A Review of the Constitutionality of the ECtHR Case Law in the Context of the States Parties’ Obligation Under Art. 46(1) ECHR
A Study Based on the Example of Poland
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55073/2025.2.111-143Keywords:
review of the constitutionality, ECtHR case law, international obligations, Constitution, Constitutional TribunalAbstract
International courts are part of institutional solutions that are an answer to the necessity to solve various new problems affecting global society. However, for state, democracy and the rule of law this kind of role of the case law of international courts creates a problem. On the one hand it exists in competition to national judicial power and can verify its actions, and on the other hand it influences the content of provisions contained in international agreements, which is a clear example of the development of law (as to its substance) which bypasses the legislative power.
Therefore, judgements of international tribunals have no direct effects, and their execution takes place by the actions of proper state organs on the basis of their national (constitutional) powers. This guarantees that the state has an impact on the manner in which aforementioned judgments are executed, and that it indicates the boundaries within which the state undertakes to abide by such a judgment.
The possibility of the constitutional review of judgments delivered by international courts plays an important role in the process of their execution. It indeed deals with answering the question of whether broadly understood effects of a judgment can lead to a breach of the Constitution.
A constitutional review is particularly advisable in the case regarding judgments of the ECtHR. They are indeed a tool by means of which the ECHR constitutes a living instrument. Thus, the probability of violating constitutional boundaries is higher than in the case of an ordinary international agreement.
The consequence of this phenomenon in Poland is the activation of a review mechanism, such as that allowed by the existing legal system. It is a constitutional control of judgements of the ECtHR, although only in the formula of control of norms on which the judgement is based.
In ongoing practice, the CT has made such a control twice, in the case ref. no. K 6/21 and K 7/21. And twice the CT decided that norms derived by judgements of ECtHR from art. 6 ECHR, are contrary to the Constitution. Poland has not executed judgments of the ECtHR based on unconstitutional norms.
Downloads
References
Bojańczyk, A. (2001) ‘Podważenie prawomocnego wyroku sądu karnego przez Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka w Strasburgu (ETPCz)’, Próba zarysu zagadnienia, part II, “Palestra” 2001, 7–8, pp. 124–135.
Ciżyńska-Pałosz, A.D. (2020) ‘Wpływ Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka na porządek prawny państw-stron Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, a koncepcja marginesu oceny. Analiza ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem wyroku Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Hirst przeciwko Zjednoczonemu Królestwu’, Przegląd Prawno-Ekonomiczny, 50(1), pp. 7–28 [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31743/ppe.7503 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
Frowein, J.A. (1991) ‘Staatengemeinschaft als Rechtsbegriff im Völkerrecht’, Lichtensteinische Juristen Zeitung, 4, pp. 141–145.
Garlicki, L. (2005) ‘Zakres zobowiązań państwa w świetle orzecznictwa Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka’ in Granat, M. (ed.) Stosowanie prawa międzynarodowego i wspólnotowego w wewnętrznym porządku prawnym Francji i Polski. Materiały z polsko-francuskiej konferencji naukowej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, pp. 123–132.
Garlicki, L. (2008) ‘Wartości lokalne a orzecznictwo ponadnarodowe – „kulturowy margines oceny” w orzecznictwie strasburskim’, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 4, pp. 4–13.
Garlicki, L. (2023) ‘Stosowanie Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka przez sądy krajowe a podporządkowanie sędziego Konstytucji i ustawie’, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 11, pp. 4–12.
Grzegorczyk, P. (2006) ‘Skutki wyroków Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w krajowym porządku prawnym’, Przegląd Sądowy, 6, pp. 3–42.
Hofmański, P. (2011) ‘Remark 46 in fine to Article 46’ in Garlicki, L. (ed.) Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności, vol. II, Komentarz do artykułów 19–59 oraz Protokołów dodatkowych. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, pp. 211–215.
Kamiński, I.C., Kownacki, R., Wierczyńska, K. (2011) ‘Wykonywanie orzeczeń Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w polskim systemie prawnym’ in Wróbel, A. (ed.) Zapewnienie efektywności orzeczeń sądów międzynarodowych w polskim porządku prawnym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 87–229.
Karpenstein, U., Mayer, F.C. (2022) ‘Commentary on Article 32 of ECHR’ in Karpenstein, U., Mayer, F.C. (eds.) Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten. München: C.H. Beck, pp. 628–629.
