DOCSLIB.ORG

The Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (As of 26 September 2017) TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (As of 26 September 2017) TABLE of CONTENTS Warsaw, 13 November 2017 Opinion-Nr.: JUD-POL/315/2017 [AlC] http://www.legislationline.org/ OPINION ON CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DRAFT ACT ON THE SUPREME COURT OF POLAND (AS OF 26 SEPTEMBER 2017) based on an unofficial English translation of certain provisions of the Draft Act commissioned by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights This Opinion has benefited from contributions made by Ms. Michèle Rivet, International Human Rights Law Expert and former Vice-President of the International Commission of Jurists; Professor Karoly Bard, Chair of the Human Rights Program, Legal Studies Department, Central European University, Budapest; Mr. Murray Hunt, Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law; Ms. Marta Achler, International Human Rights Law Expert and PhD Researcher at the Department of Law of the European University Institute, Florence; and Ms. Alice Thomas, International Human Rights Law Expert. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ulica Miodowa 10 PL-00-251 Warsaw ph. +48 22 520 06 00 fax. +48 22 520 0605 This Opinion is also available in Polish. However, the English version remains the only official version of the document. OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3 II. SCOPE OF REVIEW ................................................................................ 3 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 4 IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 6 1. International Standards and OSCE Commitments on the Independence of the Judiciary6 2. Changes to the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction and Reorganization of its Chambers ........ 7 2.1. The New Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber and Extraordinary Appeals ...... 7 2.2. The Adjudication of Election-related Matters by the New Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber ....................................................................................................................... 17 2.3. The New Disciplinary Chamber ............................................................................................... 19 2.4. Supreme Court Lay Judges Sitting on the Disciplinary and the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chambers .......................................................................................................... 20 2.5. The Advisory Role of the Supreme Court ................................................................................. 23 3. The Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court ........................................................................... 24 4. Eligibility, Appointment, Status and Career of Supreme Court Judges ................................... 25 4.1. New Eligibility Requirements ................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Appointment of the First President of the Supreme Court and Presidents of Chambers ......... 28 4.3. New Rules Concerning the Retirement of Supreme Court Judges ............................................ 31 4.4. Rules and Limitations Regarding Other Occupations or Employment of Supreme Court Judges in Office and Retired Judges .................................................................................................... 32 5. Disciplinary Proceedings against Supreme Court Judges and other Legal Professionals ...... 33 5.1. The President of the Republic’s Involvement in Disciplinary Proceedings against Supreme Court Judges ............................................................................................................................ 33 5.2. The Minister of Justice’s Involvement in Disciplinary Proceedings against Other Legal Professionals ............................................................................................................................ 34 6. The Compulsory Retirement of All Judges of the Military Chamber and the Application of New Retirement Provisions to Existing Supreme Court Judges ............................................... 36 6.1. The Compulsory Retirement of All Judges of the Military Court ............................................. 36 6.2. The Compulsory Retirement of Existing Supreme Court Judges Having Reached the Retirement Age and the Procedure for their Extension ........................................................... 37 7. New Draft Amendments to the 2011 Act on the National Council of the Judiciary ................ 39 8. Additional Concerns Related to the Legislative Process ............................................................ 40 Annex 1: OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (30 August 2017), also available at <http://www.legislationline.org/search/runSearch/1/type/2/country/10/topic/9> Annex 2: Extracts of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017) 2 OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017) I. INTRODUCTION 1. On 20 September 2017, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (hereinafter “OSCE/ODIHR”) received a request from the First President of the Supreme Court of Poland to review the Draft Act on the Supreme Court being prepared by the President of the Republic of Poland (hereinafter “the Draft Act”). This draft Act was submitted by the President to the Sejm (lower house of the Parliament of Poland) on 26 September 2017.1 2. On 18 October 2017, the OSCE/ODIHR responded to this request, confirming the Office’s readiness to prepare a legal opinion on the compliance of the Draft Act with international human rights and rule of law standards and OSCE human dimension commitments. 