Ochrona grup wrażliwych przed antysemicką i antyromską dyskryminacją i nienawiścią jako zobowiązanie państwa w ocenie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka oraz Europejskiej Komisji przeciwko Rasizmowi i Nietolerancji

Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2025, nr 6, s. 19-24.

W lutym 2021 r. Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka wydał dwa w pewnym sensie bliźniacze, bo odnoszące się do tych samych faktów i uznające te same naruszenia Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności, wyroki przeciwko Bułgarii. Dotyczą one zakresu pozytywnych obowiązków państwa do zapewnienia właściwej ochrony przed antysemicką i antyromską dyskryminacją i nienawiścią. Konkludując, ETPC uznał, że nienawistne treści w realny sposób mogły wpływać na poczucie własnej wartości i tożsamości osób pochodzenia żydowskiego oraz romskiego jako całych społeczności, a w konsekwencji naruszać ich prawo do prywatności, jak również zakaz dyskryminacji. Orzeczenia w wyrokach ETPC 29335/13, Behar i Gutman, oraz 12567/13, Budinova i Chaprazov, podkreślają kolektywny wymiar naruszeń praw i wolności i mają przełożenie na sformułowanie pozytywnych zobowiązań państw, co stanowi o wyjątkowym charakterze tych decyzji Trybunału w Strasburgu. Jednocześnie to podejście ETPC znajduje odzwierciedlenie w stanowiskach Europejskiej Komisji przeciwko Rasizmowi i Nietolerancji Rady Europy (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI), wspólnie tworząc rozszerzony europejski standard ochrony praw człowieka.

In February 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court) issued two „twin” judgments against Bulgaria, relating to the same facts and recognising the same violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They concern the scope of the state’s positive obligations to afford adequate protection against anti-Semitic and anti-Roma discrimination and hatred. In conclusion, the ECtHR found that hateful statements were actually capable of having an impact on the feeling of self-worth and on the sense of identity of people of Jewish and Roma origin as whole communities, and thus violate their right to protection of private life, as well as the prohibition of discrimination. The ECtHR judgments in Behar and Gutman (29335/13) and Budinova and Chaprazov (12567/13) cases emphasise a collective dimension of violations of rights and freedoms, and give rise to states’ positive obligations, which is what makes these decisions of the Strasbourg Court unique. At the same time, the approach adopted by the ECtHR is reflected in the position of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe, collectively establishing an extended European standard of human rights protection.

The research, the results of which are presented in this article, were carried out within the framework of the research grant „Protection of vulnerable groups under international human rights law” (UMO 2019/33/B/HS5/01634), awarded by the National Science Centre.

Negowanie i zniekształcanie faktów historycznych jako problem prawny

Archiwum Kryminologii 2023, t. XLV, nr 1, s. 177–210.

Obecną złożoną rzeczywistość charakteryzuje między innymi wielość konkurujących, a niekiedy sprzecznych narracji dotyczących historii i pamięci o przeszłych zdarzeniach, w tym o popełnionych zbrodniach. Towarzyszy jej rozpowszechnianie – niekiedy na globalną skalę – celowego fałszowania faktów historycznych. Przeglądowe przedstawienie udzielanych w europejskiej przestrzeni prawnej odpowiedzi na pojawiające się w tym obszarze wyzwania stanowi cel tego artykułu. W szczególności poruszone w nim zostają kwestie prawnej reakcji na negowanie zbrodni ludobójstwa oraz coraz częściej odnotowywane zjawisko zniekształcania faktów historycznych, dużo bardziej złożone niż sama negacja prawdy historycznej. Artykuł podnosi, że wobec istniejących w tym obszarze problemów, system europejski nie znalazł dotychczas w pełni zadowalających odpowiedzi prawnych.

The current complex reality is characterised by a multiplicity of competing and sometimes contradictory narratives regarding the history and memory of past events, including former crimes. It is accompanied by the dissemination – sometimes on a global scale – of deliberate falsehoods regarding historical facts. The review-type presentation of the response to the challenges emerging in this area in the European legal space is the subject of this article. In particular, it addresses the legal response to the denial of crimes of genocide and the increasingly frequent phenomenon of distorting historical facts, which is much more complex than the mere negation of historical truth. The article claims that so far, the European system has not found fully satisfactory legal responses to these problems.

Artykuł powstał w ramach realizacji projektu badawczego „The Challenge of Populist Memory Politics for Europe: Towards Effective Responses to Militant Legislation on the Past (MEMOCRACY)”, finansowanego przez Volkswagen Stiftung.

Is It Polexit Yet? : Comment on Case K 3/21 of 7 October 2021 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland

European Constitutional Law Review 2023, t. 19, nr 1, s. 163-181.

Współautorstwo: Sadurski, Wojciech

Symbole pamięci i prawa pamięci w Izraelu

Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 2023, t. 85, nr 3, s. 219–234.

