A few remarks on dynamic interpretation

Anna Korzeniewska-Lasota

A few remarks on dynamic

interpretation

Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 26, 121-125

2014

2014

A n n a K o rzen iew sk a -L a so ta

K a te d r a H is to r ii P a ń s tw a i P r a w a P o lsk ie g o i D o k try n P o lity c z n o -P ra w n y c h W y d ział P r a w a i A d m in is tra c ji U W M

A fe w rem a rk s o n d y n a m ic in te r p r e ta tio n

To b e g in w ith I w o u ld lik e to p r e s e n t tw o s im p le e x a m p le s , w h ic h w ill s e rv e a s a good i l l u s t r a t i o n o f w h a t I w o u ld lik e to focus. A lth o u g h th e f ir s t e x a m p le r e f e r s to a s a y in g b y w o rd o f m o u th b u t i t e p ito m iz e s t h e e s s e n c e in a r i g h t way. Im a g in e tw o p e o p le s p e a k in g to e a c h o th e r. O n e o f th e m s a y s “L e t’s go to th e c in e m a in t h e e v e n in g ”. T h e c o n v e rs a tio n ta k e s p la c e in th e a fte rn o o n in a cafe. O n e c a n s u p p o s e t h a t th e p ro p o s a l c a n b e u n d e r s to o d to b e a n in v ita tio n fo r s p e n d in g a n ic e e v e n in g to g e th e r , w h ic h s e e m s to b e a n o rm a l, lin g u is tic o r l ite r a l m e a n in g o f th e s e n te n c e ab ove. T im e h a s p a s s e d a n d th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s h a v e c h a n g e d . U n m is ta k a b ly th e s a m e p ro p o s a l s a id b y o n e o f th e s p e a k e r s w h e n b o th o f th e m a r e h o p e le s s ly w a n d e r in g in th e d e s e r t w o u ld b e u n d e r s to o d n o t to b e a n in v ita tio n b u t r a t h e r a h e a r t- lif tin g jo k e . A n d th e t h i r d s itu a tio n , o n e o f th e s p e a k e r s fell s e rio u s ly ill - lo s t b o th legs a n d is b e d rid d e n . I n th e m e a n tim e p e r s o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s b e tw e e n b o th of th e s p e a k e r s h a v e c o n s id e ra b ly cooled. T h e s a m e p ro p o s a l “L e t’s go to th e c in e m a in th e e v e n in g ”, w ill b e u n d e r s to o d n e i t h e r to b e a n i n v ita tio n n o r a jo k e b u t r a t h e r a c a u s tic r e m a r k o r sn eer. T h e se c o n d e x a m p le r e f e r s to a w r i t t e n te x t. Im a g in e a 14th c e n tu r y le g a l d o c u m e n t a c k n o w le d g e d to b e a s o u rc e o f law . I n th e te x t th e fo llo w in g s e n te n c e is in c lu d e d : “I t is fo rb id d e n to m e te o u t s e v e re p u n is h m e n ts ”. B y s u r p r is in g co in c id e n c e , th e d o c u m e n t h a s m a in ta in e d th e le g a l force u p to th e p r e s e n t tim e . W h a t w a s w r i t t e n - (I m e a n ) s ig n s in c lu d e d in th e te x t - h a v e r e m a in e d u n c h a n g e d b u t th e c h a r a c te r o f s e v e re p u n is h m e n ts is n o t th e s a m e . T h e re is no w h ip p in g o r s to c k in g p e o p le now. W h a t is th e n o rm a l m e a n in g o f “s e v e re p u n is h m e n t” th e n ? A s i l l u s t r a t e d in th e tw o sim p le e x a m p le s ab o v e, w h a t is th e m a te r ia l c a r r ie r o f m e a n in g h a s n o t c h a n g e d . B u t th e v e r y m e a n in g h a s d ia m e tr ic a lly c h a n g e d . S u c h a p h e n o m e n o n b a s e d o n r e f e r r in g to le g a l te x ts tr a d itio n a lly

122

a c k n o w le d g e d b y le g a l sc ien c e (ju ris p ru d e n c e ) is c a lle d a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a ­ tio n .

