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

doi:10.26106/vrgp-6q72

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

Communities & Collections

pcg.skipToMenu

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

View Usage Statistics

Bibliographic description

punktacja MNiSW [2020]: 40

title:	Stosowanie argumentacji komparatystycznej przez Sąd Najwyższy na przykładzie wyroku SN z dnia 3 października 2007 r., IV CSK 160/07
alternative title:	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
author:	Pustuła Diana
journal title:	Transformacje Prawa Prywatnego
issue:	3
date of publication :	2020
pages:	219-232
ISSN:	1641-1609
DOI:	10.26106/vrgp-6q72
URL:	http://www.transformacje.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TPP-3-2020-Pustu%C5%82a.pdf
date accessed:	2020-10-02
notes:	Bibliogr. s. 230-231
language:	Polish
journal language:	Polish
abstract in English:	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.
keywords in Polish:	argumentacja komparatystyczna, Sąd Najwyższy, prawo modelowe, soft law, faktoring, przelew wierzytelności, restatements, Konwencja Narodów Zjednoczonych o przelewie wierzytelności w handlu międzynarodowym, Konwencja UNIDROIT o faktoringu międzynarodowym, Zasady UNIDROIT, Zasady europejskiego prawa umów (PECL)
keywords in English:	comparative argumentation, Supreme Court, model law, soft law, factoring, assignment of receivables, restatements, United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring, UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law (PECL)
affiliation:	Wydział Prawa i Administracji
type:	journal article
subtype:	academic paper