dc.contributor.author | Fabian, Ewa | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-08-04T10:36:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-08-04T10:36:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025-07-15 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0208-6069 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/56108 | |
dc.description.abstract | In this article, I discuss the obligations of administrative authorities in European Union (EU) member states applying EU law from the perspective of some of the views presented by Hans Kelsen in his Pure Theory of Law. Reference is made particularly to the case of Fratelli Costanzo (Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1989, 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256). The judgment established a rule requiring national administrative authorities, in certain matters, to refuse the application of the provisions of national law which are incompatible with EU law (this rule is also known as the Costanzo Obligation). It is sometimes claimed, however, that administrative bodies are not expected to disregard the binding provisions of national law which are unambiguous in their content, and interpret them in a pro-EU manner, filling thus established gaps with domestic laws of their choosing. It is claimed that such interpretation may only be performed by the national judiciary but not by the administrative branch. In this article, I oppose this position, referring to the views expressed by Hans Kelsen, in three separate arguments. I present these arguments pointing out that the non-application of the principles of EU law by an administrative branch may deprive the applicant of the right to judicial protection. | en |
dc.description.abstract | W artykule omówiono obowiązki organów administracji państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej (UE) stosujących prawo UE – z perspektywy niektórych poglądów prezentowanych przez Hansa Kelsena w czystej teorii prawa. W szczególności odniesiono się do sprawy Fratelli Costanzo (Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 22 czerwca 1989 r., 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA przeciwko Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256). W wyroku wprowadzono zasadę zobowiązującą krajowe organy administracji do odmowy stosowania w określonych sprawach przepisów prawa krajowego jako niezgodnych z prawem unijnym (zasada ta znana jest również jako obowiązek Costanzo). Niekiedy jednak uznaje się, że od organów administracji nie można oczekiwać pominięcia obowiązujących przepisów prawa krajowego, które są jednoznaczne w swojej treści, i interpretowania ich w sposób prounijny, i wypełnienia powstałych w ten sposób luk wybranym przez siebie prawem krajowym. Zgodnie z tym poglądem, takiej interpretacji może dokonać jedynie krajowy wymiar sprawiedliwości, a nie organ administracji. W artykule zajmuję stanowisko przeciwne, odwołując się w trzech odrębnych argumentach do poglądów Hansa Kelsena. Omawiam te argumenty wskazując jednocześnie, że niezastosowanie przez organ administracji zasad prawa Unii Europejskiej może pozbawić wnioskodawcę prawa do ochrony sądowej. | pl |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego | pl |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica | en |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 | |
dc.subject | Hans Kelsen | en |
dc.subject | pure theory of law | en |
dc.subject | law of the European Union | en |
dc.subject | public administration | en |
dc.subject | access to court | en |
dc.subject | monistic theory of international law | en |
dc.subject | application of law | en |
dc.subject | Hans Kelsen | pl |
dc.subject | czysta teoria prawa | pl |
dc.subject | prawo Unii Europejskiej | pl |
dc.subject | administracja publiczna | pl |
dc.subject | prawo do ochrony sądowej (prawo do sądu) | pl |
dc.subject | monistyczna teoria prawa międzynarodowego | pl |
dc.subject | stosowanie prawa | pl |
dc.title | Reading the Costanzo Obligation in the Light of the Pure Theory of Law | en |
dc.title.alternative | Analiza obowiązku Costanzo w świetle czystej teorii prawa | pl |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.page.number | 123-140 | |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | Biblioteka Narodowa | en |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2450-2782 | |
dc.references | Avbelj, Matej. 2011. “Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter?” European Law Journal 17: 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x | en |
dc.references | Beck, Gunnar. 2012. The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing. | en |
dc.references | Bernstorff, Jochen von. 2015. “Hans Kelsen on judicial law-making by international courts and tribunals: theory of global judicial imperialism.” Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 14(1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341284 | en |
dc.references | Bindreiter, Uta. 2000. Why Grundnorm? A Treatise on the Implications of Kelsen’s Doctrine. Lund: Springer. | en |
dc.references | Chiassoni, Pierluigi. 1995. “Varieties of judge-interpreters.” In Cognition and interpretation of law. Edited by Letizia Gianformaggio Bastida, Stanley L. Paulson. 39–50. Torino: G. Giappichelli. | en |
dc.references | Claes, Monica. 2015. “The primacy of EU law in European and national law.” In The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law. Edited by Damian Chalmers, Anthony Arnull. 178–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans, 1928a. “Der Begriff des Kompetenzkonflikte nach geltendem österreichischen Recht.” Juristische Blätter 57(6): 105–110. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1931. “Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein?” Die Justiz 6: 576–628. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1934a. “Pure Theory of Law, The – Its Method and Fundamental Concepts.” Law Quarterly Review 50(4): 474–498. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1934b. “Zur Theorie der Interpretation.” Internationale Zeitschrift für Theorie des Rechts 8: 9–17. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1942. “Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and the American Constitution.” The Journal of Politics 4(2): 183–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2125770 | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1943. “Compulsory Adjudication of International Disputes.” The American Journal of International Law 37(3): 397–406. https://doi.org/10.2307/2192721 | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1952 (1959). Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company Inc. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1962 (1998). “Sovereignty” (Souvernänität). In Normativity and Norms. Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Edited by Stanley L. Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski-Paulson. Translated by Stanley L. Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski-Paulson. 525–536. Oxford: Clarendon Press. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1967. Pure theory of law. Translated from the Second (Revised and Enlarged) German Edition by Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2005 reprint by Clark, New York: The Lawbook Exchange. | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1973. “Law and Morality.” In Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy. Synthese Library 57: 83–94. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2653-6_4 | en |
dc.references | Kelsen, Hans. 1990. “On the Theory of Interpretation.” Legal Studies 10(2): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00595.x | en |
dc.references | Łętowska, Ewa. 2005. “Multicentryczność współczesnego systemu prawa i jej konsekwencje.” Państwo i Prawo 4: 3–10. | en |
dc.references | MacCormick, Neil. 1997. “Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the ‘European Commonwealth’.” In Constructing Legal Systems: “European Union” in Legal Theory. Edited by Neil MacCormick. 1–26. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1152-4 | en |
dc.references | Paulson, Stanley L. 1990. “Kelsen on Legal Interpretation.” Legal Studies 10(2): 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00596.x | en |
dc.references | Paulson, Stanley L. 2019. “Hans Kelsen on legal interpretation, legal cognition, and legal science.” Jurisprudence 10(2): 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2019.1604887 | en |
dc.references | Paunio, Elina. 2013. Legal Certainty in Multilingual EU Law: Language, Discourse and Reasoning at the European Court of Justice. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Routledge. | en |
dc.references | Syrpis, Phil A.J. 2015. “The relationship between primary and secondary law in the EU.” Common Market Law Review 52(2): 461–487. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2015029 | en |
dc.references | Techet, Peter. 2024. “The role of the judiciary: Interpreting vs creating law – or how Hans Kelsen justified ‘judicial activism’.” Oñati Socio-Legal Series. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1919 | en |
dc.references | Verhoeven, Maartje Joke Margot. 2011. The Costanzo Obligation. The obligations of national administrative authorities in the case of incompatibility between national law and European law. Cambridge: Intersentia. | en |
dc.references | Widdershoven, Rob. 2019. “National procedural autonomy and general EU law limits.” Review of European Administrative Law 12(2): 5–34. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819X15840066091222 | en |
dc.references | Widłak, Tomasz. 2018. Teoria i filozofia prawa międzynarodowego Hansa Kelsena. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. | en |
dc.references | Wróbel, Andrzej. 2010. “Sądy administracyjne jako sądy Unii Europejskiej.” Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego 5–6: 474–496. | en |
dc.references | Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2009. “Soft Kelsenism versus Multicentrism: Some Remarks on Theoretical Foundations of European Law.” In Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory. Edited by Marek Zirk-Sadowski, Mariusz Jerzy Golecki, Bartosz Wojciechowski. 51–68. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963, 26–62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964, 6–64, Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., ECLI:EU:C:1964:66. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 17 December 1970, 11–70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 21 June 1974, 2–74, Jean Reyners v Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 8 April 1976, 43–75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena, ECLI:EU:C:1976:56. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, 45–76, Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, ECLI:EU:C:1976:191. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, C-45/76, Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, ECLI:EU:C:1976:191. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, 33–76, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, C-33/76, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 9 March 1978, 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1989, 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 1990, T-51/89, Tetra Pak Rausing SA v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:1990:41. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1990, C-188/89, A. Foster and others v British Gas plc, ECLI:EU:C:1990:313. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court of 22 October 1998, Joined cases C-10/97 to C-22/97, Ministero delle Finanze v IN.CO.GE.’90 Srl, Idelgard Srl, Iris’90 Srl, Camed Srl, Pomezia Progetti Appalti Srl (PPA), Edilcam Srl, A. Cecchini & C. Srl, EMO Srl, Emoda Srl, Sappesi Srl, Ing. Luigi Martini Srl, Giacomo Srl and Mafar Srl, ECLI:EU:C:1998:498. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 1999, C-224/97, Erich Ciola v Land Vorarlberg, ECLI:EU:C:1999:212. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2010, C-149/10, Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon, ECLI:EU:C:2010:534. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 September 2014, C-562/12, Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229. | en |
dc.references | Judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court – wyr. NSA 2.02.2017, II FSK 506/16, Legalis 1578653. | en |
dc.references | Order of the Court of 6 December 1990, 2/88 Imm, J. J. Zwartveld and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1990:440. | en |
dc.references | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 1995, T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:1995:219. | en |
dc.contributor.authorEmail | kontakt@ewafabian.pl | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.18778/0208-6069.110.08 | |
dc.relation.volume | 110 | |