Polish Administrative Court’s Dissenting Opinions in Excise Duty Cases

Authors

  • Patryk Kowalski University of Łódź, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj220752.2020-6.197-220

Keywords:

excise duty, administrative courts, tax law, dissenting opinion, votum separatum

Abstract

This article presents the results of the examination dissenting opinions submitted by judges of administrative courts in excise duty cases in the years 2004–2018. The analysis covers the judgments of all sixteen administrative courts in Poland issued in the abovementioned period. These criteria led to the selection of research material covering a votum separatum from 78 judgments issued by administrative courts on excise duty and 60 judgements issued by the Supreme Administrative Court as a result of filing a cassation appeal against administrative court judgments. By using quantitative analysis in the performed case studies, it has been determined that, for example, administrative court judges extremely rarely submit in cases of excise duty votum separatum – about five times per year. Between 2004 and 2018 out of 19,172 judgments issued only to 78 of them issued a dissenting opinion, which is more or less 0.5% of the total. In the course of case studies using qualitative analysis it has been observed, for example, that in the constituent part of the justification - the legal basis of the decision and its explanation – the SAC referred to the arguments expressed in a separate opinion in 41% of judgments.

References

  1. “Central Database of Judgments of Administrative Courts”. Accessed October 1, 2020. http://orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl.
  2. “Information of the Chairman of the Judicial Information Department of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16.12.2019 reference number WIS.050.676.2019,” own collection.
  3. Adler, John “Dissent in Courts of Last Resort: Tragic Choices?” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20 (2000): 221–46.
  4. Bartoszewski, Jerzy, Zdania odrębne w procesie karnym. (Warszawa, 1973).
  5. Bojańczyk, Antoni, „Zdania odrębne w postępowaniu karnym”. Forum Prawnicze 12,” (2012): 3–12.
  6. Epstein, Lee, Landes William.M., Posner Richard A., Why (and When) Judges Dissent: a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 510, 2010.
  7. Fisher, Rodney, “Judicial dissent in taxation cases: The incidence of dissent and factors contributing to dissent.” eJournal of Tax Research 13, (2015): 470–90.
  8. Judgment of the CJEU February 12, 2009, case no. C-475/07, LEX no. 485098.
  9. Judgment of the CJEU of February 12, 2015, case no. C-349/13, LEX no. 1638973.
  10. Judgment of the CJEU of January 18, 2007, case no. C-313/05, LEX no. 207145.
  11. Judgment of the SAC of March 10, 2015, case no. I GSK 347/13, CDJAC.
  12. Judgment of the SAC of March 10, 2015, case no. I GSK 350/13, CDJAC.
  13. Judgment of the SAC of March 10, 2015, case no. I GSK 351/13, CDJAC.
  14. Judgment of the SAC of March 10, 2015, case no. I GSK 353/13, CDJAC.
  15. Judgment of the SAC of November 10, 2017, case no. I GSK 2028/15, CDJAC.
  16. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 548/14, CDJAC.
  17. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 549/14, CDJAC.
  18. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 550/14, CDJAC.
  19. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 551/14, CDJAC.
  20. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 552/14, CDJAC.
  21. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 590/14, CDJAC.
  22. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 591/14, CDJAC.
  23. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 592/14, CDJAC.
  24. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 593/14, CDJAC.
  25. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 594/14, CDJAC.
  26. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 595/14, CDJAC.
  27. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 596/14, CDJAC.
  28. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 597/14, CDJAC.
  29. Judgment of the SAC of April 15, 2015, case no. I GSK 598/14, CDJAC.
  30. Judgment of the SAC of September 15, 2017, case no. I GSK 1265/15, CDJAC.
  31. Judgment of the SAC of May 16, 2013, case no. I GSK 358/12, CDJAC.
  32. Judgment of the SAC of October 16 2013, case no. I GSK 949/12, CDJAC.
  33. Judgment of the SAC of October 16, 2013, case no. I GSK 951/12, CDJAC.
  34. Judgment of the SAC of June 22, 2011, case no. I GSK 374/10, CDJAC.
  35. Judgment of the SAC of February 25, 2016, case no. I GSK 1244/14, CDJAC.
  36. Judgment of the SAC of February 25, 2016, case no. I GSK 1245/14, CDJAC.
  37. Judgment of the SAC of February 25, 2016, case no. I GSK 1246/14, CDJAC.
  38. Judgment of the SAC of November 27, 2013, case no. I GSK 231/12, CDJAC.
  39. Judgment of the SAC of May 29, 2013, case no. I GSK 251/12, CDJAC.
  40. Judgment of the SAC of May 29, 2013, case no. I GSK 365/12, CDJAC.
  41. Judgment of the SAC of August 31, 2010, case no. I GSK 1044/15, CDJAC.
  42. Judgment of the SAC of August 31, 2017, case no. I GSK 1384/15, CDJAC.
  43. Judgment of the SAC of February 4, 2015, case no. I GSK 528/14, CDJAC.
  44. Judgment of the SAC of February 4, 2015, case no. I GSK 612/14, CDJAC.
  45. Judgment of the SAC of February 4, 2015, case no. I GSK 613/14, CDJAC.
  46. Judgment of the SAC of December 8, 2016, case no. I GSK 1011/15, CDJAC.
  47. Judgment of the SAC of December 8, 2016, case no. I GSK 853/15, CDJAC.
  48. Judgment of the SAC of June 9, 2015, case no. I GSK 424/15, CDJAC.
  49. Judgment of the SAC of June 9, 2015, case no. I GSK 425/15, CDJAC.
  50. Judgment of the VAC in Bydgoszcz of February 14, 2015, case no. I SA/Bd 893/14, CDJAC.
  51. Judgment of the VAC in Bydgoszcz of April 28, 2015, case no. I SA/Bd 167/15, CDJAC.
  52. Judgment of the VAC in Gdańsk of March 12, 2009, case no. I SA/Gd 870/08, CDJAC.
  53. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of March 10, 2014, case no. III SA/Gl 1656/13, CDJAC.
  54. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of March 10, 2014, case no. III SA/Gl 1657/13, CDJAC.
  55. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of March 10, 2014, case no. III SA/Gl 1658/13, CDJAC.
  56. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of December 28, 2011, case no. III SA/Gl 1223/11, CDJAC.
  57. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of December 28, 2011, case no. III SA/Gl 1224/11, CDJAC.
  58. Judgment of the VAC in Gorzów Wielkopolski of February 23, 2010, case no. I SA/Go 558/09, CDJAC.
  59. Judgment of the VAC in Olsztyn of March 29, 2012, case no. I SA/Ol 72/12, CDJAC.
  60. Judgment of the VAC in Olsztyn of March 29, 2012, case no. I SA/Ol 74/12, CDJAC.
  61. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 19, 2012, case no. I SA/Sz 487/12, CDJAC.
  62. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 19, 2012, case no. I SA/Sz 497/12, CDJAC.
  63. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 19, 2012, case no. I SA/Sz 498/12, CDJAC.
  64. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 19, 2012, case no. I SA/Sz 499/12, CDJAC.
  65. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 769/12, CDJAC.
  66. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 770/12, CDJAC.
  67. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 758/12, CDJAC.
  68. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 759/12, CDJAC.
  69. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 760/12, CDJAC.
  70. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 761/12, CDJAC.
  71. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 762/12, CDJAC.
  72. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 763/12, CDJAC.
  73. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 764/12, CDJAC.
  74. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 765/12, CDJAC.
  75. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 766/12, CDJAC.
  76. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 767/12, CDJAC.
  77. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 768/12, CDJAC.
  78. Judgment of the VAC in Szczecin of December 4, 2013, case no. I SA/Sz 771/12, CDJAC.
  79. Judgment of the VAC in Warsaw of March 31, 2015, case no. V SA/Wa 2056/14, CDJAC.
  80. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of December 2, 2011, case no. I SA/Wr 1131/11, CDJAC.
  81. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of October 23, 2013, case no. I SA/Wr 1336/13, CDJAC.
  82. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of October 23, 2013, case no. I SA/Wr 1337/13, CDJAC.
  83. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of October 23, 2013, case no. I SA/Wr 1335/13, CDJAC.
  84. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of October 27, 2011, case no. I SA/Wr 1132/11, CDJAC.
  85. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of October 27, 2011, case no. I SA/Wr 1122/11, CDJAC.
  86. Judgment of the VAC in Wrocław of December 7, 2011, case no. I SA/Wr 1133/11, CDJAC.
  87. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of December 1, 2014, case no. III SA/Gl 1076/14, CDJAC.
  88. Judgment of the VAC in Gliwice of December 1, 2014, case no. III SA/Gl 1016/14, CDJAC.
  89. Kowalski Patryk, “Documentary and Guarantee Function of Polish Administrative Court’s Dissenting Opinions in Direct Tax Cases.” European Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2(4), 2020: 19–30, https://doi.org/10.33422/ejbs.v2i4.300.
  90. Lasiński-Sulecki Krzysztof, „Glosa do wyroku TS z dnia 18 stycznia 2007 r., C-313/05”. Przegląd Podatkowy 4, 2007: 38–43.
  91. Poniewierka Wiktor, Prawo celne. Komentarz. (Warszawa, 2015).
  92. Resolution of SAC of June 22, 2011, case no. I GPS 1/11, LEX no. 824345.
  93. The Act of August 29, 1997 – Tax Ordinance, consolidated text Dz. U. 2019, item 900, as amended.
  94. The Act of August 30, 2002 Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts, consolidated text of Dz. U. 2019, item 2325, as amended.
  95. The Act of December 6, 2008 on Excise Duty, consolidated text Dz. U. 2019, item 864, as amended.
  96. The Council Directive 2003/96/EC of October 27, 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, Dz. U. L 283/51 of October 31, 2003.
  97. The Council Directive 2008/118/EC of December 16, 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, Dz. U. L 9/12 of January 14, 2009.
  98. The Council Directive 92/12/EEC of February 25, 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, Dz. U. L 76 of March 23, 1992.
  99. The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of September 4, 2015 on the Polish Classification of Products and Services, consolidated text Dz. U. 2015, item. 1676, as amended..
  100. The Regulation of the Minister of Finance of April 26, 2004 on exemptions from excise duty, consolidated text of Dz. U. 2018, item 2525, as amended.
  101. The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community of March 25, 1957, Dz. Urz. UE C 321E 2006.
  102. Wojciechowski Maciej, Spory sędziowskie. Zdania odrębne w polskich sądach. (Gdańsk, 2019).
  103. Zdziennicki Bohdan, „Zdania odrębne w orzecznictwie polskiego Trybunału Konstytucyjnego”, in Księga XX-lecia orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, ed. Marek Zubik, 135–58. (Warszawa, 2006).

Downloads

Published

2020-12-24

How to Cite

Kowalski, P. (2020). Polish Administrative Court’s Dissenting Opinions in Excise Duty Cases. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (6), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj220752.2020-6.197-220

Issue

No. 6 (2020)

Section

Reflections

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Patryk Kowalski

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.