Zarządzanie zbiorową pamięcią i narracją na temat przeszłości stanowi element polityki historycznej większości państw świata. Polityka ta prowadzona jest za pomocą wielu instrumentów, w tym tych należących do katalogu środków prawnych, ujętych często w postać konstytucjonalizmu pamięci. W przypadku Izraela polityka pamięci ma jednak charakter szczególny. Osadzona jest bowiem wokół zbrodni Holocaustu, stanowiącej nie tylko uniwersalny symbol ostatecznego zła i ludobójstwa, lecz również kamień węgielny powstania izraelskiej państwowości. Odniesienia do Holocaustu stanowią w Izraelu także istotny wyznacznik stosunku państwa – i prawa – do palestyńskiej kolektywnej pamięci historycznej oraz prób jej regulowania. W obliczu nadal trwającego konfliktu i ten jego aspekt wydaje się zatem konieczny do rozważenia. Celem podjęcia naukowej refleksji jest w tym przypadku chęć dokonania analizy sposobów, a w szczególności sposobów prawnych, za pomocą których Izrael zbudował i nadal kształtuje swoją tożsamość oraz najbardziej kontrowersyjnych, również pod względem prawnym, metod tworzenia tej tożsamości. W artykule podjęta została próba przedstawienia roli Holocaustu w izraelskiej polityce i konstytucjonalizmie pamięci, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem tej roli w kontekście trwałego kryzysu w stosunkach palestyńsko-izraelskich, lub szerzej, arabsko-izraelskich. Wnioski przeprowadzonej analizy skłaniają ku stwierdzeniu, że choć motywy, którymi kieruje się Izrael, prowadząc określoną politykę pamięci, pozostają w dużej mierze zrozumiałe i uzasadnione, ich realizacja następuje jednak niekiedy nie tylko z naruszeniem określonych standardów ochrony praw człowieka, lecz także ze szkodą dla i tak kruchego, czy wręcz obecnie przerwanego, procesu pokojowego.

The governance over collective memory and narratives about the past is an element of the memory policy of the majority of states in the world. This policy is carried out by means of various instruments, including those belonging to the catalogue of legal measures and often manifesting themselves in the form of mnemonic constitutionalism. In the case of Israel, the memory policy has a special character, however. It is focused on the crime of the Holocaust, established not only as a universal symbol of ultimate evil and genocide, but also as a cornerstone of the emergence of the Israeli statehood. The reference to the Holocaust in Israel is also a determinant of the attitude of the state – and the law – to Palestinian collective historical memory and attempts to regulate it. In the view of the lasting conflict, it also seems necessary to consider this aspect of mnemonic policy. The aim of the scholarly reflection in the present article is to analyse the measures, and in particular the legal measures, by which Israel has built and continues to shape its identity, as well as the most controversial methods of creating this identity, including legal ones. This article attempts to present the role of the Holocaust in the Israeli mnemonic policy and constitutionalism, with particular focus placed on the context of the permanent crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli relations, or more broadly, Arab-Israeli relations. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that, although Israel’s motives in pursuing a particular policy of remembrance remain largely understandable and legitimate, their implementation sometimes causes not only violations of certain standards of human rights protection, but are also used to the detriment of an already fragile, if not currently broken, peace process.

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs), the Governance of Historical Memory in the Rule of Law Crisis, and the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive

European Constitutional Law Review 2023, t. 19, nr 4, s. 642-663.

Współautorstwo: Bodnar, Adam

SLAPPs play an important role in the process of dismantling the rule of law and the weakening of constitutional rights and freedoms. The examined Polish example showed that SLAPPs, generally used to silence voices that are critical of ruling majorities or other powerful players linked to the government, have also proved helpful in disputes over historical memory. In Poland, the amended Act on the Institute of National Remembrance opens the road for lawsuits ‘for the protection of the good name of the state and the nation’ to be filed by a state institution, such as the Institute itself, as well as by organisations that may be affiliated with the government in various ways. Simultaneously, as evidenced by the Engelking and Grabowski case, ordinary civil law and lawsuits for the protection of personality rights can also be abused to serve as SLAPPs against academics. Such SLAPPs are even more dangerous in countries where the rule of law dismantling has been going on for years, and where judicial independence is structurally threatened, along with the absence of an independent prosecutor’s office. The same applies to places where the government utilises state resources to support organisations that subsequently, as proxies, combat the ruling majority’s critics or even those who dare, in the context of their professional work, to challenge narratives preferred by the government. In the EU, high legal standards for the protection of academic freedom are in place, as evidence by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the European Court of Justice, which also references rich soft law standards. In recent years, the EU has taken steps to fight rule of law backsliding in some of its member states and has also striven to protect against the pervasive phenomenon of SLAPPs. These efforts should be consolidated in the Directive against SLAPPs. The Directive should expressly broaden its protection to encompass scholars who face the potential of being entangled in abusive legal proceedings. This direct provision for the safeguarding of scholars carries both practical and symbolic significance. A more explicit revision of Recital 7 in the Directive would represent a positive and necessary step.

Sexist Hate Speech and the International Human Rights Law : Towards Legal Recognition of the Phenomenon by the United Nations and the Council of Europe

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2022, t. 35, nr 6, s. 2323-2345.

Współautorstwo: Sękowska-Kozłowska, Katarzyna; Baranowska, Grażyna

For many women and girls sexist and misogynistic language is an everyday experience. Some instances of this speech can be categorized as ‘sexist hate speech’, as not only having an insulting or degrading character towards the individuals to whom the speech is addressed, but also resonating with the entire group, contributing to its silencing, marginalization and exclusion. The aim of this article is to examine how sexist hate speech is handled in international human rights law. The argument derives from the claim than that legal discourse should distinguish between ‘sexist speech’ and ‘sexist hate speech’, and that the later may be qualified as a form of violence against women. Then it analyses the approaches of two human rights protection systems—the United Nations and the Council of Europe system—towards the phenomenon of sexist hate speech, by taking their position towards hate speech in general as a point of reference. In both systems, sexist hate speech is being addressed more eagerly under the gender equality framework, including counteracting violence against women, than in their interpretation of hate speech under general human rights law. The article argues the importance of recognizing and addressing sexist hate speech both within the framework of gender equality instruments and anti-hate speech framework established by international human rights bodies.

Intersection of Conflicting Values : Symbols of Memory and Acts of Artistic Expression

East European Politics and Societies : and Cultures 2022, t. 37, nr 2, s. 395-412.

Symbols of the past influence the present, very often dependent on the will of those who currently “weave the story,” to use the expression coined by Olga Tokarczuk. This applies in particular to national symbols, burdened by historical trauma, whose rank and protection may become handy tools for controlling social and public narratives. In this context, it is the law itself, with its special category of memory laws, that very often turns out to be instrumentally used by the state apparatus to strengthen such narratives. In times of social peace, this kind of state-governed manner of how we remember and perceive symbols remains imperceptible. However, in times of turmoil, symbols can serve as legal weapons against rights and freedoms. Then, the protection of the national anthem or emblem, monuments or graphics may be turned into the de facto protection of the state against its critics. Labelling themselves as the guardians of “historical truth,” the authorities tend to secure the orthodox vision of the past. Importantly, this vision very often remains distant from the official findings of historians. It was exactly in such an ideologically and nationalistically burdened social atmosphere in Poland when Jaś Kapela, Polish poet and activist, decided to perform publicly his protest song. He did so by changing the official wording of the Polish national anthem into a pro-refugee appeal and broadcast it on YouTube, which eventually brought him before Polish courts, including the Supreme Court.

Epilogue : Mnemonic Constitutionalism in Central and Eastern Europe

European Papers : A Journal on Law and Integration 2022, t. 37, nr 2, s. 395-412.

Współautorstwo: Belavusaǔ, Uladzìslaǔ

This Article summarizes the conclusions for the Special Section on memory laws that was published by European Papers in two parts over 2020, and explores the nexus between the emerging phenomenon of mnemonic constitutionalism and democratic backsliding. It looks at their interactions through the lens of the legal governance of history and the historical policy implemented by the Central and East European (CEE) States, with Poland and Hungary as the prime subjects of consideration and analysis. The mushrooming of memory laws in CEE throughout the 2010s, which went hand-in-hand with democratic backsliding in the region, is well documented in the Special Section. Memory laws (lois mémorielles) initially emerged as a specific phenomenon within criminal law in Western Europe almost three decades ago. However, the recent wave of memory laws in CEE transcends criminal legislation and has acquired constitutional significance, which this Article analyses under the heading of mnemonic constitutionalism. After setting out an analytical framework of mnemonic constitutionalism, the Article focuses on the two specific CEE examples of Hungary and Poland. In the last decade, both countries have promulgated either constitutional (in case of Hungary) or quasi-constitutional (in case of Poland) provisions that indicate a strong turn towards mnemonic constitutionalism. The Article concludes that Fidesz (in Hungary) and PiS (in Poland) regimes perceive mnemonic constitutionalism not only as an ideological basis for the governance of historical memory but also as an ontological foundation to justify “illiberal democracies”.

Pamięć o Holokauście chroniona prawem

Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego 2022, t. 20, s. 175-201.

In the post-Second World War legal landscape Holocaust became a reference point for many legal provisions, and occasionally even a sort of taboo which informs legal deliberations about the scope of freedom of expression or the freedom to act by particular associations and political organization. Another important issue related to the legacy of the Holocaust, well evidenced in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and also many national courts, is that history entered into the courtrooms. Is it feasible at all for judges to maintain impartiality in the light of severe historical controversy? Even if the cases they hear do not necessarily concern the history of their own nations, usually the legacy of the past affects their own national identity, and thus their own history. Similar dilemmas apply to memory law: are they an inadmissible interference in freedom of expression, including academic and artistic expression? Do they constitute impositions of official orthodoxy on the attitudes to history? And most importantly in the context of the present article: should history related to the Holocaust and Nazi crimes be treated in an exceptional manner through law? These questions will most likely multiply as the temporal distance to the time of Holocaust grows.

