Make a Submission
Vol. 43 (2023)
General Articles

Supremacy Over Primacy...? Reflections on Legal Controversies between Poland and the European Union (2015–2023)

PDF
  • Jerzy Kranz

Published 2024-06-25

Keywords

  • European Union,
  • Poland,
  • sovereignty,
  • primacy,
  • supremacy,
  • constitutional review
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Supremacy Over Primacy...? Reflections on Legal Controversies between Poland and the European Union (2015–2023). (2024). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 43, 13–41. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2024.152292

Abstract

The violation of the rule of law in Poland (2015–2023) was related to the relationship between national law, especially constitutional law; and international law, especially European Union (EU) law. This article focuses on the issue of constitutional review in the context of concepts such as sovereignty and conferral of competences, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of application of international rules and principles.
Sovereignty, a qualitative feature of the State, operates within the law, not outside of it. EU (international) law does not limit sovereignty, but the sovereign nature of the State cannot justify violations of the applicable law. Situating the relationship between international (EU) law and the national constitution in the perspective of the supremacy of one order over the other leads in practice to a collision and/or a stalemate. Rather, we should be guided by the principle of primacy as an “existential requirement” for the functioning of the Union, and more broadly, of international law.
The primacy of application does not imply the supremacy of EU law over national law, nor the derogation of national law norms. Constitutional supremacy, on the other hand, is a principle of domestic law which does not have external legal effects and does not exempt a State from its international legal responsibility. The concepts of priority and supremacy coexist, but they fulfil different functions and express different perspectives – primacy does not prejudge supremacy, and supremacy does not exclude primacy.
What is problematic is not so much the review of constitutionality per se, but the scope of that review and its effects. Once a national court has found a conflict between EU law and the national Constitution, should we accept the effect of selective refusal to apply EU law on the grounds of constitutional supremacy and sovereignty? The answer to this question is negative.

