Court Review


The most important journal of opinion devoted to legal questions of the administration of justice. It helped several generations of lawyers learn the latest directions in the development and interpretation of Polish law.
The history of Przegląd Sądowy [Court Review] and its predecessors started over 70 years ago, in 1944. From 1944 to 1950, the monthly was titled Demokratyczny Przegląd Prawniczy [Democratic Legal Review]. It continued the pre-WWII legal thought of eminent professors of law and legal practitioners. The change of journal’s title to Nowe Prawo [New Law] (1950–1991) was certainly meant to express the transformations of the legal and political systems in Poland, though efforts were made to maintain the old standards. The chief editors were lawyers with great authority and substantial academic achievements, including prof. Zbigniew Resich. Since 1991, this position has been held by prof. dr hab. Tadeusz Ereciński from the University of Warsaw, the author of many academic publications, a long-standing Justice and President of the Supreme Court, where he headed the work of the Civil Chamber (currently retired).

ISSN 0867-7255

Przegląd Sądowy has been known under the current title since 1991. The monthly publishes articles (6–8 in each issue) and commentaries on judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court (in civil and criminal cases), the Supreme Administrative Court, and provincial administrative courts, as well as case law reviews. 
The problems discussed in the monthly include the so-called judicial law, with special focus on issues relating to proceedings before general courts, administrative courts, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also deals with topical problems relating to the application of EU law and comparative law issues. 
The authors include outstanding legal scholars and practitioners, as well as young lawyers. For academics, legal practitioners, and especially young researchers, publications in Przegląd Sądowy are in a way a nobilitation. The high quality of the content is guaranteed by the journal’s Editorial College, comprising professors of law and Supreme Court judges, as well as a group of carefully selected reviewers, who are recognized experts in the areas which the publications concern.

Ethical principles

Ethical principles concerning publications in academic journals

Ethical principles concerning publications in academic journals

Wolters Kluwer Polska publishing house, part of Wolters Kluwer international publishing house, which is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),, applies the organization’s standards and recommendations in the publishing process.


Ethical principles for authors

We only accept original, previously unpublished manuscripts for publication. Submitting the same manuscripts to more than one journal is considered inappropriate. The author represents that he/she has not expressed and will not express consent for another journal to publish the manuscript. If the aforementioned representation is found not to be true, the editorial board has the right to refuse to publish the manuscript.
Authors can submit for publication only their own original manuscripts. Plagiarism or data fabrication constitute academic misconduct.
Please provide (in notes) information about the sources of funding for a given publication, such as domestic or international grants, subsidies from foundations, associations or commercial institutions. 
In case of co-authorship, please state the percentages which individual authors contributed to the publication.
The author is responsible for the manuscript reflecting the current state of law, quoted provisions of law, case law and literature. If, after manuscript submission, the author finds an error or inaccuracy in it, the author has a duty to promptly notify the editorial board about it.
The author should make references to the publications which had an influence on the submitted manuscript in the form of quotes and in the attached bibliography.
The author warrants that the copyright in the manuscript, which copyright is transferred to the publisher upon the editorial board accepting the manuscript, will not be limited by any third party rights, that the use and disposal of the manuscript by the publisher will not infringe personal interests or rights of third parties.
The manuscripts submitted by the authors are published on the basis of publishing agreements with authors, where all copyright law issues are regulated.
Ghostwriting. In order to counteract cases of ghostwriting or guest authorship, authors have a duty to disclose to the editorial board and notify it about the contributions of individual authors in the creation of the publication (stating their affiliations and contributions, i.e. who is the author of conceptions, assumptions, methods, etc. used in preparing the publication). The main responsibility for that is borne by the author who submits the manuscript. Authors are obligated to provide the editorial board with information about the contributions of scientific research institutions, associations, and other entities. The editorial board informs that ghostwriting and guest authorship are regarded as scientific misconduct. Any detected cases will be exposed, including notifying the relevant entities (institutions employing such authors, academic societies, associations of academic editors, etc.).

Responsibilities of the editorial board

The editorial board documents any cases of academic misconduct, especially violations and infringements of the ethical principles applicable in the academia.
Any decision to publish an article is based on reviews, the opinion of the subject editor and the editorial college. The decision whether or not to publish is also influenced by the risk of copyright violations. 
In the process of making the decision to accept or reject a given academic manuscript, the important factors include originality, academic quality, and compatibility with the journal’s range of topics.
No member of the editorial board can disclose any information about any submitted manuscript to any other person than - in accordance with the editorial procedure - its author, reviewers, potential reviewers or the publisher. 
The editorial board does not disclose reviewers’ data to authors.
Information obtained in the process of publication evaluation, as well as the rejected manuscripts or their fragments, cannot be used in own research of the editorial board members or reviewers without the author’s express written consent.
The editorial board does not appoint as reviewers any persons who report directly to the manuscript authors or who are in any other direct personal or professional relations with them to the extent that might result in conflicts of interests.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Manuscripts are reviewed before publication. For the academic evaluation of each manuscript, the editorial board appoints at least two reviewers from among the members of the academic council, editorial college or other specialists in the field that the manuscript concerns. 
The names of the reviewers of particular manuscripts are not disclosed to authors. The list of reviewers who cooperate with the journal, without naming the reviewer of a specific manuscript, is published on the journal’s website and in its printed version.
A reviewer supports the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and may also support the author in improving the manuscript.
Each selected reviewer who is unable to review a manuscript or knows that it is impossible to quickly prepare a review should inform the managing editor about it.
Reviews should be objective. Personal critique of the author is considered improper. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supporting them with appropriate arguments.
All reviewed manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shown to or discussed about with any other persons than the managing editor, who is authorized.
Confidential information or ideas inspired by the review must be kept secret and cannot be used in order to gain personal benefits. Reviewers should not review manuscripts where there is a conflict of interests resulting from the relationship with the author, company or institution connected with the manuscript.
Reviewers should identify the publications that the manuscript author failed to refer to. A reviewer should also inform the managing editor about any significant similarity, partial overlap of the contents of the manuscript under review with any other published work known to the reviewer or a suspected plagiarism.

Editorial Team


The (peer) reviewers of Court Review monthly for 2018 included the following persons:

prof. Mirosław Bączyk,
dr Krzysztof Eichstaedt,
prof. Paweł Grzegorczyk,
prof. Piotr Hofmański,
prof. Piotr Machnikowski,
dr hab. Konrad Osajda,
prof. Jerzy Skorupka,
prof. Dariusz Świecki,
prof. Karol Weitz,
dr hab. Marcin Wiącek.

Contact Us

For more information on the journal contact the Editorial Board

For more information on the journal contact the Editorial Board


Wolters Kluwer Polska Sp. z o.o.
ul. Przyokopowa 33
01-208 Warszawa

e-mail: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
e-mail: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.


Please publish modules in offcanvas position.