The subject of the study, the results of which are presented in this article, is the practice of submitting dissenting opinions in the Constitutional Tribunal during the period 2016–2019. Its purpose is to clarify and eventually empirically verify the thesis that the submission of a candidacy for a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal by a political group sitting in parliament, translates into possible decisions to submit a dissenting opinion. This behaviour has been abbreviated in the literature as “faithfulness for choice”. In order to verify the occurrence of this behaviour, models of such situations were constructed, taking into account the specificity of the Polish constitutional court. Situations meeting the model’s criteria were then analysed. The constructed models found little quantitative confirmation. The reasons can be seen in the inadequacy of the models themselves and the nature of the tensions that arose around the Tribunal and in the Tribunal itself in the indicated period. The substantive factor in the form of establishing a given subject of control by a specific political group did not determine the decision to submit votum separatum in the indicated period. It is the context that determines the political characteristics of the case being examined, and makes it possible to recognise in such categories the possible decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal’s judges to submit a dissenting opinion.
Nov 4, 2020
Oct 26, 2020
Wojciechowski, Maciej Jabłoński, Mariusz. Red. Paździora, Michał. Red.
Lisowski, Piotr Korczak, Jerzy Red. Szreniawski, Jan Rec.
Patyra, Sławomir Balicki, Ryszard. Red. Grabowska, Sabina. Red. Jabłoński, Mariusz. Red.
Piszcz, Anna Kiczka, Karol. Red. Kocowski, Tadeusz. Red. Małecki, Witold. Red.
Urbaniak, Krzysztof Balicki, Ryszard. Red. Grabowska, Sabina. Red. Jabłoński, Mariusz. Red.
Gajda, Agnieszka Balicki, Ryszard. Red. Grabowska, Sabina. Red. Jabłoński, Mariusz. Red.
Haczkowska, Monika Balicki, Ryszard. Red. Grabowska, Sabina. Red. Jabłoński, Mariusz. Red.