Sprawa Puszczy Białowieskiej Przed Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej – Uwagi Z (Odpowiedniej) Perspektywy Czasu

Abstract

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 17 April 2018 in Case C-441/17 (failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations), brought by the European Commission against Poland, concerning “logging” in the Białowieża Forest, was widely reported in the media and on the scientific forum (naturally, also in the doctrine of international and European law). Analysing this decision and referring to the jurisprudence and achievements of the doctrine, commentators cautiously (but, in essence, not always correctly) indicated what decisions and actions constituted the basis of this dispute, which ultimately led to Poland’s defeat before the Court, considering the judgment an end to the case and, at the same time, the canon for the subject knowledge. It should be emphasised, however, that the judgment itself did not resolve the dispute as to which model of protection of the Białowieża Forest is appropriate. In particular, it has not contributed to determining whether the previous activities of the State Forests (although it proved them formally inconsistent with EU law) were beneficial (or harmful) to the protection of the Białowieża Forest stand. By emphasising the imperfection of the situation, the authors try to constructively draw from it conclusions de lege lata and de lege ferenda.

Are national institutions implementing European Union funds part of the EU institutional system sensu largo? Observations from the perspective of Poland

“…The principle of subsidiarity means that in matters that do not belong to the EU's exclusive competence, it must refrain from taking legislative and organizational action as long as a member state can independently achieve a given goal as well as if the Union had achieved it (Kowalski & Ślusarczyk, 2006). In other words -the EU institutions bail out member states and their subjects in planes free from their "monopoly" only if they have an objective qualitative advantage (M. Perkowski, 2003. Wojtaszczyk, 2006.…”