3. Given the short timeline to prepare this legal review, the present Opinion will focus on the most significant changes that the Draft Act intends to introduce to the current Act on the Supreme Court of 23 November 2002 (hereinafter “the 2002 Supreme Court Act”),2 where these changes raise concerns in terms of their compliance with international standards. The OSCE/ODIHR stands ready to review other provisions of the Draft Act upon request, should this be deemed useful to inform on-going discussions on the reform of the judiciary in Poland. 4. The OSCE/ODIHR has already reviewed certain provisions of a previous Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland submitted to the Sejm on 12 July 2017. This previous Draft Act was adopted by the Sejm and the Senate on 20 July and 22 July 2017 respectively, but was vetoed by the President of the Republic of Poland on 24 July 2017.3 The OSCE/ODIHR published its Opinion on certain provisions of this previous Draft Act on 30 August 2017 (hereinafter “August 2017 Opinion”, also available in Annex 1).4 5. The present Opinion will make reference to the findings and recommendations contained in the August 2017 Opinion whenever the provisions under review are identical or comparable and raise similar concerns in terms of compliance with international human rights and rule of law standards, and OSCE human dimension commitments. 6. This Opinion was prepared in response to the above-mentioned request. II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 7. The scope of this Opinion covers only certain provisions of the Draft as mentioned in par 3 supra, except for cases where the OSCE/ODIHR deemed it necessary to refer and analyse other provisions in the interests of comprehensiveness, including key provisions 1 See <http://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/agent.xsp?symbol=PROJNOWEUST&Nrkadencji=8&Kol=D&Typ=UST>. 2 For the Polish version of the Act on the Supreme Court of 23 November 2002, as last amended on 22 July 2016, see <http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/21175>. For an English version of the 2002 Supreme Court Act as of 8 February 2013, see <http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/21174>. 3 See <http://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?nr=1727>. 4 OSCE/ODIHR, Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (30 August 2017), available at <http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/21259> (English version) and <http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/21260> (Polish version). 3 OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on Certain Provisions of the Draft Act on the Supreme Court of Poland (as of 26 September 2017) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland5 (hereinafter “the Constitution”). Thus limited, the Opinion does not constitute a full and comprehensive review of the Draft Act or of the entire legal and institutional framework regulating the judiciary in Poland. 8. The Opinion raises key issues and provides indications of areas of concern. The ensuing recommendations are based on international standards, norms and practices as well as relevant OSCE human dimension commitments. The Opinion also highlights, as appropriate, good practices from other OSCE participating States in this field. When referring to national legislation, the OSCE/ODIHR does not advocate for any specific country model; it rather focuses on providing clear information about applicable international standards while illustrating how they are implemented in practice in certain national laws. Any country example should always be approached with caution since it cannot necessarily be replicated in another country and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tackling Labour Exploitation in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania
    March 2019 Tackling labour exploitation in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania Author: Suzanne Hoff (La Strada International) RIGHTS AT WORK TACKLING LABOUR EXPLOITATION IN POLAND, BULGARIA AND ROMANIA Colophon Rights at Work Tackling labour exploitation in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania March 2019 This publication has been made possible Author Suzanne Hoff with the financial support of the Dutch (La Strada International) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Small Human Copy editor Stephanie Ross Rights Fund). It was developed within the Cover photo Shutterstock framework of the project Rights at Work – Layout Frans Schupp Tackling labour exploitaiton in all economic sectors in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. Acknowledgements La Strada International would like to thank all the organisations that partnered in this project, including: the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), FairWork, La Strada Foundation against Trafficking in Persons and Slavery (La Strada Poland), the Association for Legal Intervention (SIP) in Poland, AIDRom in Romania and Animus Association Foundation in Bulgaria. The following people contributed by providing and collecting information and/or reviewing specific sections of this publication. Their input, comments and additions were invaluable: Ilona Hartlief, Katrin Mc Gauran, Joanna Garnier, Irena Dawid, Antoaneta Vassileva, Nadia Kozhouharova, Dobryana Petkova, Katarzyna Slubik, Elena Timofticiuc, Louis Ulrich and Julia Muraszkiewicz. Further special thanks go to those who supported the implementation of the Rights at Work project, including Esther de Haan, Karin Burgerhout and Eline Willemsen, all participants of the final conference of the project held on 28 September 2018 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, as well as all those in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania who attended project activities and were ready to be interviewed during the fact-finding missions in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Measures
    Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 47/20 Luxembourg, 8 April 2020 Order of the Court in Case C-791/19 R Press and Information Commission v Poland Poland must immediately suspend the application of the national provisions on the powers of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court with regard to disciplinary cases concerning judges The pleas of fact and of law put forward by the Commission justify the grant of interim measures In 2017, Poland adopted the new disciplinary regime for judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) and the ordinary courts. Specifically, under that legislative reform, a new Chamber, the Izba Dyscyplinarna (the Disciplinary Chamber) was created within the Sąd Najwyższy. The jurisdiction of the Izba Dyscyplinarna thus covers, inter alia, disciplinary cases concerning judges of the Sąd Najwyższy and, on appeal, those concerning judges of the ordinary courts. Taking the view that, by adopting the new disciplinary regime for judges, Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law,1 on 25 October 2019 the Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice.2 The Commission claims, inter alia,3 that the new disciplinary regime does not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Izba Dyscyplinarna , composed exclusively of judges selected by the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (the National Council of the Judiciary; ‘the KRS’), the fifteen judges who are members of which were elected by the Sejm (the lower chamber of the Polish Parliament). By its judgment of 19 November
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Think Tanks and Governments. Country Report. Poland
    “Legal Think Tanks and government – capacity building”: project supported by the International Visegrad Fund www.visegradfund.org Project partners: POLAND HUNGARY Legal Think Tanks and Government CZECH REPUBLIC – Capacity Building Country Report. Poland SLOVAKIA UKRAINE Authors Łukasz BOJARSKI Grzegorz WIADEREK MOLDOVA 1 Authors of the study Łukasz BOJARSKI President and co-founder of INPRIS, lawyer. Co-founder and Chairman of the Board of the Polish Legal Clinics Foundation (FUPP). Expert of Polish and international institutions (including European Commission, OSCE, Council of Europe, academia, private foundations including Stefan Batory Foundation, Open Society Institute). Member of the Editorial Board of the „National Judicial Council. Quarterly” (http://www.krs.pl/pl/kwartalnik-krs). Before: Member of the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland, (2010-2015). Member of the Board of Directors of PILnet – The Global Network for Public Interest Law (2008-2016). Employee of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights in the years 1998-2010. Member of the Experts Council of the „Citizen and the Law” (Obywatel i Prawo) program of the Polish- American Freedom Foundation (2005-2013), Member of the Committee on the Efficiency of Justice in the Ministry of Justice. Fields of interest: judiciary, legal services, legal profession, legal education, non- discrimination, human rights. Author of the reform proposals on the access to legal aid and the legal profession. Author of numerous publications on the judiciary, access to justice and interactive innovative methods in legal education, see list of main publications. Contact: lukasz.bojarski at inpris.pl Grzegorz WIADEREK Co-founder of INPRIS and member of the Management Board, lawyer.
    [Show full text]
  • Studia Politica 32014
    www.ssoar.info The 2014 European Elections. The Case of Poland Sula, Piotr Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Sula, P. (2014). The 2014 European Elections. The Case of Poland. Studia Politica: Romanian Political Science Review, 14(3), 395-406. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-445354 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de The 2014 European Elections The Case of Poland PIOTR SULA Introduction This article presents the conduct and consequence of the election to the European Parliament held in Poland on 25 May 2014. It is a commonly accepted view that elections are inherent in the democratic order. Members of the European Parliament are elected following a similar procedure to that governing the elections to national Parliaments. Probably as widespread is the opinion that, since they do not result in the election of the executive branch of government, European elections are of less significance to the competing parties – which appear to prioritise their participation in the future government – than the competition for seats in the national parliament. As a consequence, the lesser impact of the decisions made at the ballot box is also translated into a less intense interest in the European elections expressed by the electorate.
