English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Summary The article is focused on a serious dispute between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal over interpretative verdicts in the Republic of Poland. This kind of decisions are issued by the Tribunal. Interpretative verdicts contain explanation (interpretation) of a statutory provision, which constitutionality is controlled by the Tribunal. The main problem is, if this kind of decisions bind other courts. Judges of the Tribunal Court claim that courts, including the Supreme Court, are suppose to obey interpretative verdicts. The judges of Supreme Court maintain that this kind of decisions only indicates one of possible interpretation of a statutory provision and courts don’t have to follow it. In the article the author describes this type of verdicts, their history and explains the essence of the dispute.

The Dispute between the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court over Interpretative Verdicts in the Republic of Poland