Wersja twojej przeglądarki jest przestarzała. Zalecamy zaktualizowanie przeglądarki do najnowszej wersji.

Non-contractual liability of the European Union, Warsaw 2016, pp. 500.


My book about non-contractual liability of the European Union ("Pozaumowna odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Unii Europejskiej") is being published by Wolters Kluwer Warsaw. It will be available for purchase on November 19th, 2015 online (Księgarnia Proinfo) and in the bookstores.

Lecture 14.05.2016 "Non-contractual liability of the European Union"

Wykład dotyczący odpowiedzialności pozaumownej UE dla doktorantów w ramach przedmiotu "Nowe zagadnienia prawa europejskiego" z 14 maja 2016.





European Union Law.pl

Educational service for law students and practitioners. It aims at presenting a general framework and recent developments of the European Union Law.

It will provide a valuable insight into EU Treaties, legislation as well as the case law of the European Court of Justice in fields of institutional law, commercial law and external relations.


The NEW opinion of the Venice Commission on the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016.

On 14th October 2016 the European Commission for Democracy through Law adopted new opinion on the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016.

The Venice Commission stated that, by adopting the Act of 22 July (and the Amendments of 22 December), the Polish Parliament assumed powers of constitutional revision which it does not have when it acts as the ordinary legislature, without the requisite majority for constitutional amendments.

Individually and cumulatively, these shortcomings show that instead of unblocking the
precarious situation of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Parliament and Government continue to challenge the Tribunal’s position as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and attribute this authority to themselves. They have created new obstacles to the effective functioning of the Tribunal instead of seeking a solution on the basis of the Constitution and the Tribunal’s judgements, and have acted to further undermine its independence. By prolonging the constitutional crisis, they have obstructed the Constitutional Tribunal, which cannot play its constitutional role as the guardian of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The text of the Opinion (English).


Resolutions of the European Parliament on the situation in Poland

1. European Parliament resolution of 13 April 2016 on the situation in Poland (2015/3031(RSP)). TEXT

2. 1. European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2016 on the situation in Poland. Press release


European documents concerning the Rule of Law in the case of Poland

On 1 June 2016 the European Commission adopted an Opinion concerning the Rule of Law in Poland.

On 27 July 2016 the European Commission adopted a Rule of Law Recommendation on the situation in Poland.

Opinion on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session (Venice, 11-12 March 2016).


Annual report on the application of the Charter of fundamental rights - 2015

On 19 May 2016, the 2015 report on the application of the EU charter of fundamental rights was adopted. It is accompanied by a staff working document. It gives an overview of instances where European institutions took into account the Charter in their legislative and policy work in 2015.



The EU's Rule of Law Framework in the case of Poland!

In November 2015, the Commission became aware of an ongoing dispute in Poland concerning the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as the shortening of the mandates of its current President and Vice-President. The Constitutional Tribunal rendered two judgments on these matters, on 3 and 9 December 2015. In addition, the Commission noted that the Sejm (Polish parliament) approved on 22 December 2015 a law amending the law on the Constitutional Tribunal, which concerns the functioning of the Tribunal as well as the independence of its judges.

On 9 March 2016 the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the Law of 22 December 2015 is unconstitutional. On 11 March, the Venice Commission adopted an opinion in which it found the amendments of 22 December to be incompatible with the requirements of the rule of law. The judgment of 9 March, as well as all judgments rendered by the Constitutional Tribunal since then, have not been published in the Official Journal.

On 13 January 2016, the College of Commissioners held a first orientation debate on the situation as regards the Rule of Law in Poland. This was followed by extensive exchanges in writing between the Commission and the Polish authorities. First Vice-President Timmermans visited Warsaw on 5 April and held constructive talks with a number of his Polish counterparts. Since then, extensive exchanges have taken place between the Commission and the Polish Government in meetings at various levels to seek a resolution of the current duality of legal systems in Poland. However, despite these exchanges, it has not yet been possible to find a solution to the issues identified by the Commission.

The Rule of Law Framework – introduced on 11 March 2014 - has three stages. The entire process is based on a continuous dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned. The Commission will keep the European Parliament and Council regularly and closely informed.

