Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022, No. 43572/18, Grzęda v Poland

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F22%3A00127539" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/22:00127539 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-constitutional-law-review/article/sometimes-even-easy-rule-of-law-cases-make-bad-law/A62008F4A8E2B774D7A4BAC4CB8E209D#article" target="_blank" >https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-constitutional-law-review/article/sometimes-even-easy-rule-of-law-cases-make-bad-law/A62008F4A8E2B774D7A4BAC4CB8E209D#article</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000335" target="_blank" >10.1017/S1574019622000335</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Sometimes Even Easy Rule of Law Cases Make Bad Law ECtHR (GC) 15 March 2022, No. 43572/18, Grzęda v Poland

Original language description

It is a well-known maxim in the legal world that hard cases make bad law. Yet, this familiar phrase has long been turned upside down as well, as cases that are – by and large – not too difficult may also lead to judgments that are unconvincingly argued or poorly structured. It is especially disheartening to find such judgments in areas where the stakes are high, and even more so when the judgment has been issued through a more authoritative composition, such as a grand chamber. The Grzęda judgment unfortunately checks all of those boxes. Grzęda v Poland Footnote1 was the first Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the rule of law crisis in Poland, a topic that has been occupying Europe, together with its two main supranational courts,Footnote 2 for several years now. The case concerned, in essence, the right of access to a court for Mr Grzęda to challenge the ex lege termination of his mandate as a judicial member of the National Council of the Judiciary (Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa). The Grand Chamber, by 16 votes to 1, found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR. While the outcome of the judgment can certainly be agreed with, the Court’s reasoning fails to convince on several key points. When one reads the judgment, the feeling that remains is that the Court seemed to have wanted to make this case about more than it was, thereby diluting the clarity of its own legal reasoning.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

50501 - Law

Project

—

Continuities

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Publication year

2022

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

European Constitutional Law Review

ISSN

1574-0196

e-ISSN

1744-5515

Volume of the periodical

18

Issue of the periodical within the volume

4

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

27

Pages from-to

753-779

UT code for WoS article

000891160600001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-85143915693