Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:17:08.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reading the Tea Leaves: The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Aleksandra Kustra

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The main purpose of the preliminary ruling procedure is to prevent divergences in judicial decisions applying European Union (EU) law and to ensure the uniform interpretation of EU legal provisions across Member States. The procedure, introduced in the Founding Treaties, has provided a platform for the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter, the ECJ or the CJEU) to deliver seminal judgments that have progressively defined the relationship between national and EU legal systems, among others. The procedure has also helped the ECJ to develop fundamental principles of EU law, including direct effect, indirect effect (i.e., the interpretation of national law in line with directives) and primacy. Being one of the most important aspects of the EU judicial system, the procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter, TFEU) has had an immense impact on the harmonious development of EU law and the way in which national courts and EU courts interact and communicate.

Type
Part Three
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 6: Special issue – Preliminary References to the Court of Justice of The European Union by Constitutional Courts , December 2015 , pp. 1543 - 1568
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Treaty instituting the European Coal and Steel Community, 23 July 1952, Art. 41, UNTS, vol. 261, 171 (ratified through 1952). Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 1 January 1958, Art. 177, UNTS, vol. 294, 295, 296, 297, 298 (ratified through 1957).Google Scholar

2 Norberg, Andreas, Preliminary rulings and the co-operation between national and European Courts 16 (2006).Google Scholar

3 See also the guidance provided by the ECJ on the preliminary reference procedure by national courts, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012H1106(01)&from=EN.Google Scholar

4 See the text of the annual report, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_11035/rapports-annuels. Proceedings of the Court of Justice in 1998 by Mr G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President 2–3.Google Scholar

5 See the text of the annual report 8–9, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_11035/rapports-annuels.Google Scholar

6 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 26 October 2012, Ex. Art. 177 and 234, OJEC, vol. 326, 141 and 164 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

7 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 22, Case C–169/08, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v. Regione Sardegna, 2009 E.C.R. I–10821.Google Scholar

8 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 23, Case C–169/08, Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v. Regione Sardegna, 2009 E.C.R. I–10821.Google Scholar

9 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 16, Case C–239/07, Sabatauskas and Ohters, 2008 E.C.R. I–07523.Google Scholar

10 Id. at para. 18.Google Scholar

11 See Kustra, Aleksandra, Sądy konstytucyjne a procedura prejudycjalna przed Trybunałem Sprawledliwości Unii Europejskiej, 4 Przegląd Sejmowy 78 (2012).Google Scholar

12 See Zdzisław Czeszejko-Sochacki, Leszek Garlicki, Janusz Trzciński, Komentarz do ustawy o Trybunale konstytucyjnym 6 (1999).Google Scholar

13 See Wojtyczek, Krzysztof, Sądownictwo konstytucyjne w Polsce. Wybrane zagadnienia (2013).Google Scholar

14 See Tuleja, Piotra, Stosowanie Konstytucji RP w świetle zasadyjej nadrzędności (wybrane problemy) (2003).Google Scholar

15 See Monika Florczak-Wątor, Orzeczenia Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i ich skutki prawne (2006); Gonera, Katarzyna, Ewa Łętowska, Artykuł 190 Konstytucji ijego konsekwencje w praktyce sądowej 9 Państwo i Prawo (2003).Google Scholar

16 See Barcz, Jan, Glosa wyroku TK z dnia 11 maja 2005 r., K 18/04, 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego 169 (2005); Biernat, Stanistaw, Glosa wyroku TK z dnia 11 maja 2005 r., K 18/04, 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego 185 (2005); Czapliński, Wtadystaw, Glosa wyroku TK z dnia 11 maja 2005 r., K 18/04, 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego 207 (2005); Wyrozumska, Anna, Glosa wyroku TK z dnia 11 maja 2005 r., K 18/04, 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego 223 (2005); Wójtowicz, Krzysztof, Glosa wyroku TK z dnia 11 maja 2005 r., K 18/04, 6 Przeglad Sejmowy 190 (2005).Google Scholar

17 “(1) The Republic of Poland may, by virtue of international agreements, delegate to an international organization or international institution the competence of organs of State authority in relation to certain matters.Google Scholar

(2) A statute, granting consent for ratification of an international agreement referred to in para.1, shall be passed by the Sejm by a two-thirds majority vote in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies, and by the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Senators.Google Scholar

(3) Granting of consent for ratification of such agreement may also be passed by a nationwide referendum in accordance with the provisions of Article 125.Google Scholar

(4) Any resolution in respect of the choice of procedure for granting consent to ratification shall be taken by the Sejm by an absolute majority vote taken in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies.”Google Scholar

18 Article 91: “(1) After promulgation thereof in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (Dziennik Ustaw), a ratified international agreement shall constitute part of the domestic legal order and shall be applied directly, unless its application depends on the enactment of a statute.Google Scholar

(2) An international agreement ratified upon prior consent granted by statute shall have precedence over statutes if such an agreement cannot be reconciled with the provisions of such statutes.Google Scholar

(3) If an agreement, ratified by the Republic of Poland, establishing an international organization so provides, the laws established by it shall be applied directly and have precedence in the event of a conflict of laws.”Google Scholar