  • Commission assessment: The Commission will collect and examine all the relevant information and assess whether there are clear indications of a systemic threat to the rule of law. If, on this evidence, the Commission believes that there is a systemic threat to the rule of law, it will initiate a dialogue with the Member State concerned, by sending its "rule of law opinion", substantiating its concerns. This opinion serves as a warning to the Member State, and gives the Member State concerned the possibility to respond.
  • Commission Recommendation: In a second stage, if the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved, the Commission can issue a "rule of law recommendation" addressed to the Member State. In this case, the Commission would recommend that the Member State solves the problems identified within a fixed time limit, and inform the Commission of the steps taken to that effect. The Commission will make public its recommendation.
  • Follow-up to the Commission Recommendation: In a third stage, the Commission will monitor the follow-up given by the Member State to the recommendation. If there is no satisfactory follow-up within the time limit set, the Commission, the European Parliament or a group of 10 Member States could resort to the 'Article 7 Procedure'.

Source: The European Commission Press Release IP/16/1828



The history of the framework to safeguard the rule of law in the European Union

Compliance with the rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of all fundamental values listed in Article 2 TEU. It is also a prerequisite for upholding all rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and from international law. Since 2009, the European Commission has been confronted on several occasions with crisis events in some Member States, which revealed specific rule of law problems. In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Barroso recalled that a Political Union also means that the rule of law, as a founding value of the EU, must be strengthened, announcing an initiative to this end (SPEECH/12/596). The resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 3 July 2013 and the Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions of 6 June 2013 shared this diagnosis (see also SPEECH/13/348).

The College of Commissioners had a first orientation debate on how to better safeguard the rule of law in the European Union during its seminar in August 2013. Speaking at the Centre for European Policy Studies in September, Vice-President Reding then outlined her vision for a possible new rule of law framework for the European Union (SPEECH/13/677). At the Assises de la Justice, a high-level conference on the future of justice in the EU in November 2013 which was attended by over 600 stakeholders and interested parties, one session was specifically dedicated to the topic "Towards a new rule of law mechanism".

On the basis of all these discussions, the College of Commissioners held another orientation debate on 25 February 2014 before adopting the new rule of law framework

European Commission's framework to safeguard the rule of law in the European Union - Press Release, 11 March 2014



The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.



1.   On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

2.   The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3.   Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

4.   The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.

5.   The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.



Law students at the Jagiellonian University read selected articles of the Polish Constitution. The film is aimed at enhancing the legal awareness of citizens on the Constitution.


 - Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej

 - The Constitution Of The Republic of Poland

 - Constitution de la Republique de Pologne


 - Koнституция Peспублики Пoльшa

Source: You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmRTkcekwE



New rules concerning the protection of personal data!

The European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of data protection rules in the EU. 

On 4 May 2016, the official texts of the Regulation and the Directive have been published in the EU Official Journal in all the official languages. While the Regulation will enter into force on 24 May 2016, it shall apply from 25 May 2018. The Directive enters into force on 5 May 2016 and EU Member States have to transpose it into their national law by 6 May 2018.

The objective of this new set of rules is to give citizens back control over of their personal data, and to simplify the regulatory environment for business. The data protection reform is a key enabler of the Digital Single Market which the Commission has prioritised. The reform will allow European citizens and businesses to fully benefit from the digital economy.

 Under EU law, personal data can only be gathered legally under strict conditions, for a legitimate purpose. Furthermore, persons or organisations which collect and manage your personal information must protect it from misuse and must respect certain rights of the data owners which are guaranteed by EU law.



EU v. Google and the right to be forgotten! 

On May 13th 2014 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in case C-131/12 Google Spain. 

The case was brought by a Spanish citizen Mr. Gonzalez, who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his right to privacy.

The  CJ has decided that an operator  is,  in  certain  circumstances, obliged  to  remove links  to  web  pages that  are published  by  third  parties  and  contain  information  relating  to a person from  the  list  of results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s name. The Court makes it clear that such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name or in formation is not erased beforehand  or  simultaneously  from  those  web  pages,  and  even,  as  the  case  may  be,  when  its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.

The Court observed  that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data where, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the data appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed.

The Court added that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are  particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.

The text of the judgement (Curia)



EU against Facebook! The Court of Justice has declared that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid

On October 6th 2015 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in case C-362/14 Schrems. It declared that Comission decision concerning US Safe Haurbour is invalid.