PDF

References

  1. Avbelj M., Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law – (Why) Does it Matter?, 17 European Law Journal 744 (2011), pp. 744–763.
  2. Bakó B., The Zauberlehrling Unchained? The Recycling of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Case Law on Identity-, Ultra Vires- and Fundamental Rights Review in Hungary, 78 Zeitschrift für ausländisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht 863 (2018), pp. 863–902.
  3. Barcz J., Grzelak A., Szyndlauer R. (eds.), Problem praworządności w Polsce w świetle dokumentów Komisji Europejskiej. Okres „dialogu politycznego” 2016–2017 [The Rule of Law in Poland in the Light of European Commission Documents. The Period of Political Dialogue 2016-2017], Elipsa, Warszawa: 2020.
  4. Barcz J., Grzelak A., Szyndlauer R. (eds.), Problem praworządności w Polsce w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (2018–2020) [The Rule of Law in Poland in the Light of the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2018-2020)], Elipsa, Warszawa: 2021.
  5. Barcz J., Grzelak A., Szyndlauer R. (eds.), Problem praworządności w Polsce w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (2021) [The Rule of Law in Poland in the Light of the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2021)], Elipsa, Warszawa: 2022.
  6. Besson S., Sovereignty, in: R. Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2011, para. 1.
  7. Búrca G. de, The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order After Kadi, 51 Harvard International Law Journal 1 (2010), pp. 1–52.
  8. BVerfG, Order of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvL 1/12.
  9. BVerfG, Order of the Second Senate of 14 October 2004 – 2 BvR 1481/04.
  10. BVerfG, Urteil des Zweiten Senats vom 30 Juni 2009 – 2 BvE 2/08 – Lissabon.
  11. BVerfG, Urteil des Zweiten Senats vom 5 Mai 2020 – 2 BvR 859/15.
  12. Calliess C., Primacy of Union Law and Control of Competences: Challenges and Reforms in the Light of the German Constitutional Courts PSPP-Ruling and the EU Commission’s Treaty Infringement Proceeding, 133 Berliner Online Beiträge 2 (2021), pp. 2–16.
  13. Calliess C., Struggling About the Final Say in EU Law: The ECB Ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Oxford Business Law Blog, 25 June 2020, available at: https://www.law.ox.ac. uk/business-law-blog/blog/2020/06/struggling-about-fnal-say-eu-law-ecb-ruling-german-federal (accessed 30 August 2024).
  14. Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle fnanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA, EU:C:1978:49.
  15. Case 284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, EU:C:2018:158.
  16. Case 34/73 Fratelli Variola S.p.A. v. Amministrazione italiana delle Finanze, EU:C:1973:101.
  17. Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., EU:C:1964:66.
  18. Case C-157/21 Poland v. Parliament and Council, EU:C:2022:98.
  19. Case C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, EU:C:1963:1.
  20. Case C-430/21 RS (Effet des arrêts d’une cour constitutionnelle), EU:C:2022:99.
  21. Case C-448/23 European Commission v. Republic of Poland, OJ C 304/17.
  22. Case C-564/19 IS (Illégalité de l’ordonnance de renvoi), EU:C:2021:949.
  23. Case C-808/18 Commission v. Hungary, EU:C:2020:1029.
  24. Combacau J., Sur S., Droit international public, LGDJ, Paris: 2010.
  25. Constantinesco V., Compétences et pouvoirs dans les Communautés européennes, Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence, Paris: 1974.
  26. Constitutional Court of Hungary decision of 7 December 2021, X/477/2021, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2p248fz3 (accessed 30 August 2024).
  27. Constitutional Court of Romania decision of 8 June 2021, No. 390, regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Articles 881 – 889 of Law No. 304/2004 on judicial organization, and of the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 90/2018 on measures to operationalize the Section for the investigation of offences in the Judiciary.
  28. Constitutional Court of Spain, declaration 1/2004 (unofcial translation), DTC 1/2004, (13 December 2004), available at: https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/ResolucionesTraducidas/Declaration%201-2004.pdf (accessed 30 August 2024).
  29. Council of Europe, Report by the Secretary General under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the consequences of decisions K 6/21 and K 7/21 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Poland, 9 November 2022, SG/Inf(2022)39.
  30. Council of Europe, Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, Annual Reports.
  31. Crawford J., Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law. General Course on Public International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 2014.
  32. ECtHR, Görgülü v. Germany (App. No. 74969/01), 26 February 2004.
  33. ECtHR, Savickis and Others v. Latvia (App. No. 49270/11), 9 June 2022, joint dissenting opinion of Juges O’Leary, Grozev and Lemmens.
