Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 22 listopada 2016 r., K 13/15

Journal Title: Radca Prawny. Zeszyty naukowe - Year 2018, Vol 16, Issue 3

Abstract

This article pertains to the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal, in which the Tribunal – acting upon application of the Polish Ombudsman – adjudicated that Article 12(1)–(2) of the Family and Guardianship Code (FGC) is consistent with Article 2, Article 30, and Article 47 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution. The author argues that the position taken by the Tribunal should be viewed critically. Although the Tribunal correctly contended that the challenged provision is consistent with the principle of specificity of law derived from Article 2 with Article 30 of the Constitution (on human dignity), it is not possible to share its view that the limitation on the right to enter into a marriage provided for under Article 12 of the FGC meets the requirement of proportionality stemming from Article 31(3) of the Constitution. According to the author, the provision challenged does not satisfy the requirements of utility, relevance, or proportionality sensu stricto in limiting the right to marry that emanates from the right to decide about one’s personal life set forth in Article 47 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Tribunal should approach with greater understanding the current standards concerning prerequisites for marriage arising under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Finally, it also bears mentioning that the challenged provision of the FGC is inconsistent with Article 32(2) of the Constitution, which lays down the prohibition of discrimination. Even though this matter has not been the subject of the Tribunal’s review, it is of fundamental importance while assessing the constitutionality of Article 12 of the FGC. As a result, the provision should be declared unconstitutional, i.e. inconsistent with Article 32(2) and Article 47 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution.

Authors and Affiliations

Michał Czubala

Keywords

Related Articles

Zwalczanie zorganizowanej przestępczości podatkowej z wykorzystaniem konstrukcji idealnego zbiegu czynów karalnych

The article address an issue important to the economic safety of the state, that is, effectively combating organized tax crime in the form of fraudulent transactions using invoices as part of so-called tax carousels or c...

Skarga na rzecznika dyscyplinarnego, a jego wyłączenie

This article presents the issues of lodging complaints against legal advisers, excluding Disciplinary Ombudsmen and the exclusion proceedings themselves, as well as the practice adopted by the Chief Disciplinary Ombudsma...

Odpowiedzialność dyscyplinarna radców prawnych. Wybrane aspekty konstytucyjne i międzynarodowe

The aim of this study is to present a synthetic analysis of selected constitutional and international aspects of the disciplinary liability of attorneys-at-law. The issues discussed in this study concern three thematic a...

Legitymacja czynna Przewodniczącego Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego w postępowaniu przed Sądem Najwyższym

The article concerns the powers granted to the Chair of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (hereinafter “Chair of the PFSA”) in proceedings before the Supreme Court pursuant to Articles 83 and 89 of the Act of De...

Il riformato ordinamento penitenziario italiano: le modifiche in tema di assistenza sanitaria

The article, after outlining the particularly troubled development of the reform of penitentiary system in Italy, focuses on the innovations introduced in the field of health care for prisoners. The author also highlight...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP595371
  • DOI -
  • Views 108
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Michał Czubala (2018). Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z 22 listopada 2016 r., K 13/15. Radca Prawny. Zeszyty naukowe, 16(3), 169-194. https://europub.co.uk./articles/-A-595371