Sądowa aktualizacja znaczenia tekstu prawnego w trzech pytaniach
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13032308 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paulina Konca (0000-0003-1532-8693, Silesian University in Opava, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Pages | 40-59 |
| Publication date | 2025-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2082-3304 • E-ISSN: 2082-3304 |
| Publisher | Stowarzyszenie Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Spolecznej - Sekcja Polska IVR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.36280/afpifs.2025.1.40 |
| OpenAlex | W4408998904 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 28 |
The aim of the article is to illustrate the complexity of the process of judicial updating of the meaning of a legal text in changing circumstances (e.g., developments in technology and science, social changes) and to answer the question about the role of courts and the legislator in such updating. On the basis of an analysis of literature, legislation, and judicial practice, the basic problems of updating a legal text and their selected solutions are presented. The topic has been widely discussed in the context of the Constitution, while the literature on updating statutes is still relatively rare. Meanwhile, the dynamics of external changes is intense. It has become urgent to develop a theoretical framework for this issue. Judges, when updating, must ask themselves three questions. First, has there been a change? Second, what is the impact of the change on the meaning? Third, is the judiciary allowed to update? Within each of them, a question arises as to who is entitled to make a binding conclusion: the courts or the legislature. As for the first question, determining a change is often easy, but in doubtful cases where there is no general agreement that circumstances have changed, judges would be well advised not to update on their own, but to rely on the legislature’s assessment of the disputed change. With regard to the second question, judges determine the updated meaning, being primarily guided by the purpose of the regulation. However, even when updating the same provisions, two different judges may come to different conclusions. Finally, as for question three, judges update, inter alia, when they conclude that the failure to update is an omission on the part of the legislature and consider themselves entitled to correct this error. Significantly, in some countries, the ability of the judiciary to update arises from legislation: the Irish and Spanish provisions governing the issue are discussed in the article
Geography · Intellectual Property Rights and Media · Polish Law and Legal System · Polish Legal and Social Issues
| Highly cited | No |
|---|