Stosowanie argumentacji komparatystycznej przez Sąd Najwyższy na przykładzie wyroku SN z dnia 3 października 2007 r., IV CSK 160/07

2020
journal article
article
dc.abstract.enThe use of comparative arguments by Polish courts is still extremely rare even in the case of the Supreme Court. They can be observed only in the last several years. Perhaps also for this reason, judges do not use this method too skillfully, leaving without justification the selection of specific comparative arguments, their adequacy for comparative purposes of specific institutions or legal systems in the context of adopted decisions. Consequently, the inclusion of comparative arguments in the justification does not always lead to the intended effect, i.e. strengthening of the position expressed in the judgment and/or the authority of the court. Moreover, the doubts rise with the presence in the Supreme Court's justification of its rulings the comparisons to the principles expressed in foreign non-binding model laws (soft law), e.g. to the UNIDROIT or to the PECL Rules. In the case of the judgment of October 3, 2007 (IV CSK 160/07), the Supreme Court indicated only the similarity of, inter alia, the aforementioned Rules, to the provisions of the Civil Code, completely ignoring, at the same time, legal solutions regarding the factoring agreement in the legal systems similar to the Polish ones, like e.g. the French or the German, or even the attainment of the doctrine. The reasons for such an approach to the application of comparative argumentation can only be presumed, e.g. the time-consuming preparation of an in-depth comparative analysis for the purposes of issuing a given judgment, taking into account European or global harmonization tendencies, at least due to the limited time and human resources available to the courts. Therefore, one should not expect the spread of comparative argumentation in Polish courts in general, and in particular that relating to soft law provisions. This is due both to doubts as to the legitimacy or even admissibility of its application in national rulings, as well as potential impact of their use on the legislative actiactivity of judges, which could be questioned by representatives of the legislative authorities.pl
dc.affiliationWydział Prawa i Administracjipl
dc.contributor.authorPustuła, Diana - 361633 pl
dc.date.accession2020-10-02pl
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-02T10:06:37Z
dc.date.available2020-10-02T10:06:37Z
dc.date.issued2020pl
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalBibliogr. s. 230-231pl
dc.description.number3pl
dc.description.physical219-232pl
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.doi10.26106/vrgp-6q72pl
dc.identifier.issn1641-1609pl
dc.identifier.projectROD UJ / OPpl
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/247111
dc.identifier.weblinkhttp://www.transformacje.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TPP-3-2020-Pustu%C5%82a.pdfpl
dc.languagepolpl
dc.language.containerpolpl
dc.rightsDozwolony użytek utworów chronionych*
dc.rights.licenceOTHER
dc.rights.urihttp://ruj.uj.edu.pl/4dspace/License/copyright/licencja_copyright.pdf*
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.encomparative argumentationpl
dc.subject.enSupreme Courtpl
dc.subject.enmodel lawpl
dc.subject.ensoft lawpl
dc.subject.enfactoringpl
dc.subject.enassignment of receivablespl
dc.subject.enrestatementspl
dc.subject.enUnited Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Tradepl
dc.subject.enthe UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoringpl
dc.subject.enUNIDROIT Principlespl
dc.subject.enPrinciples of European Contract Law (PECL)pl
dc.subject.plargumentacja komparatystycznapl
dc.subject.plSąd Najwyższypl
dc.subject.plprawo modelowepl
dc.subject.plsoft lawpl
dc.subject.plfaktoringpl
dc.subject.plprzelew wierzytelnościpl
dc.subject.plrestatementspl
dc.subject.plKonwencja Narodów Zjednoczonych o przelewie wierzytelności w handlu międzynarodowympl
dc.subject.plKonwencja UNIDROIT o faktoringu międzynarodowympl
dc.subject.plZasady UNIDROITpl
dc.subject.plZasady europejskiego prawa umów (PECL)pl
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleStosowanie argumentacji komparatystycznej przez Sąd Najwyższy na przykładzie wyroku SN z dnia 3 października 2007 r., IV CSK 160/07pl
dc.title.alternativeThe use of comparative argumentation by the Supreme Court on the example of the Supreme Court judgment of October 3, 2007, IV CSK 160/07pl
dc.title.journalTransformacje Prawa Prywatnegopl
dc.typeJournalArticlepl
dspace.entity.typePublication
dc.abstract.enpl
The use of comparative arguments by Polish courts is still extremely rare even in the case of the Supreme Court. They can be observed only in the last several years. Perhaps also for this reason, judges do not use this method too skillfully, leaving without justification the selection of specific comparative arguments, their adequacy for comparative purposes of specific institutions or legal systems in the context of adopted decisions. Consequently, the inclusion of comparative arguments in the justification does not always lead to the intended effect, i.e. strengthening of the position expressed in the judgment and/or the authority of the court. Moreover, the doubts rise with the presence in the Supreme Court's justification of its rulings the comparisons to the principles expressed in foreign non-binding model laws (soft law), e.g. to the UNIDROIT or to the PECL Rules. In the case of the judgment of October 3, 2007 (IV CSK 160/07), the Supreme Court indicated only the similarity of, inter alia, the aforementioned Rules, to the provisions of the Civil Code, completely ignoring, at the same time, legal solutions regarding the factoring agreement in the legal systems similar to the Polish ones, like e.g. the French or the German, or even the attainment of the doctrine. The reasons for such an approach to the application of comparative argumentation can only be presumed, e.g. the time-consuming preparation of an in-depth comparative analysis for the purposes of issuing a given judgment, taking into account European or global harmonization tendencies, at least due to the limited time and human resources available to the courts. Therefore, one should not expect the spread of comparative argumentation in Polish courts in general, and in particular that relating to soft law provisions. This is due both to doubts as to the legitimacy or even admissibility of its application in national rulings, as well as potential impact of their use on the legislative actiactivity of judges, which could be questioned by representatives of the legislative authorities.
