scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 grudnia 2018 r. (V KK 508/17, OSNK 2019, nr 2, poz. 10)

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 251
Author(s):  
Marek Mozgawa
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Secondary Importance ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Objective State ◽  
Natural Will ◽  
General Possibility

<p>In the case of illegal deprivation of liberty (Article 189 of the Penal Code) locomotive freedom (i.e. freedom to change the place of residence according to a person’s will) is the protected value. Both the actual and potential will of an individual in that respect is protected. The objective state of general possibility to execute the will’s activity is crucial for the being of the offence of illegal deprivation of liberty, while the victim’s awareness of that state is of secondary importance. Any person can be the object of the <em>actus reus</em> as long as he or she is capable of formulating a wish connected with the change of the place of residence and has the natural ability to leave the place he or she has been so far occupying, even if it is with the help of technical means (e.g. a wheelchair) or other persons. Whether the person who could activate the natural will to move, has actually such a will, is irrelevant (from the point of view of fulfilling the statutory features of the offence of deprivation of liberty). One should agree with the opinion presented by the Supreme Court in the commented verdict, according to which the statutory features of the offence from Article 189 of the Penal Code are not fulfilled by the deprivation of the liberty of movement of a person which is executed as a result of his or her own free will decision.</p>

scholarly journals Prohibition to approach a certain distance and / or to certain persons, to be in a certain place as a measure of a criminal nature (on the example of the Penal Code of the Republic of Poland)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (16) ◽  
pp. 54-67
Author(s):  
Olesia Mykhailivna Cheban
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Position ◽  
The Republic

The article analyzes the provisions of the Polish Penal Code in terms of establishing a ban on being in certain environments or places, contact with certain people, approaching certain persons or leaving a special place of residence without the consent of the court, as a kind of criminal measure. Sais about  prohibitions to hold a specific position, engage in a certain profession or carry out certain types of economic activity. In the Polish Penal Code, the analyzed prohibitions apply to the perpetrator in the case of an intentional crime combined with violence, and are binding from the entry into force of the court decision in the criminal case. It is known that in Ukraine there are special measures to combat domestic violence in the form of an urgent injunction against the offender and a restrictive injunction against the offender. In its legal positions, the Supreme Court revealed the essence (legal nature) of the restrictive order as a temporary measure of restraint, which is not a measure of punishment for a person. The Supreme Court also justified the legitimacy of the restraining order in the form of a temporary prohibition on the offender to stay and approach real estate, even if he is its co-owner, because he committed domestic violence against relatives. Measures in the restrictive order in relation to the offender are taken to decide on the qualification of his actions and the decision on him in criminal proceedings. However, the danger of continuing or re-committing domestic violence, the occurrence of serious consequences for the victim remains after the case in court. Therefore, prohibitions to approach the victim at a certain distance, to be in a place of residence should not lose their force and relevance, and in turn, begin to play a preventive role as a measure of criminal law. The author proved the importance of expanding the list of «other measures of a criminal nature» by including a ban on approaching a certain distance and / or to certain persons, a ban on being in a certain place in Section XIV of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Evolution of the Roman Republican Senate: Composition, Election, and Judicial functions (Part 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-77
Author(s):  
L. L. Kofanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Significant Part ◽  
Supreme Council ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Gradual Transformation

The paper deals with the Roman senatus in the period from 5th to 3rd century BC, from the point of view of its composition, completion and selected competences. As to its composition, in the most arcaic times of the Roman state, the senate was an assembly of the heads of clans (patres gentium), who represented the ideas of patricians. The autor presents gradual transformation of the composition of the senate and switch towards the inclusion of the plebeians. It describes also the process of the cooptation of the members, rules of which incurred fundamental changes from the hereditary principles to the regulation given by statutes. A significant part of the article is devoted to the judicial functions of the Senate and the relationship between the iudicium senatus and the iudicium populi, the transformation of the Senate court from a regional body to the highest, global court of the entire Mediterranean. It’s noted that if the original Roman Senate de iure was the judicial authority only one of the Latin Confederation, later after 338 BC, it becomes the Supreme court of the Latin Union, and by the end of the Republic is transformed into the «Supreme Council of the world».