M a r e k Z irk -S a d o w s k i p ro p e r ly e x p la in e d a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h ile w r itin g a b o u t tr a n s f o r m a tio n o f P o lis h le g a l o r d e r a f te r th e c o lla p se o f co m ­ m u n is m : (a q u o ta tio n ) “I n 1989 th e r e w a s n o r e p e a l o f le g a l a c ts b e in g in force so f a r b u t i t w a s a s s u m e d t h a t i n th e f ir s t s ta g e th e b o d y of la w b e in g i n force so f a r w ill b e a d o p te d to th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e » ru le o f la w sta te « th r o u g h its i n te r p r e ta tio n . A la c k o f a n e w c o n s titu tio n d id n o t p r e v e n t th e C o n s titu tio n a l T r ib u n a l a n d th e ju d i c a t u r e fro m sp e c ify in g a b o d y o f p r in c i­ p le s of a d e m o c ra tic , »rule o f la w s ta te « n o t f o r m u la te d e x p lic ite a n y w h e re e lse . T h e re is a n a d a p ta tio n a l a p p r o a c h w h ic h c o n s is ts in in tr o d u c in g n e w i n s titu tio n s a n d le g a l s o lu tio n s to th e P o lis h le g a l c u ltu r e ”1.

I w o u ld lik e to com e b a c k to so m e e x a m p le s . T h is tim e I h a v e c o llected so m e o f th e m fro m ju d g e m e n ts p a s s e d b y th e h ig h e s t P o lis h c o u rts - th e S u p re m e A d m in is tr a tiv e C o u r t a n d th e C o n s titu tio n a l T r ib u n a l (C o u rt). T h e ju d g e m e n ts w ill s e rv e a s a b a s is fo r f u r t h e r a n a ly s is o f a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a ­

tio n .

I n o ne o f its ju d g e m e n ts th e S u p re m e A d m in is tr a tiv e C o u rt to o k in to c o n s id e r a tio n th e m e a n in g o f th e w o rd “r e p a i r ”2. T h e c o m p la in a n ts w a n te d w h a t th e y h a d d o n e to b e c o n s id e re d a r e p a i r a s o p p o se d to th e e x p e r t’s o p in io n fro m th e r e v e n u e office. T h e c o n d u c t a n d a c tio n t a k e n b y th e co m ­ p l a i n a n t s c o n s is te d in le v e llin g c o n c re te s u rfa c e , s p r e a d in g a n d th ic k e n in g r o a d - m e ta l a n d s a n d e m b a n k m e n t, a n d l a t e r p u t t i n g p a v in g s to n e s 8 cm th ic k . T h e S u p re m e A d m in is tr a tiv e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d t h a t th e w o rd r e p a i r s h o u ld be i n t e r p r e t e d o n a d y n a m ic b a s is . T h e re w a s a d if f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r of r e p a i r w o rk s in th e p a s t fro m t h a t o f n o w a s th e r e a re m o d e r n m e th o d s fo r r o a d -b u ild in g , n e w e q u ip m e n t is u s e d a n d d iffe re n t c o sts a r e o u tla id fo r s u c h w o rk s. R e p a ir o f ro a d s u rfa c e a n d p e tr o l s ta tio n a r e a a few y e a r s ago w o u ld h a v e c o n s is te d in c o n c re tin g , a s p h a ltin g o r d o in g “m a k e -d o -a n d -m e n d ” w o rk s o n th e r o a d s u rfa c e . B o th eco n o m ic p ro g re s s a n d a c c e ss to n e w te c h n o lo g ie s h a v e c o n s id e r a b ly c h a n g e d th e c h a r a c te r o f r e p a i r w o rk s o f b u ild in g s a n d ro a d s .

T h e n e x t ju d g m e n t w a s d e liv e re d w h e n P o la n d w a s n o t a n E U m e m b e r s t a t e b u t w a s a n a p p lic a n t c o u n tr y 3. T h e C o n s titu tio n a l T r ib u n a l s t a t e d t h a t a s P o la n d a im e d to b eco m e a n E U m e m b e r s t a t e a n d w a s b o u n d b y th e A s s o c ia tio n T r e a ty t h a t o b lig a te d a n a p p lic a n t c o u n tr y to h a r m o n iz e t h e i r

1 M. Zirk-Sadowski, Interpretation and Understanding of Law in Poland after the EU

accession, [in:] S. Wronkowska (ed.), Polska kultura prawna a proces integracji europejskiej,

Kraków 2005.

2 Judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court from 1 March 1998, I SA/Wr 2915/98.

legal system with that of the European Union, efforts should be made at

legal interpretation based on common European standards (in the scope

subject to harmonization of law). The Tribunal stressed that interpretation

should be regarded not only as a recognized and effective tool for legal

harmonization and implementation but also as the cheapest and quickest

one. In this case there was a legal controversy over prohibition placed on

advertising alcohol. In particular, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Repu­

blic of Poland, including introduction of principles of economic freedom to

the Polish legal system, was subject to interpretation given by the Tribunal.