dc.affiliationpl
Wydział Prawa i Administracji
dc.contributor.authorpl
Pustuła, Diana - 361633
dc.date.accessionpl
2020-10-02
dc.date.accessioned
2020-10-02T10:06:37Z
dc.date.available
2020-10-02T10:06:37Z
dc.date.issuedpl
2020
dc.date.openaccess
0
dc.description.accesstime
w momencie opublikowania
dc.description.additionalpl
Bibliogr. s. 230-231
dc.description.numberpl
3
dc.description.physicalpl
219-232
dc.description.version
ostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.identifier.doipl
10.26106/vrgp-6q72
dc.identifier.issnpl
1641-1609
dc.identifier.projectpl
ROD UJ / OP
dc.identifier.uri
https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/247111
dc.identifier.weblinkpl
http://www.transformacje.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TPP-3-2020-Pustu%C5%82a.pdf
dc.languagepl
pol
dc.language.containerpl
pol
dc.rights*
Dozwolony użytek utworów chronionych
dc.rights.licence
OTHER
dc.rights.uri*
http://ruj.uj.edu.pl/4dspace/License/copyright/licencja_copyright.pdf
dc.share.type
otwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.enpl
comparative argumentation
dc.subject.enpl
Supreme Court
dc.subject.enpl
model law
dc.subject.enpl
soft law
dc.subject.enpl
factoring
dc.subject.enpl
assignment of receivables
dc.subject.enpl
restatements
dc.subject.enpl
United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade
dc.subject.enpl
the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring
dc.subject.enpl
UNIDROIT Principles
dc.subject.enpl
Principles of European Contract Law (PECL)
dc.subject.plpl
argumentacja komparatystyczna
dc.subject.plpl
Sąd Najwyższy
dc.subject.plpl
prawo modelowe
dc.subject.plpl
soft law
dc.subject.plpl
faktoring
dc.subject.plpl
przelew wierzytelności
dc.subject.plpl
restatements
dc.subject.plpl
Konwencja Narodów Zjednoczonych o przelewie wierzytelności w handlu międzynarodowym
dc.subject.plpl
Konwencja UNIDROIT o faktoringu międzynarodowym
dc.subject.plpl
Zasady UNIDROIT
dc.subject.plpl
Zasady europejskiego prawa umów (PECL)
dc.subtypepl
Article
dc.titlepl
Stosowanie argumentacji komparatystycznej przez Sąd Najwyższy na przykładzie wyroku SN z dnia 3 października 2007 r., IV CSK 160/07
dc.title.alternativepl
The use of comparative argumentation by the Supreme Court on the example of the Supreme Court judgment of October 3, 2007, IV CSK 160/07
dc.title.journalpl
Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego
dc.typepl
JournalArticle
dspace.entity.type
Publication

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
56
Views per month
Views per city
Dublin
9
Ashburn
8
Chandler
2
Lomé
2
Szczecin
2
Wroclaw
2
Berlin
1
Brussels
1
Des Moines
1
Sofia
1
Downloads
pustula_stosowanie_argumentacji_komparatystycznej_2020.odt
7
pustula_stosowanie_argumentacji_komparatystycznej_2020.pdf
3