W powojennej rzeczywistości prawnej Holokaust stał się punktem odniesienia dla uchwalanych przepisów, niekiedy zaś wręcz swoistym tabu, wpływającym również na prawne dyskusje nad zakresem wolności wypowiedzi czy wolności funkcjonowania określonych organizacji i ruchów politycznych. Innym doniosłym zagadnieniem związanym z pokłosiem Holocastu w orzecznictwie, widocznym w szczególności w przypadku ETPC, ale dostrzegalnym również w działaniach sądów krajowych, jest wkraczanie historii na sale sądowe. Czy w takich przypadkach jest w ogóle możliwe, aby sędziowie pozostawali bezstronni w obliczu zazwyczaj nabrzmiałych historycznych waśni i kontrowersji? Nawet jeśli sprawy, które rozstrzygają, nie dotyczą historii ich własnego państwa i narodu, zazwyczaj brzemię przeszłości ma przełożenie również na ich osobistą przynależność narodową, a co za tym idzie – ich własną historię. Te same dylematy dotyczą zagadnienia praw pamięci jako takich – czy nie stanowią one niedopuszczalnej w rozumieniu gwarancji swobody wypowiedzi, w tym wypowiedzi naukowej i artystycznej, ingerencji w odnoszenie się do przeszłości? I co najważniejsze w kontekście tematu niniejszego artykułu: czy przeszłość związana ze zbrodnią Holokaustu oraz okresem nazizmu ma być traktowana w prawie w odmienny sposób? Te pytania będą zapewne powracać coraz częściej, wraz z upływem czasu, który dzieli nas od dramatu Shoah i pamięci o Zagładzie.

The Missing Post-Holocaust Traces in Recent Case Law of the European Courts

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2021, t. XLI, s. 213–234.

The Holocaust constitutes one of the most powerful symbols in the history of humankind. Its memory, and in particular its irrefutable relationship with anti-Semitism, should trigger strict scrutiny every time anti-Semitic attitudes re-emerge, even if disguised as seemingly harmless words or actions. This applies also to legal measures, neutral on their face but which, in their consequences, may have an adverse effect on Jews, and thus raise the suspicion of anti-Semitic implications. Such implications are visible in the recent phenomena that serve as the two case studies for the present article: boycotts of Israel and bans on ritual slaughter (Shechita). While in the case of anti Israeli boycotts, the core arguments relate to international anti-discrimination law and policies, in relations to the Shechita bans claims about violation of the religious freedom of observant Jews prevail. At the same time, in both cases strong references to the Holocaust and the memory of its victims are being invoked, allowing one to raise objections as to the status of the relevant legal developments. Here again history and memory enter into the public and legal discussions, legislative processes, and courtrooms.

Memory Laws and Memory Wars in Poland, Russia and Ukraine

Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 2021, t. 69, nr 1, s. 95-116.

Współautorstwo: Belavusaǔ, Uladzìslaǔ; Mälksoo, Maria

While memory laws emerged in the Western European context almost three decades ago, there has been a recent proliferation of memory laws in Central and Eastern Europe in the 2010s. This emerging body of law, contrary to its origins, appears to fortify a state-sanctioned victimhood and seeks to establish a preferable narrative of history in public memory through legal means. The outlook on WWII history and the dominance of Soviet communism is a central point of contestation as CEE states construct opposing historical narratives that implicate one another in the ongoing war for remembrance. In our contribution, we focus on three CEE states as country studies, covering memory laws in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, as well as analyzing their memory legislation in the context of memory wars. Our analysis subsequently highlights how ‘memory wars’ unfold as proxy wars for contemporary state identities. A quest for mnemonical security, states securitize the governance of memory which is hence excluded from public discourse and subjugated to restrictive permissible discourses and remembrance practices. These methods of mnemonic governance via militant memory laws thereby erode the foundational elements of liberal democracy, weaken constitutional orders as well as add fuel to nationalist tendencies, all of which have implications for democratic backsliding. Furthermore, our contribution demonstrates that memory laws in all three countries have been adopted as swords and shields amidst the mutual memory wars: (1) between Poland and Ukraine, on the one side, against Russia, on the other side, as well as (2) Poland and Ukraine between themselves, and (3) Russia and Ukraine between themselves. These diametrically opposed historical narratives, institutionalized through memory laws, thus have significant implications and can potentially deepen conflicts, historical feuds, and ethnic and national tensions.

The Judgment That Wasn’t : (But Which Nearly Brought Poland to a Standstill) : ‘Judgment’ of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 22 October 2020, K1/20

European Constitutional Law Review 2021, t. 17, nr 1, s. 130-153.

