{"references": ["International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), UNGA Res 2200A", "Kodeks post\u0119powania karnego (1997) [Code of Criminal Procedure], Dz.U. (1997), No 89, item 555 with subsequent amendments", "Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [2002] OJ L 190/1", "Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union [2008] OJ L 327/27", "Act of 16 September 2011 on the amendment of the Act \u2013 Criminal Procedure Code, Act on public prosecution service and Act on the National Criminal Register, Dz.U. (2011), No 240, item 1430", "Treaty on European Union, consolidated version [2016] OJ C 202/1", "Act of 30 November 2016 on the organisation and proceedings before the Constitutional Tribunal, Dz.U. (2019), item 2393", "Case C-582/15 van Vemde, EU:C:2017:37", "Case C-579/15 Pop\u0142awski, EU:C:2017:503 ('Pop\u0142awski (I)')", "Case C-573/17 Pop\u0142awski, EU:C:2019:530 ('Pop\u0142awski (II)')", "P 7/20, 14 July 2021 accessed 8 July 2022", "K 3/21, 7 October 2021 accessed 8 July 2022", "Decision of 9 October 2020, III CZP 95/19 accessed 26 April 2022", "Decision of 7 April 2022, IV KK 578/21, 7 April 2022 accessed 31 May 2022", "Bailleux A, 'The Two Faces of European Sovereignty' (2020) 5 European Papers ", "Buczma S, Hara M, Kierzynka R, Ko\u0142odziejski P, Milewski A, Ostropolski T, Post\u0119powanie w sprawach karnych ze stosunk\u00f3w mi\u0119dzynarodowych. Komentarz do Dzia\u0142u XIII KPK (C.H. Beck 2016)", "Haket S, 'Pop\u0142awski II: A Half-Hearted Embrace of Hierarchical Supremacy' (2020) 13 Review of European Administrative Law", "Jab\u0142o\u0144ska P, 'Konstytucyjne podstawy rozproszonej kontroli konstytucyjno\u015bci prawa' [2020] (11-12) Przegl\u0105d S\u0105dowy", "Kardas P, 'Rozproszona kontrola konstytucyjno\u015bci prawa w orzecznictwie Izby Karnej S\u0105du Najwy\u017cszego oraz s\u0105d\u00f3w powszechnych jako wyraz s\u0119dziowskiego konstytucyjnego pos\u0142usze\u0144stwa' [2019] (4) Czasopismo Prawa Karnego i Nauk Penalnych", "Kierzynka R, 'Przekazywanie skazanych na kary pozbawienia wolno\u015bci w Europie' [2009] (2) Ius Novum", "Mi\u0105sik D, Szwarc M, 'Primacy and direct effect \u2013 still together: Poplawski II (2021) 58 Common Market Law Review ", "Mikuli P, 'Doktryna Konieczno\u015bci jako uzasadnienie dla rozproszonej kontroli konstytucyjno\u015bci w Polsce'(2018) XL Gda\u0144skie Studia Prawnicze", "Ostropolski T, 'Wsp\u00f3\u0142praca wymiar\u00f3w sprawiedliwo\u015bci w sprawach karnych' in J Barcz (ed), System Prawa Unii Europejskiej. Wsp\u00f3\u0142praca s\u0105dowa w sprawach cywilnych, karnych i wsp\u00f3\u0142praca policyjna, Vol. 8 (C.H. Beck 2021)", "Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, 'Niemo\u017cno\u015b\u0107 przekazywania do innego pa\u0144stwa UE os\u00f3b skazanych w Polsce na kar\u0119 wi\u0119zienia. Ponaglenie RPO do MS', 24 May 2021 accessed 10 April 2022", "Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, 'Skazani na kar\u0119 wi\u0119zienia w Polsce skar\u017c\u0105 si\u0119, \u017ce nie mog\u0105 by\u0107 przekazani do innego pa\u0144stwa UE. Interwencja RPO', 26 October 2020 accessed 10 April 2022", "Commission Staff Working Document Statistics on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant \u2013 2019 (Brussels, 6 August 2021, SWD(2021) 227 final) accessed 22 January 2022", "Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union \u2013 Declarations under Article 7(4) and Article 28(2), (Brussels, 10 June 2016, (OR. en) 9603/16 COPEN 184) accessed 23 January 2022"]}

The author presents the consequences of the CJEU judgment of 24 June 2019 in case C-573/17 Popławski in relation to declarations limiting the temporal application of Framework Decision 2008/909 made under its Article 28(2). The CJEU clearly stated that any declaration made after the adoption of the Framework Decision is invalid and cannot bear legal consequences. As such, Member States should give effect to the Framework Decision as if the declaration had never been made. However, this may cause conflicts with their national laws enacted to implement such a declaration, since a framework decision, while binding, does not have a direct effect and, therefore, cannot require national authorities to refrain from applying their national laws. The author presents several ways this conflict can be resolved, in particular, through the pro-European interpretation of national law and the notion of dispersed constitutional review.