Mr. Schrems is a privacy activist who brought a case against Facebook in Ireland. He said his privacy had been violated by the NSA's mass surveillance programs, first revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Schrems is Austrian, but brought the case against Facebook in Ireland because the company's European headquarters are in Dublin.

The Data Protection Commissioner, Ireland's data regulator, rejected his case because it was bound by a legal agreement called the Safe Harbor agreement — which Schrems subsequently appealed, resulting in the current European Court of Justice case.

Safe Harbour is an agreement drawn up between Europe and the US allowing the transfer of private data on users between the two regions. There are different rules concerning data on either side of the Atlantic, but Safe Harbour harmonises them and allows for smooth transfers without worrying about differing legal frameworks.

The  United  States  authorities  were  able  to  access  the personal  data  transferred  from  the  Member  States  to  the  United  States  and  process  it  in  a  way incompatible, in particular, with the purposes for which it was transferred, beyond what was strictly  necessary and proportionate to the protection of national security. Also, the persons  concerned had  no  administrative  or  judicial  means  of  redress  enabling,  in  particular, the data relating to them to be accessed and, as the case may be, rectified or erase.

The  Court  stated that  legislation permitting  the public   authorities   to   have   access   on   a   generalised   basis   to   the   content   of   electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life. Likewise,  the  Court  observed  that legislation  not  providing  for  any  possibility  for  an  individual  to pursue  legal remedies  in  order  to  have  access  to  personal  data  relating  to  him,  or  to  obtain  the rectification  or  erasure  of  such  data, compromises  the  essence  of  the  fundamental  right  to effective judicial protection, the existence of such a possibility being inherent in the existence of the rule of law.

The text of the judgement (Curia)

The aftermath of the judgement - EU-US Privacy Shield!




Opinion of the Advocate General in case C - 62/14 Gauweiler

On January 14th 2015 Advocate General Cruz Villalón deleivered its opinion on the ECB's Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). In view of the Advocate General the OMT programme is in principle compatible with the TFEU.

For the first time in its history, the BVerfG has made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and has done so to raise the question of the legality of the OMT programme

In his Opinion Advocate General observed that the framing and implementation of monetary policy are the exclusive competence of the ECB. In order to carry out its task, the ECB has at its disposal technical expertise and valuable information, which, together with its reputation and communications strategy, enable it to manage expectations in such a way that its monetary policy “impulses” actually reach the economy.

Therefore, the ECB must have a broad discretion when framing and implementing the EU’s monetary policy, and the courts must exercise a considerable degree of caution when reviewing the ECB’s activity, since they lack the expertise and experience which the ECB has in this area.

The Advocate General concluded that :

The OMT programme of the European Central Bank, announced on 6 September 2012, is compatible with Article 119 TFEU and Article 127(1) and (2) TFEU, provided that, in the event of that programme being implemented, the ECB

–        refrains from any direct involvement in the financial assistance programmes to which the OMT programme is linked, and

–        complies strictly with the obligation to state reasons and with the requirements deriving from the principle of proportionality.

The OMT programme is compatible with Article 123(1) TFEU, provided that, in the event of the programme being implemented, the timing of its implementation is such as to permit the actual formation of a market price in respect of the government bonds.

Opinion of the Advocate General in case C - 62/14 Gauweiler


Opinion 2/13

On December 18th 2014 the Court of Justice delivered its opinion on the draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and identified problems with regard to its compatibility with the EU law.

The Court considered that the approach adopted in the draft agreement, which is to treat the EU as a State and to give it a role identical in every respect to that of any other Contracting Party, specifically disregards the intrinsic nature of the EU. In requiring the EU and the Member States to be considered Contracting Parties not only in their relations with Parties which are not members of the EU but also in their relations with each other, the ECHR would require each Member State to check that the other Member States had observed fundamental rights, even though EU law imposes an obligation of mutual trust between those Member States. In those circumstances, accession is liable to upset the underlying balance of the EU and undermine the autonomy of EU law.

Given that in the event of accession the ECHR would form an integral part of EU law the advisory mechanism established by the Protocol No 16 to the ECHR could affect the autonomy and effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by the TFEU notably where rights guaranteed by the Charter correspond to rights secured by the ECHR.

