Relations between the judiciary and the elected authorities (i.e. the legislative and the executive) in each country and at all times are among the most sensitive from the point of view of statehood. There is an obvious truth expressed in the famous saying of Lord Acton: ‘Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely’2. The universal calling of judges is to restrain executive and legislative branches of government in their efforts to increase their power, especially at the expense of individuals. A state where there is no sufficiently strong counterweight to the natural omnipotence of the people’s representatives is not in line with the principle of the rule of law, because there is no one to remind the elected powers that their mandate has its limits – contemporarily established in particular by constitutional norms and the international regime for the protection of human rights.3 Naturally, courts do not directly take part in a political discourse, even though some kind of judicial review of the acts of public authorities exists virtually everywhere; these should not be characterised as an interference in political matters.4 The mutual respect of the judiciary and elected authorities proves the maturity of the state constitutional system, regardless of how far-reaching the powers are of judges to examine the constitutionality of legislation.

中文翻译：

---

法官和人民代表：波兰的观点

从国家地位的角度来看，每个国家的司法机构和民选当局（即立法机构和行政机构）之间的关系在任何时候都是最敏感的。阿克顿勋爵的名言中表达了一个明显的真理：“权力趋于腐败，绝对权力绝对腐败”2. 法官的普遍呼吁是限制政府的行政和立法部门努力增加权力，特别是在牺牲个人利益的情况下。一个没有足够强大的制衡力量来对抗人民代表的天生全能的国家不符合法治原则，因为没有人提醒民选权力他们的授权是有限度的——当代确立于特别是宪法规范和保护人权的国际制度。3自然，法院不直接参与政治话语，尽管对公共当局行为的某种司法审查几乎无处不在；这些不应被定性为对政治事务的干涉。4司法和民选当局的相互尊重证明了国家宪法制度的成熟，无论法官审查立法合宪性的权力有多么深远。