COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Arguments in Polish Civil Litigation

Author:

Piszcz AnnaORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to analyse the legal record on civil litigation from mid-March 2020 to mid-July 2021 and examine COVID-19 pandemic-related arguments in a sample of litigated cases heard in Polish courts, more precisely 41 cases. In an attempt to establish the number and types of court cases in which such arguments have been raised, the population of individual case records was accessed electronically from the Ordinary Courts Judgments Portal (Pol. Portal Orzeczeń Sądów Powszechnych). The analysed research material consists of texts of written justifications published along with rulings of courts of the first instance in the Portal, except for texts regarding criminal cases and widely understood labour cases. This paper refers to certain theoretical aspects of argument and argumentation. Then, it sheds light on the use of COVID-19 pandemic-related arguments by the parties involved in litigation—as reported by the courts in written justifications—considering, amongst others, whether those arguments were found convincing by the courts. Based on a survey of relevant cases, an attempt was made to identify categories of COVID-19 pandemic-related arguments of the parties involved in litigation, raised in their legal submissions. Also a look into the tendencies in this regard was taken to see whether any patterns emerge and it is possible (or not) to discern different trends in the analysed phenomena. The point of the analysis in this article is both descriptive and normative.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Language and Linguistics

Reference27 articles.

1. Aakhus, M., P. Ziek, and P. Dadlani. 2016. Argumentation in Large, Complex Practices. OSSA Conference Archive 54: 1–15.

2. Australian Law Reform Commission. 2021. Background Paper JI6. Judicial Impartiality. Cognitive and Social Biases in Judicial Decision-Making. Brisbane: Australian Law Reform Commission. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/JI6-Cognitive-Biases-in-Judicial-Decision-Making.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2021.

3. Bartels, B.L. 2010. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Models of Judicial Reasoning. In The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making, ed. D.E. Klein and G. Mitchell. New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Blair, J.A. 2005. A Time for Argument Theory Integration. Critical Problems in Argumentation. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/crrarpub/12.

5. Byrom, N., S. Beardon and A. Kendrick. 2020. Report and recommendations: The impact of COVID-19 measures on the civil justice system. Shalford: The Legal Education Foundation. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CJC-Rapid-Review-Final-Report-f.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2021.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3