Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (11) (remove)
Document Type
- Public lecture (5)
- Contribution to online periodical (3)
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Language
- English (5)
- Spanish (5)
- Other Language (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11)
This conference speech argues that the judgement of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal K 3/21 can be understood only in the context of the current conflict between the Polish government and the European Union. Moreover, some other details, including how the unconstitutionality of the EU Treaty provisions was formulated, are important. The development of the judicial independence doctrine in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may cause discussion. Nonetheless, the judgement K 3/21 is not an example of constructive debate about the division of the competences in the European legal sphere. It constitutes an example of the abuse of the constitutional identity and it resolves a false problem, as in reality there is no conflict between the norms of the Polish Constitution and the EU law as far as the guarantees of the judicial independence are concerned. Moreover, the judgement K 3/21 was delivered by the Constitutional Tribunal which itself lacks the guarantees of independence, what was confirmed by the European Court of Human
Rights (7.05.2021 Xero Flor, 4907/18).
It has become a truism that the Internet gives a range of private actors, such as social media, substantial power. They are thus able to control the communication processes, hold considerable authority over shaping opinions, and become the arbiters of free speech. That is why legal scholars and policymakers are searching for legal tools that would ensure a fair balance between the conflicting rights of these two groups of private actors (platforms and their users).
The aim of this presentation would be to reconsider the relationship between individuals and online platforms, analyze how horizontal online conflicts may be resolved (giving examples of some national legislation and EU proposal concerning digital services), and answer the question if the discretion of the platforms can be limited in order to protect rights and freedoms. The theoretical framework of the analysis would be the doctrine of the State’s positive obligations, as established in the current European Court of Human Rights case law.
The main argument would be that it is necessary to strengthen the public supervision over Internet platforms, in particular the way they resolve horizontal conflicts. The possibility of limiting their discretion, in order to provide individual protection, does not mean however creating the unlimited right of access to the platform in order to express any opinion or view (freedom of forum).
Electoral disinformation has become one of the most challenging problems for democratic states. All of them are facing the phenomenon of - both online and offline - dissemination of false information during pre-electoral period, which is harmful for individual and collective rights. As a consequence, some European countries adopted special measures, including summary judicial proceedings in order to declare that information or materials used in elec-tioneering are false and to prohibit its further dissemination. There are already three rulings of the ECtHR concerning this expeditious judicial examination provided in the Polish law. In December 2018 France passed complex regulation against manipulation of information that include similar mechanisms. This article, basing on the ECtHR’s case law and some national experiences, attempts to define the minimal European standard for measures targeted at electoral disinformation, especially judicial summary proceeding. It contains the analysis of the notion of electoral disinformation, defines the state’s positive obligations in this sphere, and indicates mayor challenges for the legal framework. The principal argument is that summary judicial proceedings – if adequately designed – cannot be questioned from the Convention standpoint and provide a partial solution to the problem of electoral dis-information.
Prawa człowieka
(2021)
This human rights handbook presents the most important issues concerning human rights protection. It includes introductory theoretical chapter, chapters concerning national and international systems of protection, and chapters concerning the scope and content of civil and political rights. It contains numerous references to the case law, especially of the European Court of Human Rights.
The lecture explains the emergence of the new European Public Law against the backdrop of a constitutional crisis.
The notion of civil service in Europe: establishing an analytical framework for comparative study
(2021)
Comparative study of the employment regimes of public officials in European countries requires an appropriate analytical framework, including definitions. This blog entry explores the meaning and scope of terms “civil service” and “civil servant”. It argues that a civil servant is an employee of the executive power, who has special duties and responsibilities, and should often meet specific requirements.
The conference presentation explains the use of the scientific data in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights
The article explains the current state of affairs concerning the freedom of press in Poland
The lecture explains how some of the well-established institutions of constitutional law are being questioned. It explains also how the experience of the XX-century atrocities and the emergence of the authoritarian regimes in Europe impacted on the State Theory, Political Science and Constitutionalism.
Electoral Disinformation and Summary Judicial Proceedings: Is the Polish Experience Relevant?
(2021)
In Poland special summary (24-hour) judicial proceedings against electoral disinformation were introduced in 1998. Although it has been successfully used to declare that information disseminated during an electoral campaign is false, it has not attracted much attention and
is generally absent from the current legal scholarship and international reports on electoral disinformation.
Against this backdrop, the post aims to critically analyze the Polish regulatory model con-cerning summary judicial proceedings. The implications of these mechanisms become even more complex when we consider that in mid-2019 the European Court of Human Rights found Poland for the third time in breach of the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) for having convicted the applicant in these extraordinary 24 -hour judicial proceedings.