    [Show full text]
  • Poland's 2019 Parliamentary Election
    — SPECIAL REPORT — 11/05/2019 POLAND’S 2019 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION Tomasz Grzegorz Grosse Warsaw Institute POLAND’S 2019 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION Held on October 13, 2019, Poland’s general election is first and foremost a success of democracy, as exemplified by crowds rushing to polling stations and a massive rise in voter turnout. Those that claimed victory were the govern- ment groups that attracted a considerable electorate, winning in more constitu- encies across the country they ruled for the past four years. Opposition parties have earned a majority in the Senate, the upper house of the Polish parliament. A fierce political clash turned into deep chasms throughout the country, and Poland’s political stage reveals polarization between voters that lend support to the incumbent government and those that question the authorities by manifest- ing either left-liberal or far-right sentiments. Election results Poland’s parliamentary election in 2019 attrac- try’s 100-seat Senate, the upper house of the ted the attention of Polish voters both at home parliament, it is the Sejm where the incum- and abroad while drawing media interest all bents have earned a majority of five that has over the world. At stake were the next four a pivotal role in enacting legislation and years in power for Poland’s ruling coalition forming the country’s government2. United Right, led by the Law and Justice party (PiS)1. The ruling coalition won the election, The electoral success of the United Right taking 235 seats in Poland’s 460-seat Sejm, the consisted in mobilizing its supporters to a lower house of the parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Judicial Reform in Ukraine and in Poland: Onstitutional and European Legal Aspect in the Context of Independent Judiciary
    RESEARCH ARTICLES CURRENT JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE AND IN POLAND: ONSTITUTIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL ASPECT IN THE CONTEXT OF INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY Grzegorz Borkowski, Doctor of Law, Judge seconded to the Regional Court Warszawa-Praga, former Head of Office of the National Council of Judiciary (Poland) Olga Sovgyria, Doctor of Science (Law), professor of the Department of Constitutional Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Kyiv, Ukraine) https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-2.3-a000011 Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Judicial System of Poland at the Present Stage. – 2.1. Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.1. Composition of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.1.2. Refusal of Publication of Certain Judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. – 2.2. The Common Courts System. – 2.2.1. Merger of the Functions of Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General and its Consequences. – 2.2.2. Court directors. – 2.2.3. Random Allocation of Cases. – 2.2.4. Judicial Appointments. – 2.2.5. Secondment of Judges. – 2.2.6. Appointment and Dismissal of Court Presidents. – 2.3. Supreme Court. – 2.3.1. Extraordinary Complaint (Article 86). – 2.3.2. Changes in the Structure of the Supreme Court. – 2.3.3. Lay Judges. – 2.3.4. Changes in Disciplinary Proceedings in Respect of the SC and the Common Judiciary. – 2.4. National Council for Judiciary. – 2.4.1. Entrusting the Sejm with the Competence to Elect the Members of the Council. – 2.4.2 Termination of Office of the Current Members of the Council. – 3. Judicial Reform in Ukraine in 2016: Problems of Implementation. – 3.1. General Characteristics of the Judiciary in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • China at the Gates a New Power Audit of Eu-China Relations
    CHINA AT THE GATES A NEW POWER AUDIT OF EU-CHINA RELATIONS François Godement & Abigaël Vasselier ABOUT ECFR The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is the first pan-European think-tank. Launched in October 2007, its objective is to conduct research and promote informed debate across Europe on the development of coherent, effective and values- based European foreign policy. ECFR has developed a strategy with three distinctive elements that define its activities: • A pan-European Council. ECFR has brought together a distinguished Council of over two hundred Members - politicians, decision makers, thinkers and business people from the EU’s member states and candidate countries - which meets once a year as a full body. Through geographical and thematic task forces, members provide ECFR staff with advice and feedback on policy ideas and help with ECFR’s