Kustra, Aleksandra2013-03-092013-03-092008Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 70, 2008, z. 1, s. 57-720035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/5051The article tries to look at the problem of the final arbiter of the legality o f legal acts enacted in Europe from legal pluralisms perspective. The question whether the ECJ or the national constitutional courts are legitimized bodies to control the constitutionality of the community law has been considered as being a controversial issue for many years. The ECJ states that it is the only body which has the competence to interpret the Community law, but it does not have the competence to interpret the national laws provisions. On the other hand, the national constitutional courts are legitimized to control the constitutionality of the national law but according to the ECJ they do not have competence to control the Community legal acts. The article analyzes chosen theoretical conceptions which, despite many differences represent the current of legal pluralism. All the authors of the described theoretical models analyze the problem of the final arbiter o f the constitutionality in Europe with the assumption of a pluralistic nature of the European legal space which is composted from many independent, autonomous, but simultaneously co-operating legal systems. All described conceptions stress the opened character o f the quis custodiet question. They propose coexistence of many internal perspectives” of the European legal order (C. Richmond), they stress the necessity of establishing a community of national courts” that would have influence at the interpretation of the European constitutional law (M. Maduro) and they point out the need to make some compromises between the ECJs case-law and the stand-points of national constitutional judiciary (M. Kumm).plArtykuł