Słowa kluczowe
personal interests
strategic litigation
climate change litigation
breakthrough in interpretation
Jak cytować
Liczba wyświetleń: 135
Liczba pobrań: 109
Abstrakt
The authors analyse the 2021 ruling by the Polish Supreme Court, which refused to acknowledge the right to live in a clean environment as a personal interest. The purpose of the paper is not only to evaluate the quality of the Supreme Court’s argumentation, but also to highlight the implicit premises that were missing from the grounds of the decision. Based on these findings, the authors draw broader conclusions about the circumstances that increase the likelihood of pro-environmental (including pro-climate) court decisions and breakthroughs in interpretation. The authors use the latter term to describe the situation of challenging the previous, widely accepted interpretation of certain legal provisions, favouring a different interpretation that considers societal changes in values and beliefs. The authors evaluate the Supreme Court’s arguments and put forward the thesis that the construction of personal interests was not the primary reason for rejecting the recognition of the right to live in a clean environment as a new personal interest. The authors used two methods to search for the hidden premises of the Supreme Court’s resolution: (i) they examined the discourse supporting the rejection of the right to live in a clean environment as a personal interest, and (ii) they placed the resolution in its socio-political context. The authors identify four conditions that increase the likelihood of pro-environmental (and pro-climate) court judgments: (i) the condition of costs’ expediency, (ii) the condition of individualization of responsibility, (iii) the condition of respect for the judiciary and (iv) the condition of public support. The last two conditions apply to interpretative breakthroughs in general, regardless of the subject matter.
Finansowanie
The paper is the result of research project no. 2019/35/B/HS5/04464, funded by the National Science Centre, Poland.
Bibliografia
Beldowicz, A. (2021). Pięcioro Polaków pozywa rząd za bierność w sprawie klimatu [Five Poles sue Government for inaction on climate). Rzeczpospolita. https://klimat.rp.pl/klimat-i-ludzie/art17079721-piecioro-polakow-pozywa-rzad-za-biernosc-w-sprawie-klimatu [accessed 19 March 2023].
Burgers, L. (2020). Should judges make climate change law? Transnational Environmental Law 9(1): 55–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000360
Ciućkowska, K. (2022). Smog a dobra osobiste. Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Cywilna z dnia 28 maja 2021 r., III CZP 27/20 [Smog in the context of personal rights: commentary on Resolution of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 28 May 2021, III CZP 27/20]. Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 11: 31–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/SIT.2020.036
Chybalski, P. (2022). “Chilling Effect” in the judicial decisions of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal as an example of legal transplant. Review of European and Comparative Law 48(1): 209–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.12857
Eskridge, W.N. Jr. (1989). Public values in statutory interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137(4): 1007–1104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312130
Granat, M. (2017). Równowaga budżetowa jako zasada prawa (na marginesie orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego czasu kryzysu finansowego) [Balanced budget as a principle of law in the financial crisis case law of the Constitutional Tribunal]. Przegląd Konstytucyjny 3: 5–32.
Hanusz, A. (2015). Równowaga budżetowa a zasady prawa. Państwo i Prawo 70(9): 20–33.
Hilson, C. (2019). Climate populism, courts, and science. Journal of Environmental Law 31(3): 395–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqz021
Janiszewska, B. (2021). Komentarz do art. 23 k.c. [Commentary to Article 23 of the Civil Code]. In J. Gudowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Vol. 1: Część ogólna, Part 1. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Kuh, K.F. (2019). The legitimacy of judicial climate engagement. Ecology Law Quarterly 46: 731–764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3421500
Mikowski, M. (2022). Sprawa aktorki Grażyny Wolszczak ws. smogu trafiła do Sądu Najwyższego. Zbigniew Ziobro chce uchylenia wyroku [The case of actress Grazyna Wolszczak over smog has reached the Supreme Court. Zbigniew Ziobro wants the verdict revoked]. PAP. https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C1117118%2Csprawa-aktorki-grazyny-wolszczak-ws-smogu-trafila-do-sadu-najwyzszego [accessed 20 March 2023].
Nowakowski, T. (2021). Więź rodzinna jako dobro osobiste – uwagi na tle krytycznych wypowiedzi doktryny [Family ties as a personal interest – comments in the light of critical statements of the legal doctrine]. Przegląd Sądowy 3: 86–99.
Nowakowski, T. (2022). Przekroczenie norm jakości powietrza a ochrona dóbr osobsitych. Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Cywilna z dnia 28 maja 2021 r., III CZP 27/20 [Exceedance of air quality standards in the context of protection of personal interests. Commentary on Resolution of the Supreme Court – Civil Chamber of 28 May 2021, III CZP 27/20]. Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 5: 11–17.
Peel, J. Osofsky, H.M. (2018). A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnational Environmental Law 7(1): 37–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102517000292
Rumpf, M. (2022). Climate change litigation and the private sector-assessing the liability risk for multinational corporations and the way forward for strategic litigation. In O.C. Ruppel et al. (eds.), Climate Change Law and Governance (pp. 441–490). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748930990-441
Sąsiada, T. (2021). Jerzy Stuhr wygrał proces o smog. Sąd stanął po stronie aktora [Jerzy Stuhr won a smog lawsuit: the court sided with the actor]. Money.pl, https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/jerzy-stuhr-wygral-proces-o-smog-sad-stanal-po-stronie-aktora-6430707137489025a.html [accessed 12 March 2023].
Schramm, F. (2022). Judges as narrators of the climate crisis? An illustrative analysis of the Decision of the German Constitutional Court from 24 March 2021. European Papers 7(1): 361–378.
Setzer, J., Bangalore M. (2017). Regulating climate change in the courts. In A. Avechenkova, S. Fankhauser, M. Nachmany (eds.), Trends in Climate Change Legislation (pp. 175–192). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786435781.00019
Setzer, J., Vanhala, L.C. (2019). Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Clim Change e580: 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.580
Skorpuska, A. (2022). Prawo do życia w czystym środowisku. Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 28.05.2021 r., III CZP 27/20 [The right to live in a clean environment: commentary on the Resolution of the Supreme Court of 28 May 2021, III CZP 27/20]. Przegląd Sądowy 5: 112–120.
Spijkers, O. (2022). The influence of climate litigation on managing climate change risks: the pioneering work of the Netherlands Courts. Utrecht Law Review 18(2): 127–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.801
Szczepaniak, R. (2022). Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza władz publicznych za skutki zanieczyszczonego powietrza. Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Cywilna z dnia 28 maja 2021 r., III CZP 27/20 [Liability of public authorities for damages for the effects of polluted air: commentary on Resolution of the Supreme Court of 28 May 2021, III CZP 27/20]. Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 6: 11–23.
Wiech, J. (2021). Czy Chiny robią cokolwiek dla klimatu? [Is China doing anything for the climate?]. Energetyka24.com, https://energetyka24.com/klimat/czy-chiny-robia-cokolwiek-dla-klimatu-komentarz [accessed 21 March 2023].
Wilensky, M. (2015). Climate change in the courts: an assessment of non-U.S. climate litigation. Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 66: 131–179. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/delpf/vol26/iss1/4
Zwierzchowski, J. (2022). Polish perspective on the personal rights in the context of environment and air pollution. In M. Pavlovič, M. Mydliarová (eds.), Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie doktorandov a mladých vedeckých pracovníkov (pp. 130–136). Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2023 WPiA UAM
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.