Koskenniemi, M (2008) ‘The Ideology of International Adjudication and the 1907 Hague Conference’ in Daudet, Y. (ed.) Topicality of the 1907 Hague Conference, the Second Peace Conference. Leiden: Yves Daudet, pp. 127–152; https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174214.3-508.17.
Lauterpacht, H. (1934) The Development of International Law by the International Court. Being A Revised Edition of “The Development of International Law by the Permanent Court of International Justice”. London: Praeger.
Łętowska, E. (2011a) ‘Czekając na Godota, czyli jak wykonywać wyroki ETPCz (uwagi na tle sprawy Moskal v. Polska)’, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2, pp. 4–10.
Łętowska, E. (2011b) ‘Zapewnienie skuteczności orzeczeniom sądów międzynarodowych’ in Wróbel, A. (ed.) Zapewnienie efektywności orzeczeń sądów międzynarodowych w polskim porządku prawnym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 35–61.
Muszyński, M. (2022) ‘Konstytucja RP a prawo międzynarodowe – spór o pierwszeństwo w pluralistycznym porządku prawnym’, Consilium Iuridicum, 1-2, pp. 34–69.
Muszyński, M. (2023a) ‘Konstytucyjne granice bezpośredniego stosowania umowy międzynarodowej przez sądy w Polsce’, Prokuratura i Prawo, 4, pp. 5–36.
Muszyński, M. (2023b) ‘Supremacy and Primacy: Hierarchical Relationships Between the Polish and EU Legal Systems and Their Guardians’, Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 4(2), pp. 177–199 [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.47078/2023.2.177-199 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
Pellet, A. (2006) ‘Commentary on Article 38’ in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., Oellers-Frahm, K., Tams, C.J., Thienel, T. (eds.) The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 577–579.
Radziewicz, P. (2012) ‘Rekomendacje dotyczące wykonywania wyroków Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka przez Sejm’ in Radziewicz, P., Mik, C., Balcerzak, M., Ziółkowski, M., Gierach, E. (eds.) Wykonywanie wyroków Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka przez Sejm. Biuro Analiz Sejmowych, pp. 1–4.
Shapiro, M. (1994) ‘Judges as Liars’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 17(1), pp. 155–157.
van Hoof, G.J.H. (1983) Rethinking the Sources of International Law. Antwerp: Kluwer.
Verdross, A. (1914) ‘Zur Konstruktion des Völkerrechts’, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, 8, pp. 329–356.
von Bogdandy, A., Venzke, I. (2010) ‘Zur Herrschaft internationaler Gerichte: Eine Untersuchung internationaler öffentlicher Gewalt und ihrer demokratischen Rechtfertigung’, Zeitschrift für auslandisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 70(1), pp. 1–49.
Wąsek-Wiaderek, M. (2012) Samodzielność jurysdykcyjna sądu karnego wobec kompetencji Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Trybunałów Europejskich. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Zabłocki, S. (2013) ‘Wznowienie postępowania w sprawach karnych po orzeczeniu Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka’, Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, 1, pp. 34–50.
Case Law
Advisory Opinion of Permanent Court of International Justice, 3.03.1928 in case Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, PCIJ Series B–No 15, pp. 15–25.
Decision of the Commision of Human Rights of 16 October 1996, Tkaczyk v Poland, app. no. 28999/95.
Decision of the Commision of Human Rights of 16 October 1996, Wardziak v Poland, app. no. 28617/95.
Decision of ECtHR of 9 December 1999, Szyskiewicz v Poland, app. no. 33576/96.
Decision of ECtHR of 2 July 2002, Gorizdra v Moldova, app. no. 53180/99.
Judgment of the CT of 27 April 2005, ref. no. P 1/05, OTK 2005/A/4.
Judgment of the CT of 20 November 2007, ref. no. SK 57/05, OTK 2007/A/10.
Judgment of the CT of 27 October 2010, ref. no. K 10/08, OTK 2010/A/8.
Judgment of the CT of 3 December 2015, K 34/15, OTK ZU no. 11/A/2015.
Judgment of the CT of 9 December 2015, K 35/15, OTK ZU no. 11/A/2015.
Judgment of the CT of 9 March 2016, K 47/15, OTK ZU A/2018.