The draft agreement allows for the possibility that the EU or Member States might submit an application to the ECtHR concerning an alleged violation of the ECHR by a Member State or the EU in relation to EU law. The very existence of such a possibility undermines the requirements established in Article 344 TFEU.

In carrying out such a review under co-respondent mechanism, the ECtHR would be required to assess the rules of EU law governing the division of powers between the EU and its Member States as well as the criteria for the attribution of their acts or omissions. The ECtHR could adopt a final decision in that respect which would be binding both on the Member States and on the EU. To permit the ECtHR to adopt such a decision would risk adversely affecting the division of powers between the EU and its Member States

The Court also expressed its view on the procedure for the prior involvement of the Court the draft agreement excludes the possibility of bringing a matter before the Court in order for it to rule on a question of interpretation of secondary law by means of that procedure. Limiting the scope of that procedure solely to questions of validity adversely affects the competences of the EU and the powers of the Court.

Moreover the ECtHR would be empowered to rule on the compatibility with the ECHR of certain acts, actions or omissions performed in the context of the CFSP, notably those whose legality the Court cannot, for want of jurisdiction, review in the light of fundamental rights. Such a situation would effectively entrust, as regards compliance with the rights guaranteed by the ECHR, the exclusive judicial review of those acts, actions or omissions on the part of the EU to a non-EU body.

Commentary by Łazowski and Wessel

Commentary by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott


Dano case

Economically inactive EU citizens who go to another Member State solely in order to obtain social assistance may be excluded from certain social benefits

On November 11th 2014 the European Court of Justice delivered judgement in Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig.

Two Romanian nationals, Ms Dano and her son Florin, have brought proceedings before the Social Court, Leipzig (Germany), against Jobcenter Leipzig, which refused to grant them benefits. Ms Dano did not enter Germany in order to seek work there and, although she is requesting benefits by way of basic provision which are only for jobseekers, it is apparent from the case-file that she is not seeking employment.

The Court of Justice pointed out that, under the directive 2004/38/EC, the host Member State is not obliged to grant social assistance during the first three months of residence. Where the period of residence is longer than three months but less than five years, one of the conditions which the directive lays down for a right of residence is that economically inactive persons must have sufficient resources of their own. The directive thus seeks to prevent economically inactive Union citizens from using the host Member State’s welfare system to fund their means of subsistence. A Member State must therefore have the possibility of refusing to grant social benefits to economically inactive Union citizens who exercise their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain another Member State’s social assistance although they do not have sufficient resources to claim a right of residence.

CJ judgement in case C 333/13 Dano



The Fiscal Compact

The Fiscal Compact (the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union; also referred to as TSCG or more plainly the Fiscal Stability Treaty), is an intergovernmental treaty introduced as a new stricter version of the Stability and Growth Pact, signed on 2 March 2012 by all member states of the European Union (EU), except the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, and Croatia (subsequently acceding the EU in July 2013). The treaty entered into force on 1 January 2013 for the 16 states which completed ratification prior of this date. As of 1 April 2014, it had been ratified and entered into force for all 25 signatories.

Poland ratified the Fiscal Compact on 24 July 2013

The group of Sejm Deputies submitted the statute for the ratification of the Fiscal Compact to the Constitutional Tribunal for assessment as to its conformity to the Constitution (case K 11/13). The Constitutional Tribunal has discontinued the proceedings since the deputies elected in October 2015 has not upheld the motion.

Interesting opinion by Ingolf Pernice (ECLN)

Interesting opinion by Paul Craig (SSRN)


The 9th SIPE volume


The SIPE Volume on “Responsibility, Accountability and Control of the Constitutional State and the European Union in Changing Times” has just been published by Nomos.

The volume contains revised editions of presentations delivered at the 9th SIPE Congress in Krakow in 2013.

Order at Nomos

Download Flyer

My Article published in the volume "Concurrent Liability of the European Union and the Member States".

Congress report published in "Państwo i Prawo" 12/2014


Watch their vote! 


Very interesting website that shows how our EU-deputies and ministers voted in the EU institutions.

Votewatch.eu - http://www.votewatch.eu/

Council and Parliament votes

We can also closely watch the votes of specific members of the EU Parliament - for example our candidate for presidential elections in 2015 - Mr. Andrzej Duda.

Cookie Policy

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Do you accept?