Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation and Legal Interpretation in the Criminal Decisions of the Polish Supreme Court and the German Federal Court of Justice: A Comparative View

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

Abstract

The subject of this study are the argumentation strategies applied by the Polish and German apex courts competent in criminal matters, namely the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Justice, respectively. The investigation encompasses a total of 200 rulings issued by the criminal panels of these bodies. Particular focus was put on examining which arguments both courts apply to solve interpretation problems, and secondly, how these courts systematize the interpretation process. Methodologically, the examination utilizes, inter alia, the principles of qualitative research, without neglecting the legal dogmatic perspective. A crucial theoretical foundation underlying this study is the distinction between formalistic and substantive legal cultures. The examination reveals that neither the Polish nor the German legal culture is purely formalistic or value-oriented. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Poland shows greater affinity for formalistic arguments, whereas the substantive interpretation methods are more widespread in the judicature of the German Federal Court of Justice. In particular, the Polish Court prefers the linguistic interpretation, whereas the German Court favours the purposive approach.

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. Own definition in [19, p. 61]; see also the definitions of other German and Polish authors, cf. [19, p. 55] and the catalogues of topoi in the German and Polish legal cultures, cf. [19, pp. 57–61].

  2. A complete analysis can be found in [19].

  3. Polish Law on the Supreme Court of 23.11.2002 Dz. U. of 2002, item 240. The details on the publishing are set out by the decree of the First President of the Supreme Court in accordance with a decision of the Supreme Court Judges’ Assembly from 01.12.2003 on the rules of procedure of the Supreme Court.

  4. If a panel wishes to deviate from the decision of another panel, it will first enquire whether this panel is adhering to its interpretation of the law (Sect. 132 para. 2 of the Judicial Systems Act—Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, officially abbreviated as GVG). If this is the case, it will submit the question of law to the Grand Panel for a decision (Sect. 132 para. 3 sentence 1 GVG). Furthermore, the adjudicating panel may submit an issue of fundamental importance to the Grand Panel for a decision if it considers the submission essential for the development of the law, or for ensuring the uniform application of the law (Sect. 132 para. 4 GVG).

  5. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 14.12.2004, 4 StR 255/04, BGHSt 49, 376, 378, cf. [19, p. 161]: “Due to ambiguously formulated wording, the question can be answered only based on the history of the law’s development and in consideration of the purpose of the provision”; decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 15.12.2005, 3 StR 281/04, BGHSt 50, 318, 326–327, cf. [19, pp. 162–163]: “Still, the scope of Sect. 54 (…) cannot be determined reliably on the basis of pure wording. The norm has rather to be interpreted decisively also on the basis of its purpose (…)”; and finally decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 9.5.2006, 5 StR 453/05, BGHSt 51, 45, 49, cf. [19, p. 163]: “The wording of Sect. 11 (…) allows the understanding of elected municipal officials as (…). Still, against this understanding speak historical, systematic and teleological arguments”.

  6. More on that [19, p. 160].

  7. See all relevant sections of the 22 decisions in [19, pp. 164–171].

  8. See, as the most prominent example in the research corpus, the decision of the Supreme Court of 26.04.2007, I KZP 6/07, OSNKW 2007, item 37—on that [19, pp. 165–166].

  9. Decision of the Supreme Court of 21.03.2007, I KZP 39/06, OSNKW 2007, item 30, decision of the Supreme Court of 26.04.2007, I KZP 6/07, OSNKW 2007, item 37, decision of the Supreme Court of 29.08.2007, I KZP 19/07, OSNKW 2007, item 60, decision of the Supreme Court of 25.10.2007, I KZP 32/07, OSNKW 2007, item 89, see on that [19, p. 173].

  10. Decision of the Supreme Court of 26.04.2007, I KZP 6/07, OSNKW 2007, item 37, cf. [19, pp. 165–166], see also [19, p. 174].

  11. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 27/07, OSNKW 2007, item 76, cf. [19, p. 168], see also [19, p. 174].

  12. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.9.2007, I KZP 30/07, OSNKW 2007, item 79, cf. [19, p. 169], see also [19, p. 174].

  13. See more on that [19, pp. 120, 109–113].

  14. See more on that [19, p. 119].

  15. See e.g. decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 21/07, OSNKW 2007, item 69, cf. [19, p. 226], decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 25/07, OSNKW 2007, item 78, cf. [19, p. 226].

  16. E.g. decision of the Supreme Court of 04.07.2007, V KK 419/06, OSNKW 2007, item 74, cf. [19, pp. 222–223].

  17. E.g. decision of the Supreme Court of 11.12.2006, V KK 131/06, OSNKW 2007, item 9, cf. [19, pp. 223–224], decision of the Supreme Court of 27.02.2007, I KZP 38/06, OSNKW 2007, item 23, cf. [19, pp. 223–224].