Judgment of the CT of 11 August 2016, K 39/16, OTK ZU A/2018.
Judgment of the CT of 24 October 2017, K 1/17, OTK ZU A/2017.
Judgment of the CT of 10 March 2022, ref. no. K 7/21, OTK 2022/A/24.
Judgment of the CT of 24 November 2021 ref. no. K 6/21, OTK 2022/A/9.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 25 April 1978, Tyrer v United Kingdom, app. no. 5856/72.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 13 June 1979, Marckx v Belgium, app. no. 6833/74.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 29 April 1988, Belilos v Switzerland, app. no. 10328/83.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 7 July 1989, Soering v United Kingdom, app. no. 14028/88.
Judgment of ECtHR of 23 June 1993, Ruiz-Mateos and others v Spain, app. no. 14324/88.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 18 December 1996, Loizidou v Turkey, app. 15318/89.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 13 July 2000, Scozzari and Giunta v Italy, app. nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 11 July 2002, Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom, app. 28957/95.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 8 July 2003 Hirst v the United Kingdom, app. no. 74025/01.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 8 April 2004, Assanidze v Georgia, app. no. 71503/01.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 22 June 2004, Broniowski v Poland, app. no. 31443/96.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 29 July 2004, San Leonard Band Club v Malta, app. no. 77562/01.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 22 February 2005, Hutten-Czapska v Poland, app. no. 35014/97.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 12 May 2005, Öcalan v Turkey, app. no. 46221/99.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 26 July 2005, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v Poland, app. no. 39199/98.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 6 October 2005, Lukenda v Slovenia, app. no. 23032/02.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 26 January 2006, Lungoci v Romania, app. no. 62710/00.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 10 August 2006, Yanakiev v Bulgaria, app. no. 40476/98.
Judgments of the ECtHR of 20 December 2007, Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd v Armenia, app. no. 21638/03.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 15 January 2009, Burdov v Russia (no. 2), app. no. 33509/04.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 30 June 2009, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v Switzerland (no. 2), app. no. 32772/02.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 23 November 2010, Greens and M.T. v the United Kingdom, app. no. 60041/08 and no. 60054/08.
Judgement of the ECtHR of 11 January 2011, Kurić and others v Slovenia, app. no. 26828/06.
Judgment of ECtHR of 17 January 2012, Biziuk and Biziuk v Poland, app. no. 12413/03).
Judgment of ECtHR of 5 February 2015, Bochan v Ukraine, app. no. 22251/08.
Judgment of ECtHR of 11 July 2017, Moreira Ferreira v Portugal, app. no. 19867/12.
Judgment of 3 February 2021, Advance Pharma sp. z o.o. v Poland, app. nr 1469/20.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 7 May 2021 Xeroflor v Poland, app. no. 4907/18.
Judgment of ECtHR of 29 June 2021, Broda and Bojara v Poland, apps nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18.
Judgment of ECtHR of 22 July 2021, Reczkowicz v Poland, app. no. 43447/19.
Judgment of ECtHR of 8 November 2021, Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v Poland, apps nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19.
Judgment of the ECtHR of 9 April 2024, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v Schweiz, app. 53600/20.
Order the CT of 21 September 2005, ref. no. SK 32/04, OTK 2005/A/8.
Order of the SC of 19 October 2005, ref. no. V CO 16/05.
Order of the SC of 17 October 2007, ref. no. I PZ 5/07.
Order of the SC of 16 July 2013, ref. no. III KO 118/12.
Order of the CT of 19 November 2014, ref. no. P 15/13, OTK 2014/A/10.
Order of the CT of 7 January 2016, U 8/15, OTK ZU A/2016.
Order of the CT of 5 July 2017, ref. no. SK 8/16, OTK 2017/A/54.
Order of the CT of 12 March 2020, U 1/17, OTK ZU A/2020.
Order of the SC of 27 May 2021, ref. no. I KO 1/21.
Report of the Commission of Human Rights of 14 December 1976, Tyrer v United Kingdom, app. 5856/72.
Report of the Commission of Human Right of 8 June 1993 in joint cases Metropolitan Chrysostomos and Georgius Papachrysostomou, app. 15299/89 and 15300/89.
Resolution of the SC of 30 November 2010 ref.no. III CZP 16/10, OSNC no. 4/2011.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