19 Point 11.1. of the judgment.Google Scholar

20 See Payandeh, Mehrdad, Constitutional Review of EU Law after Honeywell: Contextualizing the Relationship between the German Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice, 48.1 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9-38 (2011).Google Scholar

21 Pursuant to Art. 188 of the Polish Constitution: “The Constitutional Tribunal shall adjudicate regarding the following matters:Google Scholar

1) the conformity of statutes and international agreements to the Constitution;2) the conformity of a statute to ratified international agreements whose ratification required prior consent granted by statute;3) the conformity of legal provisions issued by central State organs to the Constitution, ratified international agreements and statutes;4) the conformity to the Constitution of the purposes or activities of political parties; 5) complaints concerning constitutional infringements, as specified in Article 79, para. 1.” Google Scholar

22 The Act of 23 January 2004 on excise duty (Journal of Laws (Dz.U.) No. 29, item 257, as amended).Google Scholar

23 See also Lazowski, Adam, Constitutional Tribunal on the Preliminary Ruling Procedure and the Division of Competences Between National Court and the Court of Justice, 4 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 187-97 (2008).Google Scholar

24 See Banaszkiewicz, Bolesław, Glosa do postanowienia Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 19 grudnia 2006 r., P 37/05 (problem kontroli zgodności polskiej ustawy z prawem wspólnotowym), 2 Przegląd Legislacyjny 108 (2007); Wyrozumska, Anna, Stosowanie prawa wspólnotowego a art. 91, 188 i 193 Konstytucji RP, 3 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 39 (2007).Google Scholar

25 See Martinico, Giuseppe, Preliminary Reference and Constitutional Courts: Are We in the Mood for Dialogue?, Tilsburg Institute of Comparative and Transnational Law Working Paper 11 (2009/10), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract+1483664. Further on the issue of the ICC's previous case-law concerning the preliminary ruling procedure, see Dani, Marco, Tracking Judicial Dialogue—The Scope for preliminary Rulings from the Italian Constitutional Court, 10 The Jean Monnet Working Paper 5-12 (2008), available at www.JeanMonnetProgram.org.Google Scholar

26 See Matteucci, Stefano Civitarese, The Italian Constitutional Court Strengthens the Dialogue with the European Court of Justice Lodging for the First Time a Preliminary Ruling in an Indirect (‘Incidenter') Proceeding, 14 Eur. Pub. L., 633-46 (2014); Adamo, Ugo, Nel dialogo con la Corte di giustizia la Corte costituzionale è un organo giurisdizionale nazionale anche nel giudizio in via incidentale. Note a caldo sull'ord. N. 207/2013, 1 Rivista dell'associazione Italiana dei Costituzionalisti (2014); Adinolfi, Adelina, Una «rivoluzione silenziosa»: il primo rinvio pregiudiziale della Corte costituzionale italiana in un procedimento incidentale di legittimità costituzionale, 4 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (2013).Google Scholar

27 On the disadvantages of such a concept in the Italian legal system, see Cartabia, Marta, Joseph H.H. Weiler, L'Italia in Europa, Profili istituzionali e costituzionali 196-97 (2000).Google Scholar

28 See Bobek, Michal, The Impact of the European Mandate of Ordinary Courts on the Position of Constitutional Courts in Constitutional Conversations In Europe 287–308 (Maartje de Visser & Catherine Van De Heyning eds., 2012).Google Scholar

29 This standpoint strongly resembles the position taken by the ICC in the Granital and Mesagerazio Servizi judgments, where the ICC strongly isolated itself from the application of the EU law and gave the floor to ordinary and administrative courts.Google Scholar

30 The other constitutional courts which have raised preliminary questions concerning the validity of EU law are: the Belgian Constitutional Court, the Austrian Constitutional Tribunal, and the German Federal Constitutional Court.Google Scholar

31 Similarly to, among others, the German Federal Constitutional Court (ultra vires doctrine and the constitutional identity review) and the ICC (controlimiti concept).Google Scholar

32 See Lazowski, supra note 21, at 194.Google Scholar

33 Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 2001 O.J. 1, as amended.Google Scholar

34 See Bogdanowicz, Piotr, Pawel Marcisz, Szukajqc granic kontroli– glosa do wyroku TK z 16.11.2011 r. (SK 45/09), 9 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 47 (2012); Jan Galster, Agnieszka Knade-Plaskacz, Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 16 listopada 2011 r. (sygn. akt SK 45/09), 6 Przegląd Sejmowy 131 (2012).Google Scholar

35 Point 8.2. of the judgment.Google Scholar

36 Statement of the German FCC from 22 October 1986, sign. 2 BvR 197/83.Google Scholar

37 Bosphorus Airlines v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98, (Jan. 30, 2005), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

38 Point 8.5 of the judgment.Google Scholar

39 Point 8.5 of the judgment.Google Scholar

40 What is worth mentioning is that the PCT referred to the view presented by the German FCC in its judgment of 6 June 2010 in the case Honeywell. Google Scholar

