2022
Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022, No. 43572/18, Grzęda v Poland
LELOUP, Mathieu a David KOSAŘZákladní údaje
Originální název
Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022, No. 43572/18, Grzęda v Poland
Autoři
Vydání
European Constitutional Law Review, Netherlands, Cambridge Univ Press, 2022, 1574-0196
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
50501 Law
Stát vydavatele
Velká Británie a Severní Irsko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 2.100
Označené pro přenos do RIV
Ano
Kód RIV
RIV/00216224:14220/22:00127539
Organizační jednotka
Právnická fakulta
UT WoS
EID Scopus
Klíčová slova anglicky
Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022; No. 43572/18; Grzęda v Poland
Štítky
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 3. 4. 2023 11:01, Mgr. Petra Georgala
Anotace
V originále
It is a well-known maxim in the legal world that hard cases make bad law. Yet, this familiar phrase has long been turned upside down as well, as cases that are – by and large – not too difficult may also lead to judgments that are unconvincingly argued or poorly structured. It is especially disheartening to find such judgments in areas where the stakes are high, and even more so when the judgment has been issued through a more authoritative composition, such as a grand chamber. The Grzęda judgment unfortunately checks all of those boxes. Grzęda v Poland Footnote1 was the first Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the rule of law crisis in Poland, a topic that has been occupying Europe, together with its two main supranational courts,Footnote 2 for several years now. The case concerned, in essence, the right of access to a court for Mr Grzęda to challenge the ex lege termination of his mandate as a judicial member of the National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa). The Grand Chamber, by 16 votes to 1, found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR. While the outcome of the judgment can certainly be agreed with, the Court’s reasoning fails to convince on several key points. When one reads the judgment, the feeling that remains is that the Court seemed to have wanted to make this case about more than it was, thereby diluting the clarity of its own legal reasoning.
Návaznosti
| 101002660, interní kód MU |
|