activities within their own countries. The Council is chaired by Carl Bildt, Emma Bonino and Mabel van Oranje. • A physical presence in the main EU member states. ECFR, uniquely among European think-tanks, has offices in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia and Warsaw. Our offices are platforms for research, debate, advocacy and communications. • Developing contagious ideas that get people talking. ECFR has brought together a team of distinguished researchers and practitioners from all over Europe to carry out innovative research and policy development projects with a pan-European focus. ECFR produces original research; publishes policy reports; hosts private meetings, public debates, and “friends of ECFR” gatherings in EU capitals; and reaches out to strategic media outlets. ECFR is a registered charity funded by the Open Society Foundations and other generous foundations, individuals and corporate entities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic
    Chicago Journal of International Law Volume 10 Number 1 Article 13 6-1-2009 The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges Shimon Shetreet Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil Recommended Citation Shetreet, Shimon (2009) "The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges," Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 10: No. 1, Article 13. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol10/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Normative Cycle of Shaping Judicial Independence in Domestic and International Law: The Mutual Impact of National and International Jurisprudence and Contemporary Practical and Conceptual Challenges Shimon Shetreet* I. INTRODUCTION The creation of the culture of judicial independence has been a combined process of national and international developments. The process consists of a cycle of normative and conceptual impact of national law on international law and later, of international law on national law. In the cycle's first phase, which began in 1701 with England's enactment of the Act of Settlement,' judicial independence was conceived domestically. In the second phase, which began shortly thereafter, this domestic development crossed national boundaries and impacted the thinking of scholars and political leaders in the international community.
    [Show full text]
  • Studia Iuridica 2015/60. Collective Labour
    COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW Studia Iuridica tom 60 COLLECTIVE LABOUR LAW logo WUW.inddWarszawa 1 20155/12/2014 12:54:19 PM Rada Programowa Grażyna Bałtruszajtys (przewodnicząca), Jan Błeszyński, Zdzisław Galicki, Hubert Izdebski, Jacek Lang, Maria Rogacka-Rzewnicka, Marek Wąsowicz, Beata Janiszewska (sekretarz) Członkowie Rady Programowej afiliowani za granicą Marc Bors (Uniwersytet we Fribourgu), Michael Martinek (Uniwersytet w Saarbrücken), Alessandro Somma (Uniwersytet w Ferrarze), Elena V. Timoshina (Uniwersytet w Sankt Petersburgu) Redaktorzy naukowi tomu Łukasz Pisarczyk Jakub Stelina Recenzenci „Studia Iuridica” w 2015 r. Francisco Javier Andrés Santos, Wojciech Dajczak, Włodzimierz Kamyszanskij, Luz Maria Martinez Velencoso, Andriej Łusznikow, Bronisław Sitek, Jakob Fortunat Stagl Redaktor naczelny Tomasz Giaro Redaktor tematyczny Łukasz Pisarczyk Redaktor językowy Radosław Pawelec Sekretarz Redakcji Adam Niewiadomski Projekt okładki i stron tytułowych Jakub Rakusa-Suszczewski Redaktor prowadzący Dorota Dziedzic Redaktor Krystyna Dziewanowska-Stefańczyk Opracowanie redakcyjne streszczeń anglojęzycznych Robert Stępień ISSN 0137-4346 ISBN 978-83-235-1932-4 © Copyright by Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2015 Wersją pierwotną czasopisma jest wersja drukowana. „Studia Iuridica” znajdują się w wykazie czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego na potrzeby oceny parametrycznej jednostek naukowych. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 00-497 Warszawa, ul. Nowy Świat 4 www.wuw.pl; e-mail: [email protected] Dział
    [Show full text]
  • Hlavičkový Papier K NR SR