41 See Markéta Navrátilová, The Preliminary Ruling before Constitutional Courts; Clelia Lacchi, The Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Make a Reference For a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice of the EU as a Constitutional Guarantee, in this Special Issue.Google Scholar

42 1997 O.J. 1997 (L 28) 1.Google Scholar

43 2005 O.J. (L 117) 1.Google Scholar

44 See also Lazowski, Adam, Half Full and Half Empty Glass: the Application of EU Law in Poland (2004–2010), 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 548 (2011); Zalasiński, Adam, Odliczenie dla celów podatkowych składek na ubezpieczenie społeczne i zdrowotne, zapłaconych za granicą. Glosa do wyroku TK z 7 listopada 2007 r. (K 18/06), 4 Przegląd Podatkowy 41 (2008).Google Scholar

45 Pursuant to Art. 190(3) of the Polish Constitution: “A judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal shall take effect from the day of its publication, however, the Constitutional Tribunal may specify another date for the end of the binding force of a normative act. Such time period may not exceed 18 months in relation to a statute or 12 months in relation to any other normative act. Where a judgment has financial consequences not provided for in the Budget, the Constitutional Tribunal shall specify date for the end of the binding force of the normative act concerned, after seeking the opinion of the Council of Ministers.”Google Scholar

46 The ECJ concurred with the PCT's view on the lack of differentiation of legal situation among Polish nationals working abroad. Concomitantly, it pointed out that what had to be compared was the situation of Polish nationals who resided in Poland and pursued their economic activity in Poland with the situation of Polish nationals who resided in Poland but pursued their economic activity in another Member State. According to the ECJ, the taxation of both groups should be conducted by applying the same rules of tax deduction. As a result, the Court, by answering to the first preliminary question, stated that provisions of Polish tax law violated the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under Arts. 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty. See Przemysław Miktaszewicz, Pytanie prejudycjalne do TS oparte na wadliwej wykładni prawa krajowego dokonanej przez sąd pytający (w kontekście wpływu odroczenia przez TK terminu utraty mocy obowiązującej niekonstytucyjnych przepisów krajowych na skuteczność prawa UE) – glosa do wyroku WSA w Poznaniu z 14.01.2010 r. (I SA/Po 1006/09), 10 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 41 (2011); Kustra, Aleksandra, Odroczenie przez TK mocy obowiqzującej przepisu niezgodnego z prawem UE – glosa do wyroku TS z 19.11.2009 w sprawie C–314/08 Krzysztof Filipiak v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu, 6 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 34–40 (2012).Google Scholar

47 Kustra, supra note 42, at 39–40.Google Scholar

48 The decision of Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu of 30 May 2008, signature I SA 1756/07.Google Scholar

49 C–399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal (February 26, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

50 C–617/10, Judgment of 26 February 2013, Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson (Feburary 26, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

51 Case C–112/13, A v. B and Others, (September 11, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/ Google Scholar

52 Further on this issue, see Thym, Daniel, Separation versus Fusion – or: How to Accommodate National Autonomy and the Charter? Diverging Visions of the German Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 391–419 (2013); Fontanelli, Filippo, Hic Sunt Nationes: The Elusive Limits of the EU Charter and the German Constitutional Watchdog: Court of Justice of the European Union: Judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C–617/10 Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 315 (2013).Google Scholar

53 “(4) Animal welfare is a Community value that is enshrined in the Protocol (No 33) on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (Protocol (No 33)). The protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing is a matter of public concern that affects consumer attitudes towards agricultural products. In addition, improving the protection of animals at the time of slaughter contributes to higher meat quality and indirectly has a positive impact on occupational safety in slaughterhouses.”Google Scholar

“(18) Derogation from stunning in case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses was granted by Directive 93/119/EC. Since Community provisions applicable to religious slaughter have been transposed differently depending on national contexts and considering that national rules take into account dimensions that go beyond the purpose of this Regulation, it is important that derogation from stunning animals prior to slaughter should be maintained, leaving, however, a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member State. As a consequence, this Regulation respects the freedom of religion and the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”Google Scholar

54 See Komarek, Jan, The Place of Constitutional Courts in the EU, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 442 (2013).Google Scholar

55 Sarmiento, Daniel, Reinforcing the (Domestic) Constitutional Protection of Primacy of EU Law: Tribunal Constitutional, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 890 (2013).Google Scholar

56 Journal of Laws of 2011, No. 177, item 1054, as amended.Google Scholar

57 More precisely, the Commissioner applied for the declaration of Items 72, 73, 74 and 75 of Schedule 3 to the VAT Act read in conjunction with Article 41(2) VAT Act, and Items 32, 33, 34 and 35 of Schedule 10 to the VAT Act read in conjunction with Article 41(2) VAT Act, as incompatible with Article 32 of the Constitution read in conjunction with Articles 84 and 2 of the Constitution, to the extent these provisions excluded the application of reduced rates of VAT to digital books and other electronic publications.Google Scholar

58 Cf. para. 3.1.2 of the decision's statement of reasons.Google Scholar

59 2006 O.J. (L 347) 1, as amended.Google Scholar

60 2009 O.J. (L 116) 18.Google Scholar