The content of the principle should be understood and based on EU law,

particularly in terms of limiting this freedom.

The Constitutional Tribunal fully referred to a dynamic interpretation in

another judgment, enacted with reference to already non-existent institution

- commonly binding interpretation

. But from the theoretical point of view

tribunal’s standpoint must be considered as still actual. The Tribunal poin­

ted out that in the light of the principle of separation of power, the interpre­

tation made by the Tribunal is not and cannot be tantamount to creating

legal norms but serves as a source for better and proper understanding of

the content of legal norms expressed in legislative regulations. A particular

regulation can either include one, unchanged normative content since it

came into force during the whole period of its obligation or its content may

change (it may evolve). The understanding of the text of the legal regulation

is not only indicated by its current version but also by the text of other

regulations impacting an understanding of the text under interpretation

(within the framework of a systematic interpretation), and also by nonlegi­

slative markers such as accepted principles of interpretation, axiology lying

at the bottom of given legal order, aims and functions of given norms in the

context of current social, economic and cultural relationships and the like.

By way of comparison, to give a broader overview, I will discuss in short

how a dynamic interpretation is expressed in the legal literature. My discus­

sion is based on some views presented by Jerzy Wróblewski, Michael P. Van

Alstine and William N. Eskridge

.

Firstly, a dynamic interpretation is connected with giving the meanings

of the terms acknowledged to be unclear and ambiguous. Secondly, a dyna­

mic interpretation is often referred to in order to fill in the gaps. Thirdly, it

is indicated that a dynamic interpretation comes into play when interpreta­

tor examine the meaning of the text in such a way as to comply with an

4 Judgment of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal from 7 March 1995, W 9/94.

5 J. Wróblewski, Z. Bańkowski, N. MacCormick, The Judical Application of Law, Do­ rdrecht 1992, p. 87-131; M. P. Van Alstine, Dynamic Treaty Interpretation, “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1998, no. 146/3, p. 687-793; W. N. Eskridge, Dynamic Statutory

124

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e te x t n o t b y th e fo r m e r le g is la to r b u t b y th e c o n te m p o ­ r a r y o ne. A n d fo u rth ly , a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is g iv e n i n o r d e r to s ta te t h e m e a n in g o f th e te r m r e f e r r in g in th e f ir s t p la c e to in t e r p r e t a t i v e d ir e c ti­ v e s o th e r t h a n lin g u is tic o n e s. W ró b le w sk i n a m e s s u c h d ir e c tiv e s a s fu n c tio ­ n a l o n es. T h e d ire c tiv e s e n a b le to s t a t e th e m e a n in g o f a t e r m o r e x p re s s io n o n th e b a s is o f a n u m b e r o f n o n lin g u is tic in d ic a to r s s u c h a s a im s , fu n c tio n s o f le g a l re g u la tio n s , m o r a l b e lie f, so c ia l s itu a tio n o r d iff e re n t c u ltu r a l fa c to rs.

T a k in g in to a c c o u n t w h a t I h a v e b e e n w r itin g - ju d g e m e n ts a b o u t a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g iv e n b y P o lis h c o u rts a n d w o rk s w r i t t e n b y le g a l th e o r is ts , I w o u ld lik e to p r e s e n t m y v ie w o f h o w I u n d e r s t a n d a d y n a m ic i n te r p r e ta tio n .

