‘Sąd apelacyjny’ is
commonly used as an equivalent of ‘the Court of Appeal’. Let us examine if
these courts can be regarded as each other’s counterparts. The Court of Appeal
consists of two divisions: the Civil Division and the Criminal Division, while Sąd apelacyjny also distinguishes a
third one, namely labour and social insurance
division.
In both courts the general assumption is that the facts found by the trial at
the lower instance court are correct and the appeal takes into consideration
only the main points i.e. the matters of law. In the English tradition this is
done at a ‘national hearing’, which is virtually a new trial based on the
previous one. In contradiction, Polish sources (cf. Kalina-Prasznic 2007)
stress that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the first
instance court and sąd apelacyjny plays
only a supplementary role. Yet, just like other civil law courts, it is capable
of conducting a re-examination of the case, scrutinizing not only the questions
of law but also the questions of fact (Geeroms 2002:229). Finally, the decision
is made; in the English court by three judges, either unanimously or by
majority, though each judge has to speak to express his opinion; in the Polish
court, the decision is given by a presiding judge or in the case of his/her
absence by his/her deputy. Sąd apelacyjny
may either dismiss the appeal, which will mean concurring with the court of
first instance, modify the appeal and make a ‘new’ decision or simply overturn
the previous decision and order a re-examination of the case. Another vivid
incongruity between the appeal systems in civil and common law is that in the
continental tradition, the appeal case is passed from the court of lower
instance to the next court above in the hierarchy, common law courts, however,
are capable of giving the judgment to the court two instances higher, e.g. from
the High Court to the House of Lords.
Even though sąd apelacyjny and the Court of Appeal are not fully compatible,
there are no serious reasons why the translator should reject these terms as
functional equivalents.
Resources:
Geeroms,
Sophie. “Comparative Law and Legal Translation: Why the Terms
Cassation, Revision and Appeal Should Not Be Translated...” The
American Journal of
Comparative Law.
50:1 (2002). 25 August 2008 http://www.jstor.org/search
Kalina-Prasznic, Urszula. Encyklopedia prawa.
Wyd. 4. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck 2007
the Polish Parliament’s web page:
http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm
