¹ See for instance judgments of the German Federal Constitutional Court: judgment of 29 May 1974, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr – und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Solange I), 2 BVL 52/71; judgment of 22 October 1986, Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II), 2 BVL 197/83; judgment of 12 October 1993, Brunner v. Treaty on European Union, 2 BVR 2134/92; judgment of 7 June 2002, Banana Market, 2 BVL 1/97. Italian Constitutional Court: Frontini, 183/73 [1973] Giurisprudenza Constitutionale, 2406. P. Craig, G. de Burca, EU: Law: Texts, Cases and Materials, (2003, 285-315); D. Simon, Le système jurdique communautaire, (2001, 455-458; J. Rideau, Droit institutionel de l'Union et des Communautés européennes (1995) Paris; I. Schübel, La primauté du droit communautaire en Allemagne, une etude de la jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande et de la principale doctrine allemand, RMC (1997. 621); Wł. Czapliński, Prawo wspólnotowe a prawo wewnętrzne w praktyce sądów konstytucyjnych państw członkowskich, KWARTALNIK PRAWA PUBLICZNEGO 2 (2004, 7).Google Scholar

² The dilemma is not really exposed by authors dealing with European Union law, as the supremacy of Community law seems an ‘archetype” since Costa v. ENEL and Simmenthal judgments. However, for constitutional lawyers used to the idea of supremacy of national constitutions, the question is still open.Google Scholar

3 In German doctrine this dilemma is referred as “the ultimate arbiter” issue – M. Aziz, Sovereignty Lost, Sovereignty Regained? The European Integration Project and the Bundesverfassungsgericht, during 2000-2001 European Forum, S. Bartolini, T. Risse, B. Strath (Dir.): Between Europe and the National State: the Reshaping of Interests, Identities and Political Representation, RSCAS-EUI, EUR 81, 15, 23-24 and the doctrine cited there.Google Scholar

⁴ M. Aziz puts it: “as the catechism provides, EC law prevails over national law”, (Sovereignty Lost, 1), recalling the judgment 6/64 Costa v. ENEL, [1964] ECR 585.Google Scholar

⁵ Walker, N., Late Sovereignty in the European Union, 2000-2001 European Forum, S. Bartolini, T. Risse, B. Strath (Dir.): Between Europe and the National State: the Reshaping of Interests, Identities and Political Representation, RSCAS-EUI, EUR 82, 1.Google Scholar

⁶ B. de Witte puts it: “The national courts see EC law as rooted in their constitution and seek a foundation for the primacy and direct effect of EC law in that constitution”. Direct Effect, Supremacy, and the Nature of the Legal Order in The Evolution of EU Law, 1999 (w P. Craig, G. de Búrca, eds., 1999).Google Scholar

⁷ It would have been solved by the Treaty on the Constitution for Europe, where it was defined in art. I-6, had it not been rejected by French and Dutch population.Google Scholar

⁸ 11/70 Internazionale Handelsgesellschaft, ECR 1970, 1125.Google Scholar

⁹ M. Aziz refers to this state of affairs in a very critical way, naming those taking part in the discussion “Polemicists disguised as legal scholars” (2000-2001, 7). She also – even more sarcastically – speaks about “constitutional patriotism”, for instance, implying that as regards human rights protection, “there is no place like home”, (19). She suggests that because “our state fixation is based on ideology”, there is no room for serious legal argumentation, (29-30).Google Scholar

10 Judgment of 16 June 2005, C-105/03 Criminal Proceedings against Maria Pupino, Press Release no 59/05.Google Scholar

¹¹ Czapliński, W., Pierwszeństwo to nie nadrzędność, 6 .10.2004 Rzeczpospolita (2004).Google Scholar

¹² The exceptions from this rule being: art. 34.2 c in fine and art. 34.4 TUE.Google Scholar

¹³ Sygn. akt P 1/05, www.trybunal.gov.pl. It was followed by a similar judgment of German Federal Constitutional Court issued on 18^th of July 2005, 2 BvR 2236/04.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Only fourteen Member States deposited the declarations accepting ECJ's jurisprudence in the third pillar, according to art. 35.2 TEU.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The Court went around the direct effect prohibition, invoking instead the consistent interpretation doctrine – it led to the same result: direct application of framework decision, so it was just an Ettiketenschwindel.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The constitutionality of accession procedure was controlled by the judgment K 11/03 of 27^th May 2003, other judgments with European elements were: K 33/03 concerning the biocomponents of gasoline, K 15/04 on the participation of foreigners in the European Parliament and local elections, K 24/04 on the imbalance in division of competences between two chambers of Polish Parliament regarding European issues.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Judgment of 27th April 2005, P 1/05, English and German Summary available at: www.trybunal.gov.pl Google Scholar

