•  
  •  
 

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica

Polish Title

Wymiary polityczności w orzekaniu: studium przypadku

Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0927-2662 Mańko Rafał

Abstract

Contrary to traditional accounts, which treat adjudication as the application of legal norms to the facts of a case, without any creative activity, the present paper assumes, following crtitical legal theory, that adjudication as a social practice belongs to the sphere of the political and involves judicial decision-making. The concept of the political is understood, following Chantal Mouffe, as the dimension of unalienable and inherent antagonism underlying any society. Any judicial decision, and especially one taken in a case where the court enjoyed a broad scope of discretion, influences a given social antagonism. However, as a prerequisite of a critical analysis of case-law it is necessary to identify the social antagonisms in question. To this end, the paper first analyses the very concept of an antagonism, highlighting its collective character, and then makes a tentative application of the concept to the European Court of Justice, attempting to identify the main types of social antagonisms which are subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.

Polish Abstract

Wbrew tradycyjnym narracjom, wedle których orzekanie polega na stosowaniu norm prawnych do stanu faktycznego danej sprawy i nie obejmuje żadnej działalności twórczej, w niniejszym artykule wychodzi się od założenia, właściwego krytycznej teorii prawa, iż orzekanie jest praktyką społeczną należącą do sfery polityczności i zakłada podejmowanie przez sędziów decyzji. Pojęcie polityczności rozumiane jest tu – za Chantal Mouffe – jako wymiar nieusuwalnego i nieodłącznego antagonizmu, jaki leży u podstaw każdego społeczeństwa. Każde orzeczenie, a w szczególności takie, przy którego wydaniu sąd korzystał z szerokiego zakresu władzy dyskrecjonalnej, wywiera wpływ na określony antagonizm społeczny. W celu prowadzenia krytycznych badań nad orzecznictwem konieczne jest ustalenie, jaki antagonizm społeczny był w danym orzeczeniu istotny. W tym celu artykuł najpierw analizuje samo pojęcie antagonizmu, kładąc nacisk na jego zbiorowych charakter, a następnie podejmuje próbę zastosowania tego pojęcia do Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w celu zidentyfikowania głównych typów antagonizmów społecznych, które podlegają jurysdykcji Trybunału.

Keywords

adjudication, the political, European Court of Justice

Polish Keywords

orzekanie, polityczność, Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości

References

Alter, Karen. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Massachussets: Harvard University Press.

Ezrachi, Ariel. 2018. EU Competition Law Goals and the Digital Economy. BEUC Discussion Paper. https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2018–071_goals_of_eu_competition_law_and_digital_economy.pdf [Accessed: 6 March 2020].

Fusco, Gian Giacomo. 2017. “Normalising sovereignty: reflections of Schmitt’s notions of exception, decision and normality”. Griffith Law Review 26(1): 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2017.1345708

Gray, Thomas. 2003. “Judicial Review and Legal Pragmatism”. Wake Forest Law Review 38: 473–511.

Hansen, Susan. Mark Rapley. 2006. “Group(s)”. In The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. 255–257. Edited by Bryan C. Turner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hesselink, Martijn. 2006. “The Politics of a European Civil Code”. In The Politics of a European Civil Code. 143–170. Edited by Martijn Hesselink. The Hague: Kluwer.

Kennedy, Duncan. 2008a. “A Left/Phenomenological Critique of the Hart/Kelsen Theory of Legal Interpretation”. In Legal Reasoning: Collected Essays. 154–173. Aurora: Davies Group.

Kennedy, Duncan. 2015. “The Hermeneutic of Suspicion in Contemporary American Legal Thought”. Law and Critique 25(1): 91–139.

Kojève, Alexandre. 2007. An Outline of the Phenomenology of Right. Lanam: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kukovec, Damjan. 2014. “Hierarchies as Law”. Columbia Journal of European Law 21(1): 131–193.

Lacan, Jacques. 1998 [1975]. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. On Feminine Sexuality. The Limits of Love and Knowledge. Book XX: Encore. 1972–1973. Encore. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. Translated by Bruce Fink. London–New York: W.W. Norton.

Lehaire, Benjamin. 2016. “La protection du consommateur par le droit de la concurrence: analyse civiliste et pratique des positions canadienne et européenne”. Revue internationale de droit économique 30(3): 289–313.

Mańko, Rafał. 2018a. “Orzekanie w polu polityczności”. Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna 7(1): 65–95.

Mańko, Rafał. 2018b. W stronę krytycznej filozofii orzekania. Polityczność, etyka, legitymizacja. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Mańko, Rafał. 2018c. “Critique of the ‘Juridical’: Some Metatheoretical Remarks”. Journal of the University of Latvia. Law 11: 24–37.

Mańko, Rafał. Forthcoming. “The Political as an Analytical Category in the Critical Study of Case-Law (Example of the ECJ)”. Critique of Law 12(3).

Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. Abingdon: Routledge.

Pashukanis, Evgeny. 1983. Law and Marxism: A General Theory. London: Pluto Press.

Saurugger, Sabine. Terpan, Fabien. 2016. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Politics of Law. Red Globe Press.

Schmitt, Carl. 2005. Political Theology. Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Schmidt, Susanne K. 2018. The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process: The Shadow of Case Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Senn, Magdalena. 1999. “EU competition policy: a more holistic approach needed”. Social Europe, 28 March. https://www.socialeurope.eu/eu-competition-policy [Accesssed: 6 March 2020].

Šmejkal, Václav. 2015. “Competition law and the social market economy goal of the EU”. International Comparative Jurisprudence 1(1): 33–43.

ECJ C-6/90. Judgment of the Court of 19 November 1991, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic.

ECJ C‑64/16. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018, Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas.

ECJ C-107/83. Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1984, Case 107/83, Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v Onno Klopp.

ECJ C‑128/11. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 July 2012, Case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.

ECJ C-159/90. Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1991, Case C-159/90, The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and others.

ECJ C-216/18 PPU. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 Artur Celmer.

ECJ C-260/18. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 3 October 2019, Case C-260/18, Kamil Dziubak and Justyna Dziubak v Raiffeisen Bank International AG.

ECJ C-267/06. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008, Case C-267/06, Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen.

ECJ C-285/98. Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2000, Case C-285/98, Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

ECJ C-300/06. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007, Case C-300/06, Ursula Voß v Land Berlin.

ECJ C-341/05. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007, Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet et al.

ECJ C-391/08. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011, Case C-391/08, Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija et al.

ECJ C-426/11. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of18 July 2013, Case C-426/11, Mark Alemo-Herron and Others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd.

ECJ C-441/17. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018, Case C-441/17, Commission v Poland.

ECJ C-453/99. Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001, Case C-453/99, Courage Ltd v Bernard Crehan and Bernard Crehan v Courage Ltd and Others.

ECJ C-487/07. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009, Case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA et al. v Bellure NV et al.

ECJ C-585/18. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 November 2019, Joined Cases C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, AK v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa.

ECJ C-673/16. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018, Case C-672/16, Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne.

SN I CSK 59/12. Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 6 September 2012, Case I CSK 59/12, OSNC 2013/4/51.

First Page

5

Last Page

16

Language

eng

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.