Współautorstwo: Sadurski, Wojciech

October of 2020 was just another month of rising concerns over the ever worsening Covid-19 statistics in Poland. Otherwise the times were unremarkable: Poland’s ruling powers ploughed on with demolishing the rule of law and persecuting courageous judges; they reshuffled their cabinet to appoint an openly homophobic minister; and continued to inundate Polish citizens with propaganda spewing from government-controlled television channels. But on 22 October 2020, something happened that made political observers, civic activists, and the people on the streets in Poland rub their eyes in disbelief. The Constitutional Tribunal (hereafter: the Tribunal), firmly controlled by the Law and Justice party and chaired by Mrs Julia Przyłębska, who was unlawfully appointed to the position of the President of the Tribunal (though properly elected, earlier, as a judge of the Tribunal), as part of a panel partly comprised of persons not legally appointed judges of the Tribunal, announced that provisions of the law allowing pregnancies to be terminated when there is a high probability of a severe or irreversible foetal impairment or when the foetus is diagnosed with an incurable and life-threatening disease – are unconstitutional. Hours later, the streets of cities and towns, large and small, all over Poland, teemed with tens of thousands and later hundreds of thousands of protesters loudly proclaiming their opposition – frequently using expletives so far unheard of in public spaces – to this assault on fundamental human rights paraded as a legitimate judicial act as part of the Tribunal’s constitutional review of legislation. The protest, initially aimed at the Tribunal’s pronouncement, quickly turned into a global protest against the Law and Justice party’s rule over Poland in general, at first triggering incredulity in government circles and then prompting a series of nervous reactions from them.

The Remarkable Rise of ‘Law and Historical Memory’ in Europe : Theorizing Trends and Prospects in the Recent Literature

Współautorstwo: Belavusaǔ, Uladzìslaǔ

Review article of: - Defendin nazis in postwar Czechoslovakia: The life of K. Resler, Defence Consuel Ex Officio of K.H. Frank by Jakub Drápal (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2018, 200 pp., £19.00) - Communists and theit victims: The quest for justice in the Czech Republic by Roman David (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018, 280 pp., £69.00). Recent European literature on memory laws agrees that, despite the multiple forms of such laws (punitive and declarative, constitutional and administrative, legislative and judicial, and so on), there has been a sharp increase in their adoption in Europe. Furthermore, their mushrooming in CEE has been intertwined with a marked decline of rule of law in the region. ‘Illiberal democracies’26 are particularly eager to revert to populist identity formation under the guise of memory politics, mainstreaming nationalist historiography while marginalizing and, at times, suppressing alternative historical memories of minorities. Likewise, the controversial decision of the ECtHR in Perinçek v. Switzerland has recently sparked unprecedented attention to invoking law in the context of historical memory and various inevitable hierarchies between the memory of the Holocaust and other genocides. During the 1980s and 1990s, and even partially in the early 2000s, legislative memory provisions and historical trials in Europe and elsewhere were largely a matter of targeting revisionist and denialist narratives about the Shoah, the Armenian genocide, colonial atrocities, and so on, raising painful questions about the past and its lessons for a hopefully more emancipated and tolerant future. In contrast, since the 2000s, and especially since 2010, memory laws have been increasingly converted into instruments ensuring mnemonic security and supposedly counteracting disinformation in a number of countries in CEE, to fortify their sovereignty in light of, in particular, Russian propaganda. The legal rehabilitation of Stalinism, along with the white-washing of Soviet expansionism during that period, has been well described by Koposov. Putin's Russia has adopted a dangerous rhetoric, stirring up (post-)Soviet imperialism to cover up military interventions in the region via a peculiar vindication of communism – increasingly contradictory in light of its parallel rehabilitation of the ‘good tsar’ killed by the Bolsheviks and the revival of religious Orthodox obscurantism, once successfully suppressed by the same communists. Thus, one of the major findings of the recent literature is that – despite the birth of the terminology and major modes of legal governance of history in Western Europe – the current epicentre of memory laws is situated in CEE. Moreover, since the 2000s a different type of memory legislation has been taking shape. The earlier – self-inculpatory – memory laws had the naïve yet noble purpose of defending historical truth and the dignity of Holocaust victims. The recent – self-exculpatory – wave of CEE memory laws should be considered in light of memory wars, whereby a number of countries in the region have advanced their ontological security by promulgating legislation that fortifies simplistic binary narratives. Such dichotomous narratives usually portray selected nations as victims par excellence of gross atrocities. These narratives prevent the nations from reflecting critically on their own twentieth-century histories. The acceleration of dystopian memory politics goes hand in hand with the deterioration of democratic standards in the CEE region. In particular, Hungary and Poland stand accused of democratic backsliding by the EU institutions. Furthermore, concerned with the idealized visions of the Stalinist past being reanimated in Russia along with the uncritical view of Soviet atrocities in the ex-communist bloc, the Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine have been provoked to legislate in defence of certain simplistic historical narratives. It is, therefore, fair to predict that future scholarship in this field of law and society, dealing with legal governance of historical memory in Europe, will move from assessing memory laws exclusively in light of their compatibility with human rights, such as freedom of speech (especially in the post-colonial context of Western European countries and genocide denialism wider than the Holocaust), to a broader perspective regarding democracy and rule of law (especially in the CEE region). The literature on memory laws in Europe will further position these laws against rising nationalism and populism, assessing their self-inculpatory and self-exculpatory elements, and into the broader paradigm of ‘responsible history’. This paradigm will have to carefully explore various defences and critiques for the legal engagement with historical memory, from the right to truth to protection against disinformation and mnemonic propaganda.

Deployments of Memory with the Tools of Law : the Case of Poland

Review of Central and East European Law 2019, t. 44, nr 4, s. 464-492.

Recent invocations of the past in the service of ideology, based to a large extent on nationalistic motives, are a particularly disturbing phenomenon in the area of the European “duty to remember” and memory laws. One of the most telling examples of this trend was Polish legislation introduced in January 2018 (partly repealed in June 2018) that penalized defamation of the Polish State and the Polish Nation by claiming their responsibility or co-responsibility for crimes committed by German Nazis in occupied Poland. Although the idea of opposing the falsification of history appears valid, the structure of the law left room for also bringing to trial those daring to ask uncomfortable questions challenging the heroic vision of Poland’s past. This article claims that legal provisions such as the Polish law represent a dangerous tool of strengthening the feeling of national community understood very narrowly and limited to one nationally, religiously and ethnically homogeneous group. This approach is directly connected with promulgation of the narrative of a “besieged castle”, which defends itself against “the Other” and demands indisputable recognition for its past sufferings. The reasons, mechanisms and consequences of recent implementation in Poland of legal and political discourse regarding the past, are discussed here.

‘Governmental Xenophobia’ and Crimmigration : European States’ Policy and Practices towards ‘the Other’

No-Foundations 2018, nr 15, s. 74-100.

Współautorstwo: Klaus, Witold

This article identifies practices of numerous European states characterized as manifestations of “governmental xenophobia” and “crimmigration” as its special phenomenon, while at the same time demonstrating the ways these practices breach fundamental human rights, including prohibition of discrimination. Europe has been selected as a case-study for the purpose of this article as currently it is the areathatreflects and cumulates, in an unprecedented way, all phenomenon the article relates to. It also proves that both the old, Western Europe’s democracies and former Central and Eastern member states of the European community are not free from using the same practices towards “the Other”, relying very often on the same – universal xenophobic attitudes fed by the same fears and prejudice.

Law-Secured Narratives of the Past in Poland in Light of International Human Rights Law Standards

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2018, t. XXXVIII, s. 59-72.

Współautorstwo: Baranowska, Grażyna; Wójcik, Anna

Given the whole spectrum of doubts and controversies that arise in discussions about lawsaffecting historical memory (and their subcategory of memory laws), the question ofassessingthem in the context ofinternationalstandards ofhuman rights protection -and in particularthe European system ofhuman rights protection -is often overlooked. Thus this article focuseson the implications and conditions for introducing memory laws in light of internationalhuman rights standards using selected examples of various types of recently-adopted Polishmemory laws as case studies. The authors begin with a briefdescription ofthe phenomenon ofmemory laws and the most significant threats that they pose to the protection ofinternationalhuman rights standards. hefollowing sections analyse selected Polish laws affecting historicalmemory vis-a-vis these standards. The analysis covers non-binding declaratory laws affectinghistorical memory, and acts that include criminal law sanctions. The article attempts tosketch the circumstances linking laws affecting historical memory with the human rightsprotection standards, including those entailed both in binding treaties and other instrumentsof international law

Memory Laws in European and Comparative Perspective MELA (www.melaproject.org) research con-sortium is supported with HERA grant no. 15.094.

“Right to Truth” and Memory Laws : General Rules and Practical Implications

Polish Political Science Yearbook 2018, t. 47, nr 1, s. 97-109.

Współautorstwo: Baranowska, Grażyna

The “right to truth” relates to the obligation of the state to provide information about the circumstances surrounding serious violations of human rights. Despite its increasing recognition, the concept raises questions as to its scope and implementation as well as its existence as a free-standing right. Similarly, “memory laws” relate to the way states deal with their past. However, there are certain „memory laws” that, while officially serving as a guarantee for accessing historical truth, lead to its deformation. As a result, an “alternative” truth, based on the will of the legislators, is being imposed. In this article, the authors elaborate on the general nature of the new legal phenomenon of the „right to truth”, as a tool of transitional justice, in particular in the context of both providing and abusing historical truth by the legislators, through the instrument of “memory laws”.

Comment to the Decision of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in V.S. v. Slovakia (application no. 56/2014) of 4 December 2015

Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. Silesian Journal of Legal Studies 2018, nr 10, s. 31-38.

The article presents comments to the decision of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in one of the cases concerning racial and ethnic discrimination of Roma. The comments are made within a broader context of multiple violations of Roma rights in today’s Europe and structural problem of discrimination of Roma in the employment sector. Remarks on the understanding of the concept of burden of proof in discrimination cases, as well as on the failure of domestic systems of human rights protection are also offered here.

A Recent Decision of the US Supreme Court on Legal Discrimination in the Access to Voting Rights : Five Readings of Shelby County

Anti Discrimination Law Review 2017, nr 1, s. 51-64.

Współautorstwo: Sadurski, Wojciech

Przeciwdziałanie antysemityzmowi w ramach Rady Europy - bilans osiągnięć i porażek.

Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2017, nr 2, s. 21-25,
[Dwadzieścia pięć] 25-lecie Polski w Radzie Europy. Europ.Prz.Sądowy 2017 nr 2 64 s.,

Współautorstwo: Wieruszewski, Roman

Przeciwdziałanie antysemityzmowi w ramach Rady Europy - bilans osiągnięć i porażek. Europ.Prz.Sądowy 2017 nr 2 s. 21-25, Sum.,

Communism equals or versus nazism? : Europe’s unwholesome legacy in Strasbourg

East European Politics and Societies 2016, t. 30, nr 1, s. 74-96.

The accession of post-communist states into the Council of Europe system enlarged greatly the territory of effective protection of human rights in Europe and at the same time compelled the European Court of Human Rights to address the current effects of past violations of human rights by communist regimes. It gave the Court an opportunity to establish a legal standard of how to deal with matters such as the public presence of communist symbols and insignia, de-registration of neo-Communist parties, and the relevance of past membership in the Communist parties for an exercise of electoral rights in a newly democratized state. This opportunity was at the same time a challenge, and the Court was less than successful in meeting this challenge, despite the fact that it had already established the relevant legal standards when deciding about the cases triggered by the Nazi past. Without making it explicit, and without articulating openly the relevant differences, the Court has not established any equivalence between legal treatments of the aftermath of the two types of criminal regimes in the European recent past. The article discusses three recent cases belonging to these categories and concludes that there is a clear contrast between the Court’s treatment of “post-communist” cases and the same Court’s earlier treatment of equivalent “post-Nazi” cases; the article offers some explanations for the discrepancy which reflects a broader dualism in European collective memory of the past.

Victimhood of the Nation as a Legally Protected Value in Transitional States : Poland as a Case Study

Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics 2016, t. 6, nr 2, s. 45-61.

Współautorstwo: Śledzińska-Simon, Anna

The memory of the past is always vital for building national identity in transitional contexts. Yet, the preservation of a particular representation of the national history may lead not only to distortion of the self-identification process, but also to distortion of rights protection. Taking Poland as a case study, we aim to explain mechanisms of using criminal laws for historical assessment and show instances when victimhood became a legally protected value used to justify limitations of free speech and academic research. We argue that the law criminalising defamation of the Polish Nation, and also the decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, were symptoms of frustration and fear against opening and engaging in an honest public debate on recent history, which is necessary for establishing not only the fundamentals of transitional justice, but more importantly, for building mutual trust in a democratic society.

Stalinism and Communism Equals or Versus Nazism? : Central and Eastern European Unwholesome Legacy in ECtHR

East European Politics and Societies 2016, t. 30, nr 1, s. 74-96.

The accession of post-communist states into the Council of Europe system enlarged greatly the territory of effective protection of human rights in Europe and at the same time compelled the European Court of Human Rights to address the current effects of past violations of human rights by communist regimes. It gave the Court an opportunity to establish a legal standard of how to deal with matters such as the public presence of communist symbols and insignia, de-registration of neo-Communist parties, and the relevance of past membership in the Communist parties for an exercise of electoral rights in a newly democratized state. This opportunity was at the same time a challenge, and the Court was less than successful in meeting this challenge, despite the fact that it had already established the relevant legal standards when deciding about the cases triggered by the Nazi past. Without making it explicit, and without articulating openly the relevant differences, the Court has not established any equivalence between legal treatments of the aftermath of the two types of criminal regimes in the European recent past. The article discusses three recent cases belonging to these categories and concludes that there is a clear contrast between the Court’s treatment of “post-ommunist” cases and the same Court’s earlier treatment of equivalent “post-Nazi” cases; the article offers some explanations for the discrepancy which reflects a broader dualism in European collective memory of the past.

The European Court of Human Rights on Nazi and Soviet Past in Central and Eastern Europe

Polish Political Science Yearbook 2016, t. 45, nr 1, s. 117-129.

Współautorstwo: Baranowska, Grażyna

The article demonstrates how references to Nazi and Soviet past are perceived and evaluated by the European Court of Human Rights. Individual cases concerning Holocaust and Nazism, which the Court has examined so far, are compared here to judgments rendered with regard to Communist regime. The article proves that the Court treats more leniently state interference with freedom of expression when memory about Nazism and Holocaust is protected than when a post-Communist state wants to preserve a critical memory about the regime. The authors of the article agree with the attitude of the Court which offers a wide margin of appreciation to states restrictively treating references to Nazism and Holocaust, including comparisons to the Holocaust, Nazism or fascism used as rhetorical devices. At the same time they postulate that other totalitarian systems should be treated by the Court equally.

Freedom of Religion versus Humane Treatment of Animals : Polish Constitutional Tribunal's Judgment on Permissibility of Religious Slaughter : Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland of 10 December 2014, K 52/13

European Constitutional Law Review 2015, t. 11, nr 3, s. 596-608.

Współautorstwo: Sadurski, Wojciech

Deficyty polskiego ustawodawstwa w zakresie przeciwdziałania mowie nienawiści i przestępstwom z nienawiści

Studia Prawnicze 2014, nr 1, s. 113-128.