T h e P o lis h C o n s titu tio n a l T r ib u n a l h a s e x p re s s ly in d ic a te d t h a t is n o t a u th o r is e d to c r e a te law , w h ic h r e s u l t s fro m a s e p a r a tio n in to le g is la tiv e , e x e c u tiv e a n d ju d ic ia l p o w e rs. A cc o rd in g to th e T rib u n a l, w h ile p ro v id in g a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e v e n w h e n a t d if f e r e n t tim e s o n e o b ta in s d if f e r e n t r e s u lts for t h e s a m e te x t u n d e r in t e r p r e t a t i o n , o n e c r e a te s n o th in g . T h e v ie w d e riv e d fro m t h e le g a l l i t e r a t u r e d o es n o t n e g a te t h a t th e o b ta in e d in t e r p r e t a t i v e r e s u l t is s o m e th in g m o re t h a n w h a t is in c lu d e d in th e te x t. A d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u ld s e rv e a s a tool fo r fillin g in th e g a p s . T h e r e is also a d iffe re n c e in m e a n in g b e tw e e n th e so -c a lle d lin g u is tic a n d f u n c tio n a l m e ­ a n in g . A f u n c tio n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ta k e s p re c e d e n c e o v e r a lin g u is tic , lite r a l o n e. G e n e ra lly , a d y n a m ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is u s e d i n o r d e r to h a r m o n iz e la w w ith a n e v e r -c h a n g in g c o n te x t in a c r e a tiv e w ay, a n d a d o p t w h a t w a s w r i t t e n to a n d e x te r n a l a n d m a t e r i a l w o rld o r th e w o rld o f id e a s . T h e r e s u ltin g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n sh o w s w h a t is n o t p r e s e n t in th e te x t. T h e a t t i t u d e s e e m s to b e u n p o p u la r a n d u n f a s h io n a b le b u t I t h i n k t h a t i t is n o t fo r th o s e w ho a p p ly la w to c o n sc io u sly a d d s o m e th in g o n t h e i r o w n to th e le g a l c o n te n t. T h e re a r e a u th o r is e d in s t i t u t i o n s to c r e a te law . I t is too e x c e ssiv e in te r m s o f p o w e r to s e ttle d is p u te s b a s e d o n la w a n d s im u lta n e o u s ly d e c id e a b o u t t h e la w by c h a n g in g w h a t w a s e x p r e s s e d b y th e p r o p e r in s titu tio n . I w o u ld lik e to a d d u c e o n ly o n e a r g u m e n t. As th e r e a r e le g a l te x ts a n d r e g a r d le s s o f w h a t t h e y w o u ld in c lu d e , th e q u e s tio n is w h y le g is la tiv e o rg a n s e x is t? A lm o st e a c h c o n te n t c a n b e d e riv e d fro m th e te x t u s in g a v a ila b le i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d ire c tiv e s r e g a r d e d a s in te g r a l to a d y n a m ic i n te r p r e ta tio n , a n d th e r e s u l t c a n b e c o n v in c in g ly ju s tif ie d .

H o w e v er, I do n o t c la im t h a t th e r e is o n ly o n e m e a n in g a s c r ib e d to th e t e x t fo r ev er. I a m o f th e o p in io n t h a t th e te x t r e a d in d if f e r e n t c ir c u m s ta n ­ ces is u n d e r s to o d d iffe re n tly . M y a p p r o a c h is close to t h a t o f r e p r e s e n te d by a n tie s s e n tia lis m c h a r a c te r is e d b y S ta n le y F is h a s follow s:

1) e v e r y th in g t h a t is th e s u b je c t o f o u r i n t e r e s t a n d c o g n itio n is dev o id o f th e u n c h a n g e d e sse n c e ;

3)

sense and meaning depend on a given context in broad terms (they

depend on the whole body of the text in which a given expression or phrase

are interpreted, on other texts, on generally accepted moral views, and

finally on knowledge, to name only a few)

.

A text in isolation and out of context proves meaningless as does a legal

text. The term “cat” does not indicate a small, furry, little animal. On an

a priori basis the term “theft” has nothing in common with the behaviour

usually named as a theft. Opposite approach must admit of the fact that

there is a secret dimension, let’s say a dimension of meanings, where there

are ideal models of a cat or theft and there are names attributed to these

models.

A dynamic interpretation in this light can be regarded as a name for the

natural process of change in meaning by adopting it to a changing context.

The interpretation consists in identifying decisive circumstances in a proper

way and reading a given text while taking into account these circumstances

as a whole. Thus it is suggested that the name a dynamic interpretation be

replaced with an adaptational interpretation. A normal meaning of a given

term or expression will be that of as stated in a particular context available.

The process does not exclude meanings based on hypothetical contexts una­

vailable at a given time or place. In the case of a formal interpretation,

i.e. given by the court, such a “play on the text” should be however inadmis­

sible.

S tr e s z c z e n ie

K ilk a u w ag o w y k ła d n i d yn a m iczn ej

Słowa kluczowe: wykładnia dynamiczna, wykładnia adaptacyjna, kontekst, znaczenie.

W artykule przedstawiono koncepcję wykładni dynamicznej jako wykład­

ni adaptacyjnej. Autorka omawia przykłady z orzecznictwa sądów i trybuna­

łów, przedstawia poglądy doktryny, a następnie formułuje własną charakte­

rystykę wykładni dynamicznej jako wykładni adaptacyjnej, zależnej od

kontekstu.

6 See S. Fish, Is There a Text In This Class, Harvard University Press 1980; idem, Doing