Dominial jurisdiction in the demesne of the Cistercian Monastery in Koprzywnica underwent a long and complicated evolution from the foundation of the abbey in 1185 to its dissolution in 1819. For over 6 centuries this monastery owned the town of Koprzywnica all the time, and the towns of Jasło and Frysztak temporarily and almost 60 villages and their parts in different periods. Privileges and judicial immunities granted by the ruling monarchs (in 1262, 1267, 1284, 1308, 1360 and later) were of a fundamental importance for development of the dominial jurisdiction of the abbot of Koprzywnica. A kind of exception in the organization of the dominial jurisdiction was the self-governmental structure in the town of Koprzywnica located under German Law (Magdeburg Law) under the privilege of the Duke Bolesław V the Chaste in 1267. However, the abbot did not like the independent judicial position of the head of the commune in Koprzywnica and village representatives in the monastery villages. The head of the commune and village representatives were often confidants for inhabitants’ matters, from where they came from rather than interests of the abbot or the monastery. These circumstances were, among others, the reason that at the turn of the 14th and the 15th centuries the monastery authorities brought to annihilation of self-governmental jurisdiction in their demesne and introduced judges-clerks completely controlled by them. It was the institution of a judicial head of a commune. The abbot’s subjects were not pleased with such a solution. They complained about the judicial activity of the abbot and his clerks even to the king himself. Most often ineffectively. In principle, this state of affairs lasted until the judicial reforms at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. At that time the Austrian state authorities and the authorities of the Duchy of Warsaw, following the movement of the Enlightenment, allowed to replace the dominial jurisdiction of the abbot and his clerks with the independent state courts (and judges). Yet, the transformation process of this dominial jurisdiction into the common one was not completed because the monastery in Koprzywnica was dissolved by the Russian authorities in 1819.

The objective of this paper is to present the dynamics of events and dependencies, which resulted in the enactment of the Bernese Civil Code, as well as the importance and consequences of this work in the development of civil law and civil society in the canton of Bern. The paper addresses the issues concerning the question as to whether it is possible for an act of civil law to become a source of rules which, not finding sufficient protection in the existing constitutional system, cause changes in the latter. Did the codification of private law and the act of providing the ideas of freedom and equality with statutory protection result in the fall of the governance existing in Bern in the first half of the 19th century? Or was it perhaps the result of the accumulation of internal and external circumstances, leading to a formal sanctioning of systemic changes which had already occurred? The process of codification and systemic change in Bern constitutes an excellent example of the interdependence between private and publiclegal legislation and the fact that constitutional law does not always have to be the primary source of state protection covering basic social values.

In 1920–1921, the Polish Legislative Sejm issued two legal acts the purpose of which was to facilitate the fight against offences committed by officials of the public administration. Offences committed in connection with a tenure in order to gain profit were punishable by death by firing squad. Moreover, the acts further placed criminal liability on persons guilty of bribing a public official, or of complicity in offences committed by the officials. The introduction of the act of 1920 aroused great controversy, which was particularly visible during the parliamentary debate on its draft. The other act, initially conceived as an amendment to the first one, repeated its regulations to a large extent. The enactment of these strict provisions during the difficult time of establishing the structures of the newly independent state and the military campaign to secure the country’s borders was one way of resolving one of its current problems. The acts, temporary in character from the very beginning, were in effect for just over two years. However, despite the short period of validity, they left a considerable legacy in the form of numerous judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. This article is an attempt to view the acts from the perspective both of the principles which guided their creators and of the judicial practice itself. Therefore, along with the particular version of the draft bills and the reports from the parliamentary sessions, the analysis covers the ample jurisdictional output. This approach makes it possible to reconstruct the basic legal issues which arose in the context of application of the law and to draw conclusions in reference to the pronounced penalties. Furthermore, the analysis allows – within the scope enabled by the accessible sources – for demonstrating the extent to which the legislative assumptions were put into practice.

This article is devoted to the issue of the dissolution of the Lviv City Council and the matter considered by the Supreme Administrative Tribunal in 1929. On August 31st, 1927, the Lviv voivode dissolved the Provisional City Council, transferring power over the city to the executive body and a 32-person Adjutant Council. The decision to dissolve the Provisional City Council was widely discussed in political circles, where its legality was questioned. In this regard, the councilors of the Provisional City Council decided to lodge a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Tribunal, which considered the case two years later, in 1929. The representatives of the dissolved Provisional City Council presented a number of arguments, pointing out errors in the voivode’s decision and defective supervisory proceedings. Proxies of the dissolved Provisional City Council requested the annulment of the voivode’s decision. The verdict in the case was issued on November 28th, 1929 and concerned the formal shortcomings of the dissolution of the Provisional City Council. It was demonstrated that its content did not include information on available remedies, in breach of the rules of administrative procedure. The judgment had specific legal and political effects, while the whole case illustrates the attitude of the supervisory authority to the local government.

The article presents the matter of an employee dispute between the former head of the agricultural directorate of the Ordynacja (landed property in fideicommis) in Przeworsk (Polish Galicia), Stanisław Trzeciak, and the property management, which was under the control of the Lubomirski family. In 1933, the director was dismissed from his position, which was justified by his offensive behavior towards the compulsory administrator appointed on the estate. In the face of this, the employee obtained a legal opinion signed by the leading civilians of that time – (prof. Jagiellonian University, Stanisław Gołąb, and dr. Zygmunt Wusatowski), in which the illegality of immediate termination of the employment contract was proved on the basis of applicable regulations (both Austrian and Polish), case law and the guidelines of doctrine. Then S. Trzeciak sent a letter to the owner of Ordynacja Przeworsk, Andrzej Lubomirski with a detailed description of the case and his claims. This case of interwar employee relations is even more interesting, because they occurred in the specific conditions of fideicommis, which had an impact on the course and end of the dispute.

Five instructions prepared by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were published. This Commission, founded in 1764, consisted of two Lithuanian treasurers, and varying number of commissioners elected by the parliament. The Commission functioned as a court and administrative organ in charge of managing state finances. It was part of the executive, due to which fact it was answerable to the parliament (the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Every two years, the Commission delegated two commissioners for convened Sejm sessions. During parliamentary control of the Commission these Commissioners were present to provide information for members of the parliament. The first instruction that the Commissioners prepared was in 1780, during the affair concerning treasurer Antoni Tyzenhauz. He was accused of financial abuse, and the Commission tried to convince the members of the parliament, that Tyzenhauz alone was responsible for these crimes. Subsequent to this first one, instructions (1782, 1786, 1788, and 1790) contain reform proposals. The Treasury Commission described practical problems and possible solutions, suggested changes to tax structures, issued new legal regulations, and reorganized rules of operation in the institution.