010. Tworzenie a stosowanie prawa—granice wykładni [Legislation and application of law—limits of interpretation]. In Seminaria Lucieńskie 2008–2009 [Spotkania Prezydenta RP Lecha Kaczyńskiego z intelektualistami]. Referaty wprowadzające do dyskusji. Warsaw: Kancelaria Prezydenta RP.

List of cases

  1. CT (1997) ruling of 5 December 1997, case file no. Ts 14/97 (OTK ZU 1998/1/9)

  2. CT (2000) ruling of 12 April 2000, case no. K 8/98 (OTK 2000/3/87)

  3. CT (1992) ruling of 11 February 1992, case K 14/91 (OTK 1992/1/7)

  4. CT (2000) ruling of 14 March 2000, case no. P 5/99 (OTK ZU no. 2000/2/60)

  5. CT (2000) ruling of 14 March 2000, case no. P 5/99 (OTK ZU 2000/2/60)

  6. CT (2000) ruling of 10 May 2000, case no. K 21/99 (OTK ZU no. 2000/4/109)

  7. CT (2000) ruling of 10 May 2000, case no. K 21/99 (OTK ZU 2000/4/109)

  8. CT (2001) ruling of 7 February 2001, case no. K 27/00 (OTK ZU no. 2001/2/29)

  9. CT (2003) ruling of 23 June 2003, case no. Tw 73/02 (OTK-B 2003/2/81)

  10. CT (2005) ruling of 14 March 2005, case no. K 35/04 (Z.U. 2005/3A/23)

  11. CT (2005) ruling of 27 April 2005, case no. P 1/05 (OTK ZU no. 2005/4/42)

  12. CT (2006) ruling of 14 March 2006, case no. SK 4/05 (OTK ZU no. 2006/3/29)

  13. CT (2006) ruling of 23 May 2006, case no. SK 51/05 (OTK ZU no. 2006/5/58)

  14. CT (2006) ruling of 19 September, 2006, case no. K 7/05 (Z.U. 2006/8A/107)

  15. CT (2007) ruling of 7 March 2007, case no. K 28/05 (OTK-A 2007/3/24)

  16. CT (2007) ruling of 9 October 2007, case no. SK 70/06 (Z.U. 2007/9A/103)

  17. CT (2008) ruling of 14 October 2008, case no. SK 6/07 (Z.U. 2008/8A/137)

  18. CT (2009) ruling of 13 May 2009, case no. KP 2/09 (OTK-A 2009/5/66).

  19. CT (2007) ruling in 19 September 2007, case no. SK 4/06 (Z.U. 2007/8A/98)

  20. ECHR ruling of 5 January 2000, in case Beyler v Italy, Reports 2000-I;

  21. ECHR ruling of 12 April 2006 in case Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (ECHR Report 23 May 2006).

  22. ECHR ruling of 23 February 1995, in case Gasus Dosier- end Fordertechnik v. the Netherlands, (ECHR, Series A, Vol. 306-B, para. 53)

  23. ECHR ruling of 23 November 2000, in case Former King of Grece, Reports 2000-XII.

  24. ECHR ruling of 27 May 1997 in case Eriksen v Norway, (ECHR Reports 1997-III)

  25. ECHR ruling of 4 April 2000 in case Witold Litwa v Poland (ECHR Reports 2000-III)

  26. ECHR ruling of 8 December 1999 in case Pellegrin v. France (ECHR Reports 1999-VII, para. 63)

  27. ECJ ruling in case C-358/97 Commission v Ireland [2000] ECR I-6301

  28. ECJ ruling in case C-482-/02 Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn

  29. ECJ ruling in case no. C-53/81 Levin vs. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [ECR 1982]

  30. ECJ ruling of 19 September 2000 in case C-287/98 of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg versus Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster

  31. EComHR decision of 10 December 1977 in case Marckx v. Belgium

  32. EComHR decision of 21 March 1972 in case X v Germany (Collection 40, at11-14).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Tomasz Stawecki

Authors
  1. Tomasz Stawecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Stawecki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stawecki, T. Autonomous Constitutional Interpretation. Int J Semiot Law 25, 505–535 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-011-9243-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-011-9243-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation