III SW 1/98 AI generated

Supreme Court allows referendum petition despite insufficient signatures, ruling Parliament lacks power to reject it.

Case Number III SW 1/98

Court / Authority Sąd Najwyższy

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 1998-05-26

Outcome Allowed / Granted

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Poland overturned the Parliament's rejection of a referendum petition regarding territorial division, ordering the petition to be processed by the Speaker. The petitioner argued that the Parliament lacked authority to refuse the request and that the petition met legal requirements with 500,000 signatures. The Court held that the Parliament's refusal was invalid because the Constitution and referendum law do not grant it the power to reject petitions, and the Speaker must handle such requests instead.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 236 ust. 1 Konstytucji; art. 110 ust. 2 Konstytucji; art. 6 ust. 2, 3, 5, 6 ustawy o referendum: The Parliament lacks the competence to refuse a citizen's referendum petition; the Speaker of the Sejm must process such requests, and the Court may not apply election ordinance rules to fill gaps in the referendum law.

Keywords

AI generated

Parliament competence Referendum petition Constitutional review Speaker of Sejm Insufficient signatures Territorial division Judicial review

Cited Legislation

AI generated

art. 236 ust. 1 Konstytucji

art. 110 ust. 2 Konstytucji

art. 6 ust. 2 ustawy z dnia 29 czerwca 1995 r. o referendum

art. 6 ust. 3 ustawy z dnia 29 czerwca 1995 r. o referendum

art. 6 ust. 5 ustawy z dnia 29 czerwca 1995 r. o referendum

art. 6 ust. 6 ustawy z dnia 29 czerwca 1995 r. o referendum

art. 7 Konstytucji

art. 8 ust. 1 Konstytucji

art. 188 pkt 1 Konstytucji

art. 190 Konstytucji

Supreme Court allows referendum petition despite insufficient signatures, ruling Parliament lacks power to reject it.

Legislator summary

Legislator headnote

Keywords

Cited Legislation

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Full text