    Informal Meeting of Speakers of EU Parliaments - Bratislava Parliamentary Summit 6 – 7 October 2016 Bratislava LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Réunion informelle des Présidents des parlements de l´UE- Sommet parlementaire de Bratislava 6 – 7 octobre 2016 Bratislava LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS MEMBER STATES – ÉTATS MEMBRES AUSTRIA – AUTRICHE – ÖSTERREICH National Council / Conseil national / Nationalrat Federal Council / Conseil fédéral / Bundesrat Mr./M. Mario Lindner Head of delegation President of the Federal Council Mr./M. Helfried Carl Ambassador Ms/Mme Susanne Bachmann Secretary General of the Federal Council Mr./M. Gerhard Koller Head of EU Relations Division BELGIUM – BELGIQUE – BELGIË Federal Parliament / Parlement fédéral / Federaal Parlement Mr./M. Siegfried Bracke Head of delegation President of the Belgian House of Representatives Mr./M. Daniel Lucion Principal Advisor, Federal Advisory Committee on EU-Affairs Mr./M. Tim De Bondt Representative of the Belgian Senate to the European Parliament BULGARIA – BULGARIE - БЪЛГАРИЯ National Assembly / Assemblée nationale / Narodno sabranie Mr./M. Dimitar Glavchev Head of delegation Vice-president of the National Assembly Ms./Mme Margarita Ganeva Ambassador Mr./M. Hristo Kraevski Permanent Representative of the National Assembly to the EP Ms./Mme Vera Gikova-Marincheva Advisor Ms./Mme Adriyana Galabinova Advisor, International Relation and Protocol Department Ms./Mme Sonya Koukleva Interpreter CROATIA – CROATIE – HRVATSKA Parliament / Parlement / Hrvatski sabor CYPRUS – CHYPRE – Κ´ΥΠΡΟΣ House of Representatives / Chambre des représentants / Vouli ton Antiprosopon Mr./M. Nicos Tornaritis Head of delegation Vice-President of the House of Representatives Ms./Mme Hara Parla Senior International Relations Officer CZECH REPUBLIC – RÉPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE – ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA Chamber of Deputies / Chambre des députés / Poslanecká Sněmovna Mr./M.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Communist Law: Its Background and Development
    Michigan Law Review Volume 60 Issue 4 1962 Chinese Communist Law: Its Background and Development Luke T. Lee Research Fellow in Chinese Law at Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Luke T. Lee, Chinese Communist Law: Its Background and Development, 60 MICH. L. REV. 439 (1962). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol60/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHINESE COMMUNIST LAW: ITS BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENTt Luke T. Lee* I. INTRODUCTION T is perhaps axiomatic to state that law is more than an instru­ I ment for the settlement of disputes and punishment of wrong­ doers; it is, more importantly, a reflection of the way of life and the philosophy of the people that live under it. Self-evident though the above may be, it bears repeating here, for there is a much greater need for understanding Chinese law now than ever before. China's growing ideological, political, economic, and military impact on the rest of the world would alone serve as a powerful motivation for the study of its law. Certainly, we could not even begin to understand China's foreign policies, its future role in international organizations, its treatment of foreign rights and interests in China, and, above all, the acceptability of the Com­ munist regime to the Chinese people, without some knowledge of its legal system and its concepts of justice and law, both domestic and international.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Law and Judicial Independence: Protecting Core Values in Times of Change
    THE RULE OF LAW AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: PROTECTING CORE VALUES IN TIMES OF CHANGE Antonio Lamer' I. Introduction For many, Ivan C. Rand is a name from the past. For me, he is far more than that. When I was called to the Bar of Québec in 1957, Ivan Rand was still a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. The contribution that Ivan Rand made to this country remains significant even after his untimely death in 1969. The Rand formula remains a part of our labour law lexicon. The many thoughtful articles that he contributed to legal journals over the course of his career, as a practitioner, as a judge, and finally as a legal academic, continue to stimulate and to enlighten us. Most importantly the judgments that he wrote, particularly in the area of constitutional law, still provide us with inspiration and guidance as we face the challenges that confront our legal system, particularly those posed by the Charter. In fact, it is a rare decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with one of the fundamental freedoms in the Charter for the first time and does not invoke a passage from one of Justice Rand’s memorable decisions from the 1950s, such as Boucher v. R.,1 Saumur v. Québec (City of),2 or Switzman v. Elbling.3 What makes the decisions of Justice Rand such useful sources of guidance on the interpretation and application of the fundamental freedoms of the Charter is that, unlike most Canadian judges prior to the advent of the Charter, Justice Rand recognized the importance of analyzing issues of constitutional policy in terms of the fundamental or core values of our system of government.
    [Show full text]