The phenomenon of hate speech and hate crimes is not easily captured in the legal definitions and is often described as controversial due to the difficulties with identifying the “hateful element” of words and deeds. Another significant reason for the difficulties concerning penalisation in the area in question is the strict (and for many unjustified) limitation imposed on freedom of speech, assembly and association, which are the freedoms most often affected by the anti-hate provisions of law. Nevertheless the obligations included in the international human rights law oblige Polish legislators to introduce and implement proper mechanisms of counteracting these extremely negative and socially dangerous phenomenon. However, many questions arise: Are the international standards of human rights law fully reflected in the Polish legal provisions and practice? How are the areas demanding alteration and endorsement being defined? What are the obstacles that unable the process of protecting all groups particularly endangered by hate speech and hate crimes? Are the provisions of law a sufficient and effective barrier against spreading hatred in the public sphere? This article seeks to answer all the questions posed above. It also attempts to demonstrate the complexity of the analysed problems, placing them in the centre of the gene-ral discussion on tolerance, minorities protection and the functions of the antidiscrimination law within democratic state and society.

Memory Laws or Memory Loss? : Europe in Search of Its Historical Identity through the National and International Law

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2014, nr 34, s. 161-186.

This article provides an overview of “memory laws” in Europe, reflecting upon what may be called the “asymmetry” of such laws. It then looks at the special case of Poland and its troubled experience with memory laws; it considers the question of whether, in the eyes of the law – genocide, and in particular the Holocaust – is so “special” that its public denials warrant legal intervention. It also looks at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and its (not necessarily coherent) “doctrine” on memory laws and their consistency, or otherwise, with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda­mental Freedoms (and in particular with freedom of expression as laid down in Art. 10). The article concludes by asserting that even if we take the law as an indicator of European public memory, there is no consensus on the past, except perhaps for the special case of the Holocaust. The main challenge lies in determining whether memory laws, defined by some as social engineering and the imposition of “imperative” versions of memory, are consistent with the principles inherent in open, democratic and free societies in Europe. This challenge remains unmet.

Zjawisko antysemityzmu w państwach Unii Europejskiej: wciąż palący problem

Europejski Przegląd Prawa i Stosunków Międzynarodowych 2013, nr 4, s. 51-59.

Współautorstwo: Wieruszewski, Roman

Znieważanie religii - dyskusja na forum ONZ. W: Prawne granice ... s. 197-214,

Prawne granice wolności sumienia i wyznania. Red. i wstęp Roman Wieruszewski, Mirosław Wyrzykowski, Lena Kondratiewa-Bryzik. Wwa 2012 Wolters Kluwer ss. 333,

Znieważanie religii - dyskusja na forum ONZ. W: Prawne granice ... s. 197-214,

Koncepcja Światowego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Państwo i Prawo 2011, nr 5, s. 3-18.

Współautorstwo: Sękowska-Kozłowska, Katarzyna; Wieruszewski, Roman

Orzecznictwo Komitetu Praw Człowieka oraz Komitetu ds. Likwidacji Dyskryminacji Rasowej ONZ dotyczące granic swobody wypowiedzi w odniesieniu do mowy nienawiści. W: Mowa nienawiści ... s. 131-149,

Mowa nienawiści a wolność słowa. Aspekty prawne i społeczne. Red. i wstęp Roman Wieruszewski, Mirosław Wyrzykowski, Adam Bodnar, Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias. Wwa 2010 Wolters Kluwer ss. 283 (art. wybrane),

Orzecznictwo Komitetu Praw Człowieka oraz Komitetu ds. Likwidacji Dyskryminacji Rasowej ONZ dotyczące granic swobody wypowiedzi w odniesieniu do mowy nienawiści. W: Mowa nienawiści ... s. 131-149,

Trybunał Praw Człowieka w przededniu reformy. Rzeczposp. 2010 nr 21.

Rzeczpospolita

Trybunał Praw Człowieka w przededniu reformy. Rzeczposp. 2010 nr 21.

Stanowisko Poznańskiego Centrum Praw Człowieka. W: Mowa nienawiści a wolność słowa. Debata wokół artykułów 256 i 257 kodeksu karnego. Wwa 2009 Stowarzyszenie przeciw Antysemityzmowi i Ksenofobii s. 16-24.

Stanowisko Poznańskiego Centrum Praw Człowieka. W: Mowa nienawiści a wolność słowa. Debata wokół artykułów 256 i 257 kodeksu karnego. Wwa 2009 Stowarzyszenie przeciw Antysemityzmowi i Ksenofobii s. 16-24.

Polska przed Radą Praw Człowieka ONZ

Rzeczpospolita 2008, nr 142.

Współautorstwo: Sękowska-Kozłowska, Katarzyna

Zalecenia Europejskiej Komisji przeciwko Rasizmowi i Nietolerancji w zakresie walki z antysemityzmem oraz ich realizacja przez Polskę

Ius Novum 2008, nr 3, s. 117-138.

Izraelski mur bezpieczeństwa : realizacja czy naruszenie zasad prawa międzynarodowego?

Sprawy Międzynarodowe 2007, nr 2, s. 80-98.