¹⁸ 2002/584/JHAGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Art. 55 states: 1. The extradition of a Polish citizen shall be forbidden. 2. The extradition of a person suspected of the commission of a crime for political reasons but without the use of force shall be forbidden. 3. The courts shall adjudicate on the admissibility of extradition.Google Scholar

20 Sarnecki, P., Opinia na temat konstytucyjności projektu ustawy w sprawie nowelizacji kodeksu karnego, kodeksu postępowania karnego i kodeksu wykroczeh, Druk 2031, 2 cited in Tribunal's reasoning, 17; P. Kruszyński, Europejski Nakaz Aresztowania jako forma realizacji zasady wzajemnego wykonywania orzeczeń w ramach UE‥., cited in Tribunal's reasoning,. 12; and E. Zielińska, Ekstradycja a europejski nakaz aresztowania. Studium różnic, cited also there, 12.Google Scholar

²¹ Opinia z 14 sierpnia 2003 r. o projekcie ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz ustawy – Kodeks postępowania karnego, 2 Przegląd Legislacyjny 156 (2004). R. Ostrihansky, Nakazać zakazane. Europejski nakaz aresztowania a konstytucja, 10.10.2003 Rzeczpospolita (2003), M. Płachta, Europejski nakaz aresztowania (wydania): kłopotliwa “rewolucja” w ekstradycji, 3 Studia Europejskie 56-58 (2002). E. Piontek, Europejski Nakaz Aresztowania, 4 Państwo i Prawo 40 (2004).Google Scholar

22 By contrast, the corresponding provisions on extradition – art. 604 of Criminal Procedure Code, enlists such ground for refusal of extradition.Google Scholar

23 The translation into English of this provision from www.trybunal.gov.pl is the following: Where a European Arrest Warrant has been issued for the purposes of prosecuting a person holding Polish citizenship or enjoying the right of asylum in the Republic of Poland, the surrender of such a person may only take place upon the condition that such person will be returned to the territory of the Republic of Poland following the valid finalization of proceedings in the State where the warrant was issued.Google Scholar

24 According to art. 193 of Polish Constitution: Any court may refer a question of law to the Constitutional Tribunal as to the conformity of a normative act to the Constitution, ratified international agreements or statute, if the answer to such question of law will determine an issue currently before such court.Google Scholar

²⁵ Art. 9 states: The Republic of Poland shall respect international law binding upon it.Google Scholar

²⁶ Biernat, S., “European” rulings of Polish courts prior to accession to the European Union, 1 (14) The Polish Foreign Affairs Digest 127-149 (2005); P.K. Rosiak, Prawo wspólnotowe w orzecznictwie polskich sądów i Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, 4 Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego 229-240 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁷ Judgment of 11th of May 2005, K 18/04, English and German Summary available at: www.trybunal.gov.pl Google Scholar

²⁸ Kaleda, S. L., Immediate Effect of Community Law in the New Member States: Is there a Place for a Consistent Doctrine?, 1 European Law Journal (ELJ) 102-122 (2004).Google Scholar

²⁹ Art. 188 states: The Constitutional Tribunal shall adjudicate regarding the following matters: 1) conformity of statutes and international agreements to Constitution, 2) the conformity of statute to ratified international agreements whose ratification required prior consent granted by statute, 3) the conformity of legal provisions issued by central State organs to the Constitution, ratified international agreements and statutes, 4) the conformity to the Constitution of the purposes or activities of political parties, 5) complaints concerning constitutional infringements, as specified in Article 79 (1).Google Scholar

³⁰ The expression used in the first paragraphs of the reasoning suggests that it only applies to EC law. However, the lecture of the whole texts indicates that the Court refers to the EC or EU interchangeably.Google Scholar

31 Kwiecień, R., Zgodność Traktatu Akcesyjnego z Konstytucją Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 1 (2005) 40.Google Scholar

32 Witte, B. de, Direct Effect, Supremacy, and the Nature of the Legal Order, in The Evolution of EU Law, (P. Craig, G. De Búrca, Eds., 1999),.Google Scholar

33 Kubicki, P., Margoński, M., Prymat bezwzględny czy względny, RZECZPOSPOLITA, 25.07.2005, C3.Google Scholar