  18. E.g. decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 02.02.2006, 4 StR 570/07, BGHSt 50, 370, cf. [19, p. 228], decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 16.11.2005, 2 StR 457/05, BGHSt 50, 282, cf. [19, pp. 228–229].

  19. See the excerpts of 5 decisions in [19, pp. 177–180].

  20. Decision of the Supreme Court of 26.04.2007, I KZP 7/07, OSNKW 2007, item 38, cf. [19, p. 179].

  21. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 28/07, OSNKW 2007, item 70.

  22. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 28/07, OSNKW 2007, item 70.

  23. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 28/07, OSNKW 2007, item 70.

  24. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 20.11.2004, 4 StR 150/03, BGHSt 49, 8, 14.

  25. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 03.03.2004, 2 StR 109/03, BGHSt 49, 93, 103.

  26. See a more detailed presentation in [19, pp. 181–183].

  27. See a more detailed presentation in [19, pp. 183–184].

  28. See on that [19, pp. 184–185].

  29. An overview in [19, pp. 389–396].

  30. See more on that in [19, pp. 247–248].

  31. See also [5, p. 20 ff.].

  32. An increasing trend was also noticed by [28, pp. 91 ff., 103].

  33. See the write-up of the analysis in every decision in [19, pp. 249–262].

  34. Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.09.2007, I KZP 30/07, OSNKW 2007, item 79, see [19, p. 260].

  35. Decision of the Supreme Court of 21.03.2007, I KZP 39/06, OSNKW 2007, item 30.

  36. Decision of the Supreme Court of 02.02.2007, WA 1/07, OSNKW 2007, item 49, cf. [19, pp. 260–261].

  37. As is also the view in the Polish doctrine: [10, p. 178], [32, p. 90]; in detail, on the role of dictionaries in grammatical interpretation, see [33, recital 482 ff.]; critical to the performance of the dictionaries see [12, p. 148].

  38. See for an overview of all the constitutional topoi and their frequency [19, pp. 309–310].

  39. See more on that [19, pp. 289–290].

  40. See more on that [19, p. 290].

  41. [31, p. 370], [1, recital 434], [2, article 190 recital 1], [3, recital 119].

  42. [4, recital 1450 ff.], neutral [15, § 31 recital 30], critical [25, recital 485 ff.], further evidence in [25, recital 487 ff.]. See more on that [19, p. 291]. See also a problem of the binding effect of the Chamber decisions in [19, pp. 291–294].

  43. 0 references in 25 decisions; 1 reference in 15 decisions; 2 references in 14 decisions; 3 references in 16 decisions, cf. [19, pp. 272–273].

  44. See more on that [19, p. 274].

  45. See [19, pp. 274–275] with examples of descriptions in fn. 411.

  46. See the list of all remarks in [19, p. 276].

  47. E.g. decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 02.12.2003, 1 StR 102/03, BGHSt 49, 29, 30 f.; decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 16.06.2005, 3 StR 492/04, BGHSt 50, 160, 161 f.—see the analysis of these and more selected decisions in [19, pp. 277–284].

  48. See also [19, p. 277].

  49. The Criminal Codes were adopted in 1932, 1969, and 1997; the Codes of Criminal Procedure in 1928, 1969, and 1997.

  50. See as a prime example decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 22.02.2005, KRB 28/04, BGHSt 50, 30, 38 f., cf. [19, pp. 350–352].

  51. E.g. decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 09.11.2005, 4 StR 483/05, BGHSt 50, 275, 278 f., cf. [19, pp. 383–384].

  52. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 16.06.2005, 3 StR 492/04, BGHSt 50, 160, 165 f., cf. [19, p. 384].

  53. Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 07.03.1995, W 9/94, OTK 1995, item 20; decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 26.03.1996, W 12/95, OTK 1996, item 16.

  54. See more on that [19, pp. 123–126].

  55. See more on that [19, pp. 125–126].

  56. The leading case being decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 14.02.1973, 1 BvR 112/65, BVerfGE 34, 269, 286 ff. (Soraya), see more on that [19, pp. 126–128].

  57. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 03.03.2005, GSSt 1/04, BGHSt 50, 40, analysed in [19, pp. 413–421].

  58. See also generally [20, p. 251].

  59. Decision of the Supreme Court of 06.12.2006, III KK 181/06, OSNKW 2007, item 16.

  60. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 01.07.2005, 2 StR 9/05, BGHSt 50, 180.

  61. See on that [19, p. 160].

References

  1. Banaszak, Bogusław, and Tomasz Milej. 2009. Polnisches Staatsrecht. Warszawa: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Banaszak, Bogusław. 2012. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej: Komentarz. Warszawa: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banaszak, Bogusław. 2012. Prawo konstytucyjne. Warszawa: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benda, Ernst, Eckart Klein, and Oliver Klein. 2011. Verfassungsprozessrecht. Heidelberg, München, Landsberg, Frechen and Hamburg: C.F. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bielska-Brodziak, Agnieszka, and Zygmunt Tobor. 2007. Słowniki a interpretacja tekstów prawnych. Państwo i Prawo 5: 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bielska-Brodziak, Agnieszka. 2009. Interpretacja tekstu prawnego na podstawie orzecznictwa podatkowego. Warszawa: Oficyna.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flick, Uwe, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke. 2005. Was ist qualitative Forschung? Einleitung und Überblick. In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch, ed. Uwe Flick and Ines Steinke, 13–29. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heldrich, Andreas. 2000. 50 Jahre Rechtsprechung des BGH—Auf dem Weg zu einem Präjudizienrecht? Festvortrag zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des BGH. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 12: 497–500.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Izdebski, Hubert. 2010. Zasada proporcjonalności a władza dyskrecjonalna administracji publicznej w świetle polskiego orzecznictwa sądowego. Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego 1: 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jabłońska-Bonca, Jolanta. 2008. Wprowadzenie do prawa. Introduction to law. Warszawa: LexisNexis.

  11. Królikowski, Michał. 2017. Problemy wykładni w prawie karnym. Edukacja Prawnicza 12: 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kudlich, Hans, and Ralph Christensen. 2011. Wortlaut, Wörterbuch und Wikipedia—wo findet man die Wortlautgrenze? Juristische Rundschau 4: 146–151.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kudlich, Hans, and Ralph Christensen. 2009. Die Methodik des BGH in Strafsachen: Eine medienwissenschaftliche Inhaltsanalyse von Entscheidungsgründen in Strafsachen. Köln: Carl Heymanns.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Larenz, Karl. 1991. Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Lechner, Hans, and Rüdiger Zuck. 2011. Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz: Kommentar. München: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luhmann, Niklas. 1993. Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Łętowska, Ewa. 2002. Kilka uwag o praktyce wykładni. Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego 1: 27–64.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Majcher, Szymon. 2004. W kwestii tzw. prawotwórstwa sądowego (na przykładzie orzecznictwa SN w sprawach karnych). Państwo i Prawo 2: 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Małolepszy, Maciej. 2015. Deutsche und polnische Auslegung- und Argumentationskultur im Strafrecht: Eine vergleichende Analyse der Rechtsprechung von Bundesgerichtshof und Oberstem Gericht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morawski, Lech, and Marek Zirk-Sadowski. 1997. Precedent in Poland. In Interpreting Precedents. A Comparative Study, ed. Neil D. MacCormick and Robert S. Summers, 219–255. Dartmouth: Routledge.

  21. Morawski, Lech. 2010. Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe Organizacji i Kierownictwa.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Puppe, Ingeborg. 2019. Kleine Schule des juristischen Denkens. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Rehbinder, Manfred. 2014. Rechtssoziologie. München: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rüthers, Bernd, Christian Fischer, and Axel Birk. 2013. Rechtstheorie mit Juristischer Methodenlehre. München: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schlaich, Klaus, and Stefan Korioth. 2012. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht: Stellung, Verfahren, Entscheidungen. München: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Simon, Eric. 2005. Gesetzesauslegung im Strafrecht: Eine Analyse der höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Stawecki, Tomasz, Wiesław Staśkiewicz, and Jan Winczorek. 2008. Między policentrycznością a fragmentaryzacją: Wpływ Trybunału Konstytucyjnego na polski porządek prawny. Warszawa: Ernst & Young.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stawecki, Tomasz. 2003. Interpretacja prawa w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego. In Filozofia prawa wobec globalizmu, ed. Jerzy Stelmach, 91–104. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vogenauer, Stefan. 2001. Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Rechtsprechung und ihrer historischen Grundlagen. 1st volume.

  30. Wank, Rolf. 2011. Die Auslegung von Gesetzen. München: Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Winczorek, Piotr. 2008. Komentarz do Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 2007 roku. Warszawa: Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wronkowska, Sławomira. 2005. Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zieliński, Maciej. 2012. Wykładnia prawa: Zasady, reguły, wskazówki. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zippelius, Reinhold. 2012. Juristische Methodenlehre. München: C.H.Beck.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Holder of the Chair of Polish Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Maciej Małolepszy

  2. Chair of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Góra, Poland

    Maciej Małolepszy

  3. Chair of Polish Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Michał Głuchowski

Authors
  1. Maciej Małolepszy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michał Głuchowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maciej Małolepszy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Małolepszy, M., Głuchowski, M. Argumentation and Legal Interpretation in the Criminal Decisions of the Polish Supreme Court and the German Federal Court of Justice: A Comparative View. Int J Semiot Law 35, 1797–1815 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09843-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09843-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation