BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Grzeszczak Robert (University of Warsaw), Muchel Mateusz (University of Warsaw)
Provisional Measures Against EU Member States in the Light of the Białowieża Forest Case
Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations, 2018, vol. 2, nr 1, s. 21-35, bibliogr. 43 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Prawo, Praworządność, Światowe dziedzictwo
Law, Rule of law, World heritage
Komisja Europejska, Unia Europejska (UE)
European Commission, European Union (EU)
The purpose of the article is to present the specific relationship between the EU, which is a unique international organisation, and its Member States, which are the source of integration and, paradoxically, its natural limit. The article contains an analysis of provisional measures imposed on Poland by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as an example of a judicial and autonomous control mechanism concerning Member States and their obligations under EU law. Case European Commission v. Poland (2017) serves as a central element of the considerations. On 27 July 2017, the CJEU imposed a temporary injunction against logging in the Polish Bialowieza Forest, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the last old-growth forest in Europe, while the case is being tried with the final Court decision expected in December 2017. Nevertheless, the Polish minister of the environment said on 31 July that the Polish government will ignore the ruling and that the logging will continue in tune with the "protective measures" for the forest, since the Bialowieza Forest seems to be under attack from the Spruce Bark Beetle. This species of beetle is a pest which colonises primarily spruce trees (Ips typographus for the lovers of the Latin language). The assumption made in the article is that provisional measures (applied under EU procedural law) have dogmatic roots in the tradition of civil proceedings in Member States. What is involved here are national procedures aimed at securing a claim in certain circumstances which establish a prima facie case on the inefficiency of the future decision. The specificity of provisional measures results from the specificity of EU law, which, in order to be effective, requires a judicial review. Provisional measures are one of the tools to guarantee its effectiveness. Despite relatively strict conditions for the applicability of provisional measures by the CJEU, they can help ensure effectiveness of UE law. The measures imposed to stop the destruction of the Białowieża Forest can be an example here. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Szkoły Głównej Handlowej w Warszawie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Pełny tekst
  1. Annexes to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: A new EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law, Annex I: The Rule of law as a foundational principle of the Union (Brussels, 11.3.2014, COM(2014) 158, final.
  2. Azoulai, L. "Integration through law" and us. (2016). International Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(2), 449-463.
  3. Belgium v. European Commission, T131/16 (19 July 2016), EU:T:2016:427.
  4. Cambridge Healthcare Supplies v. European Commission T-137/00 R (31 October 2000).
  5. Comité Central d'Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comité d'Etablissement de Pierval v. European Commission, T-12/93 R (6 July 1993).
  6. Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources and others v. European Commission, T-96/92 R (15 December 1992).
  7. Commission Regulation (EU) No 312/2014 of 26 March 2014 establishing a Network Code on Gas Balancing of Transmission Networks (BAL NC).
  8. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012).
  9. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Rome (4 November 1950). Retrieved from:
  10. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158).
  11. Czachór, Z. (2013). Kryzys i zburzona dynamika Unii Europejskiej [Crisis and disturbed dynamics of the European Union]. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy i Handlowy ELIPSA.
  12. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20).
  13. Euroalliages v. European Commission, T-132/01 (8 July 2003).
  14. European Commission acts to defend judicial independence in Poland. (n.d.) Retrieved from:
  15. European Commission v. Poland C-441/17. (2017). ECLI:EU:C:2017:877.
  16. Evonik Degussa v. European Commission, C162/15 PR (2 March 2016). EU:C:2016:142
  17. Grzeszczak, R. & Karolewski, I.P. (2017). Bialowieza Forest, the Spruce Bark Beetle and the EU Law Controversy in Poland. Retrieved from:
  18. Habermas, J. (2005). Faktyczność i obowiązywanie. Teoria dyskursu wobec zagadnień prawa i demokratycznego państwa prawnego [Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
  19. Hänseler GmbH v. European Commission, T-83/00 R, (31 October 2000).
  20. Hans-Martin Tillack v. European Commission, T-193/04 (4 October 2006).
  21. Iżykowski, M. (1985). Przesłanki zabezpieczenia powództwa. Palestra, 29/11(335).
  22. Jack Hanning v. European Parliament, C 176/88 R (11 July 1988).
  23. Jakubecki, A. (2017). Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz aktualizowany. Tom II [Code of Civil Procedure. Comment updated. Vol. II]. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.
  24. Kingdom of Belgium v. European Commission, C-142/87 R (15 June 1987).
  25. Kmieciak, Z. (2010). Postępowanie administracyjne i sądowoadministracyjne a prawo europejskie. Wolters Kluwer.
  26. Lambert and others v. France. 2015, June 5. European Court of Human Rights, No 46043/14.
  27. Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I & Bray, R. (2006). Procedural Law of the European Union. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
  28. Poland approves large-scale logging in Europe's last primeval forest (2016, March 26). The Guardian. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved from:
  29. Poland v. European Commission, T883/16 R (21 July 2017). ECLI:EU:T:174.
  30. Rosas, A. & Arnati L. (eds.). (2012). EU Constitutional Law. An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Satya Prakash v. Commission of the EAEC, C-65-63 R (25 June 1965).
  32. Shapiro, M. (1980). Comparative Law and Comparative Politics. Southern California Law Review, 53(2), 537-542.
  33. Shaw, J., More, G. (1995). New Legal Dynamics of European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Sofrimport SARL v. European Communities, C-152/88 (10 June 1988).
  35. Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, provided for in article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (Journal of Laws of 1923, no 106, item 839).
  36. Statute of the International Court of Justice. Retrieved from:
  37. The Act of 17 November 1964 - Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2018, item. 155, as amended).
  38. UNESCO Word Heritage Centre, Outstanding Universal Value, 02.04.2018 Retrieved from:
  39. Weatherill, S. (1995). Law and Integration in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Weiler, J.H.H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403-2483.
  41. WHC.17/41.COM/18 Decisions adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session (Cracow, Poland).
  42. Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego [Judgment of the Supreme Court], No. V CZ 105/12. (2013, April 17).
  43. Żurek, K. (2000). Środki tymczasowe jako przejaw funkcjonowania efektywnej ochrony prawnej w systemie prawnym Unii Europejskiej. In. Biernat, S. (Ed.), Studia z prawa Unii Europejskiej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu