The Nature of Constitutional Review of Judicial Decisions Exercised by the Supreme Court in Proceedings Initiated by the Extraordinary Complaint

Abstract

The commentary concerns the nature of constitutional review of judicial decisions exercised by the Supreme Court in proceedings initiated by an extraordinary complaint. In the judgment under discussion, the Supreme Court found that the legal norm arising from Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland expresses a constitutional principle and, as a result, constitutes an admissible standard of review of a judicial decision contested by an extraordinary complaint. The position of the Supreme Court should be considered as particularly interesting in the context of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, which generally rejects the possibility of invoking Article 76 of the Polish Constitution as a basis for a constitutional complaint, indicating that the legal norm arising from this provision has the character of a state policy principle and, as a result, does not create any rights or potential claims on the part of the individual. The commentary examines the mutual relationship between the notions of “state policy principle” and “constitutional principle,” and analyses the Supreme Court practice of reconstructing standards of constitutional review of judicial decisions. The considerations undertaken lead to the conclusion that the judgment under discussion is a manifestation of the departure by the Supreme Court from the previous practice of reconstructing standards of constitutional review of judicial decisions.