User:Slamazzar/sandbox

Falandization of the law (falandyzacja prawa) – a pejorative term used in Polish journalism to denote rule-bending or even borderline illegal interpretations of law and procedure on the part of elected officials. It is a synonym of bending the rule of law to make it suit one's current interests.

The term was first used by Ewa Milewicz in her 1994 article in "Gazeta Wyborcza". It originates from the surname of Lech Falandysz, Doctor of Law and Deputy Chief of the Chancellery of President Lech Wałęsa, who claimed that the President had the right to dismiss two members of the National Broadcasting Council whom he had appointed himself. No dismissal procedure was available at the time, however, such an option was not explicitly ruled out. Therefore, the law did not provide an unequivocal resolution for the case. The reasoning of Falandysz was that if someone had the right to appoint a person to an office, by logic they would also have had the right to dismiss them.

The Polish Constitutional Tribunal has repeatedly rejected such an interpretation. One of the many rulings on the matter read:

„On the basis of the constitutional rule of law and the principles of democracy, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that in the case where the law does not explicitly attribute a particular responsibility to a state body, this responsibility should never be presumed, and no unspoken intention of the legislator should ever be derived from a regulation concerning responsibility of another type. The Tribunal has been presenting a clear stand on the matter of responsibility regulations, pointing out in multiple pronouncements that such a regulation <<is always subject to strict literal interpretation and there is no room to extend the power to other areas than those explicitly mentioned, e.g. by means of teleological interpretation.>>”

The term is frequently criticised by lawyers, the argument being that all possible interpretations of a law must be treated equally as long as they can be derived from the contents of the law itself. Dismissing a particular interpretation (meaning) of a law is always a matter of choice, and labelling the reasoning of its proponents as a "falandization" or "bending the law" is nothing more than an eristic device. Those who object to the term highlight the fact that the interpreter always takes into account his or her own interest, choosing, out of the many possible meanings, the one which is the most favourable to him or her.

Such an argumentat remains valid as long as each party of a dispute presents its own interpretation, whether "bent" or not, and an unbiased, independent court or another competent arbitrator announces the verdict which is binding on both parties. On the other hand, true "falandization" would begin once a state authority made an arbitrary decision without legal merit in a dispute where it was not only the judge, but also a party. The principle which states that everything which is not forbidden is allowed applies to citizens, but not to authorities, who should have a clear legal basis for their actions. Those are bound by the principle: everything which is not allowed is forbidden.

> > > two bottom paragraphs last appear in a version from 13:59, 18 January 2009 ---> [1] < < <

Okay, Grzegorz - it's very well done (5-) I would say. I've revised and edited your text, so please feel free to post it as an entry.