  34. ECtHR, Valiullina and Others v. Latvia (App. Nos. 56928/19, 7306/20 and 11937/20), 14 September 2023.
  35. Eleftheriadis P., The Primacy of EU Law: Interpretive, not Structural, 8(3) European Papers 1255 (2023), pp. 1255–1291.
  36. European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs and Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Report on the implementation of the principle of primacy of EU law, 7 November 2023, 2022/2143(INI).
  37. Fabbrini F., After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States, 16(4) German Law Journal 1003 (2015), pp. 1003–1023.
  38. Fabbrini F., Sajó A., The dangers of constitutional identity, 25(4) European Law Journal 457 (2019), pp. 457–473.
  39. Fraenkel E., The Dual State. A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2017.
  40. Glas L.R., The European Court of Human Rights supervising the execution of its judgments, 37(3) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 228 (2019), pp. 228–244.
  41. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep 1986.
  42. ILC, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001).
  43. Institute of International Law, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit international, Bureau de la Revue de droit international, Gand: 1954.
  44. International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with comments (2001).
  45. Italian Constitutional Court, judgment of 22 October 2014, No. 238/2014, available at: https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S238_2013_en.pdf (accessed 30 August 2024).
  46. Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19 Eurobox Promotions and Others, EU:C:2021:1034.
  47. Joined Cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19 Criminal proceedings against PM and Others, EU:C:2021:1034.
  48. Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, EU:C:2008:461.
  49. Kelemen R.D., L. Pech, The Uses and Abuses of Constitutional Pluralism: Undermining the Rule of Law in the Name of Constitutional Identity in Hungary and Poland, 21 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 59 (2019), pp. 59–74.
  50. Konstantinidis M., Demystifying Autonomy: Tracing the International Law Origins of the EU Principle of Autonomy, 25 German Law Journal 94 (2024), pp. 94–110.
  51. Kranz J., Notion d’ intervention en droit international, in: J. Kranz (ed.), Entre l’ influence et l’ intervention. Certains aspects juridiques de l’assistance fnancière multilatérale, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main: 1994, pp. 50–104, available at: https://www.academia.edu/24057309/Entre_linfluence_et_lintervention_Certains_aspects_juridiques_de_lassistance_fnanci%C3%A8re_multilat%C3%A9rale (accessed 30 August 2024).
  52. Kranz J., Pojęcie suwerenności we współczesnym prawie międzynarodowym [The Concept of Sovereignty in Modern International Law], Elipsa, Warszawa: 2015.
  53. Kranz J., Verfassung über alles oder wohin uns die Gralshüter führen…, 60(4) Archiv des Volkerrechts 410 (2022), pp. 410–438.
  54. Kwiecień R., Does the State Still Matter? Sovereignty, Legitimacy and International Law, XXII Polish Yearbook of International Law 45 (2012), pp. 45–73.
  55. Kwiecień R., General Principles of Law: The Gentle Guardians of Systemic Integration of International Law, XXXVII Polish Yearbook of International Law 235 (2017), pp. 235–242.
  56. Kwiecień R., The Court of Justice, the National Courts and the Controversy Over the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of the Constitutionality of Law in the European Union, 8(1) Polish Review of International and European Law 9 (2019), pp. 9–41.
  57. Kwiecień R., The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Constitutional Dimension of International Law: From Expectation to Reality, in: C.J. Tams, M. Fitzmaurice (eds.), Legacies of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden: 2013, pp. 361–395.
  58. Kwiecień R., The Primacy of European Union Law Over National Law Under the Constitutional Treaty, 6(11) German Law Journal 1479 (2005), pp. 1479–1495.
  59. Lindeboom J., Is the Primacy of EU Law Based on the Equality of the Member States? A Comment on the CJEU’s Press Release Following the PSPP Judgment, 21(5) German Law Journal 1032 (2020), pp. 1032–1044.
  60. Lindeboom J., The Autonomy of EU Law: A Hartian View, 13(1) European Journal of Legal Studies 271 (2021), pp. 271–307.
  61. Ludwigs M., Sikora P., Der Vorrang des Unionsrechts unter Kontrollvorbehalt des BVerfG, 3 Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 121 (2016), pp. 121–131.
  62. MacCormick N., Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1999.
  63. Mälksoo L., International Law and the 2020 Amendments to the Russian Constitution, 115(1) American Journal of International Law 78 (2021), pp. 78–93.
  64. Manko R., Tacik P., Sententia non existens: A new remedy under EU law?: Waldemar Zurek (W.Z.) (Case C-487/19), 59 Common Market Law Review 1169 (2022), pp. 1169–1194.
