Timeline for Which are the the parts of the EU treaties that are incompatible with the Polish constitution according to Poland's highest court?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2021 at 1:48 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Fizz: This is a blog, and he does say he is not interested in 'analysing in detail ... the content ... if the case'; and later, he writes, "if interpreted in this way, said the CT, the treaty must be considered inconsistent with the Polish constitution." This is consistent with what I wrote above. Moreover, the word, 'inconsistent' was in the judgement, but not the word 'interpretation'. So the writer is wrong to imply that the word 'interpretation' has been 'said' by the CT (Constitutional Tribunal). | |
| Oct 18, 2021 at 1:31 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | And I'm not the only one giving it that reading: "The decision therefore does not aim to revoke the Treaty provisions per se, but to reject their particular interpretations." iconnectblog.com/2021/10/… | |
| Oct 18, 2021 at 0:37 | history | edited | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 312 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2021 at 0:28 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Fizz: And even if it was a legal document I was quoting, I would still have left the legal nicieties out as I'm not writing a legal document but a post on a Q&A site with pretensions to rigour and authority. | |
| Oct 18, 2021 at 0:26 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Fizz: No, your comment above missed all the substantative points - which is why it was confusing; moreover, all legal judgements are qualified by such statements and journalists do not bother putting such qualifications in their articles as they write to be clear to their audience rather than fussing about legal nicieties. These niceities are not 'inanane', they are neccessary in legal discourse but entirely unneccesary in journalism. And it was a news journal I quoted. | |
| Oct 18, 2021 at 0:14 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | Yes, I've read it. You've missed the parts like "insofar as [...] the European Union authorities act outside the scope of the competences conferred upon them by the Republic of Poland in the Treaties" etc. They have inanely long sentences, but it's not an unconditional declaration as you have it. | |
| Oct 18, 2021 at 0:08 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Fizz: Err, have you read the judgement? The adjudication after the preamble mentions in item 1, that articles 1 & 4.3 of EU Treaty is 'inconsistent' with the Polish Consitution and in item 3, that articles 2 & 19 of the EU treaty are also 'inconsistent' with the Polish Constitution. They do not mention the word 'interpretation'. Politico is quite right whereas your reading or rather interpretation is neither a reading nor an interpretation. Your bad. | |
| Oct 17, 2021 at 16:43 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | I think that's a bad interpretation; the judgement itself is linked from the Politico article and doesn't say that. It seems the journalists have confused the preamble, which reiterates the complaint submitted by the PM with the actual decision that follows. The Polish court does dispute how the EUCJ interpreted those articles with respect to the Polish judges appointment & retirement dispute. | |
| Oct 17, 2021 at 6:04 | history | answered | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 4.0 |