  65. Mayer F.C., Supremacy – Lost? – Comment on Roman Kwiecień, 6(11) German Law Journal 1497 (2005), pp. 1497–1505.
  66. Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341.
  67. PCIJ, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion, 7 February 1923, PCIJ Series B. No. 4.
  68. PCIJ, The S.S. “Wimbledon”, judgment, 17 August 1923, PCIJ Series A, No. 1.
  69. PCJI, Régime douanier entre l’Allemagne et l’Autriche, avis consultatif du 5 septembre 1931 (Recueil, série A/B, No. 41).
  70. Pernice I., Multilevel constitutionalism and the Treaty of Amsterdam: European constitution-making revisited, 36(4) Common Market Law Review 703 (1999), pp. 703–750.
  71. Pernice I., The Treaty of Lisbon: Multilevel Constitutionalism in Action, 15(3) The Columbia Journal of European Law 349 (2009), pp. 349–407.
  72. Peters A., New German Constitutional Court Decision on “Treaty Override”: Triepelianism Continued, EJIL: Talk!, 29 February 2016, available at: https://tinyurl. com/2645bnnc (accessed 30 August 2024).
  73. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 11 May 2005, K 18/04.
  74. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 16 November 2011, SK 45/09.
  75. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 24 November 2010, K 32/09.
  76. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 27 April 2005, P 1/05.
  77. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgments of 14 July 2021, P 7/20.
  78. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgments of 7 October 2021, K 3/21.
  79. Politis N., Le problème des limitations de la souveraineté et la théorie de l’abus des droits dans les rapports internationaux, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 1925.
  80. Press release CJEU 58 (2020), 8 May 2020, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-05/cp200058en.pdf (accessed 30 August 2024).
  81. Profesor Biernat o zawstydzających wypowiedziach doktora Dudy i magister Przyłębskiej [Professor Biernat about the embarrassing statements of Doctor Duda and Magister Przyłębska], Monitor Konstytucyjny, 14 November 2017, available at: https://monitorkonstytucyjny.eu/archiwa/1894 (accessed 30 August 2024).
  82. Reykjavík Summit of the Council of Europe: United around our values. Reykjavík Declaration, (16–17 May 2023), Appendix IV, available at: https://rm.coe.int/reykjavik-declaration-en/1680aba1c4 (accessed 30 August 2024).
  83. Rousseau C., Droit international public, Editions Sirey, Paris: 1974.
  84. S. O’Leary, Execution of ECHR judgments and the Rule of Law (Speech at the Conference on the Role of the Judiciary in Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR of 21 September 2023 in Riga), available at: https:// www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/speech-20230921-oleary-conference-role-judiciary-execution-riga-eng (accessed 30 August 2024).
  85. Sadurski W., Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2019.
  86. Schmitt M.N., In Defense of Sovereignty in Cyberspace, Just Security, 8 May 2018, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/55876/defense-sovereignty-cyberspace/ (accessed 30 August 2024).
  87. Schmitt M.N., The Law of Cyber Conflict: Quo Vadis 2.0?, in: M.C. Waxman, T.W. Oakley (eds.), The Future Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2022, pp. 103–121.
  88. Simma B., Pulkowski D., Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law, 17(3) European Journal of International Law 483 (2006), pp. 483–529.
  89. Simma B., Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner, 20(2) European Journal of International Law 265 (2009), pp. 265–297.
  90. Simon S., Grenzen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts im europäischen Integrationsprozess, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen: 2016.
  91. Treaty on European Union.
  92. Treaty on the Functioning of European Union.
  93. Tuominen T., Reconceptualizing the Primacy – Supremacy Debate in EU Law, 47(3) Legal Issues of Economic Integration 245 (2020), pp. 245–266.
  94. UNHRC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on His Mission to Poland, 5 April 2018, A/HRC/38/38/Add.1.
  95. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (signed on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980), 1155 UNTS 331.
  96. Walker N., Late Sovereignty in the European Union, in: N. Walker (ed.), Sovereignty in Transition, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2003.
  97. White Paper on the Reform of the Polish Judiciary, 7 March 2018, available at: https://tinyurl.com/k9kkbw2x (accessed 30 August 2024).
  98. Wyrozumska A., Conflict between the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the CJEU with regard to the reforms of the judiciary, 60(4) Archiv des Volkerrechts 379 (2022), pp. 379–409.
  99. Ziółkowski M., Zachariasiewicz M., Rule of Law in Poland, in: A. Kornezov (ed.), Mutual Trust, Mutual Recognition and the Rule of Law: National report, Ciela Norma, Sofa: 2023, pp. 492–555.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.