Protocol and misusing its name

2016 ◽  
Vol 291 ◽  
pp. 54-62
Author(s):  
Józef Gurgul
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Forensic Pathologist ◽  
External Inspection

This article addresses the criteria that are decisive in determining whether a given document can be referred to as Protocol within the meaning of the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Penal Code. From this point of view, the two-staged medico-legal postmortem inspection, consisting of an external inspection and autopsy (opening of the corpse) can be de lege lata documented by drawing up a medico-legal report, which is not considered a Protocol. The autopsy, artificially separated from an inspection (cf. Art. 209, par. 4 of the Penal codc), is carried out “in the presence” of a prosecutor, not under his supervision or with participation, by a forensic pathologist who is not authorized to draw up a Protocol. In the light of the above, Art. 209, par. 4 of the Penal Code should be amended for the sake of truth and justice.

The unpredictability of behaviour in traffic. Some reflections

2015 ◽  
Vol 288 ◽  
pp. 108-112
Author(s):  
Kazimierz J. Pawelec
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Traffic Accident ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Rules Set ◽  
Formal Point ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Safety Rules

A traffic accident is an unpredictable event, although it may be committed as a result of non-compliance with safety rules, i.e. the general standard specified in Art. 177 & 1 of the Penal Code, or the detailed rules set out in the Law on Road Traffic. Its important cause can also be absolutely unpredictable, deviating from the model behaviour of participants of traffic. They can mislead on another, which from a formal point of view is chargeable, for example, not yielding priority, cutting off traffic, failure to comply with particular caution when approaching the designated crossing points or other dangerous places. Rating non-model, misleading behaviour, repeatedly escapes the attention of law enforcement or the courts. A large part in this is also shared by expert witnesses in traffic and automobile technology, who in their opinions carry out legal assessments, especially the opportunities and obligations. This is an issue strictly dogmatic, not belonging to their competence.

WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT DECISIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S COUNTER-TERRORISM BODIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-92
Author(s):  
Artem V. Rudenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
System Construction ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The relevance of the article stems from the adoption by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation of rules on administrative liability for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in situations of conflict with federal law regulations, caused by adoption of the Federal Law No. 82-FZ of 18 April 2018. This contradiction calls into question the conformity of the adopted norms of the laws on administrative liability of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the principle of legality, as one of the basic principles of the State’s legal system construction. The purpose of the article is to develop a position on legal conduct in a situation of con-flict with the legal norms of federal legislation in establishing administrative liability by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The possibility of establishing administrative liability at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation After the adoption of the Federal Law No 82-FZ of 18 April 2018 «On Amendments to the articles 5 and 5.1 of the Federal Law «On Counteracting Terrorism» legal conflict in the regulation of these powers has arisen. These changes affected not only the regulation of the above-mentioned powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, but also the system of sources of administrative liability, since Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation states: administrative liability source system refers only to the Code and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The article contains an analysis of possible interpretations of the provisions of federal laws on the powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to establish adminis-trative liability for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation. Possible interpretations of the term «decisions of an anti-terrorist body» are analyzed from the point of view of the goals and tasks of formation of these bodies, their powers and organizational-steam form. The study concludes that it is necessary to comply with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation when determining responsibility for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. It is recommended that the legislatures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation refrain from adopting such norms. It is recommended that the judicial authorities should take into account the provisions of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 March 2005 No 5 « On certain issues raised by the courts in the application of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation».

Some New Emphases in Extradition Case Law

1981 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.Z. Feller
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Of Israel

In Azen v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court heard the appeal of a person who had been declared extraditable to France for offences of stealing by an agent and fraud, committed, according to the request for extradition, in France. One of the pleas raised against the decision of the District Court, in which Azen was declared extraditable, was that the specialty limitation was not guaranteed in the Extradition Treaty between Israel and France, as required by sec. 17 (a) of the Israeli Extradition Law, 1954. This section states unequivocally that —A wanted person shall not be extradited unless it has been ensured, by an agreement with the requesting State, that he will not be detained, tried or punished in that State for another offence committed prior to his extradition;whereas in art. 17 of the said Treaty, specialty is guaranteed in the following words: L'individu qui aura été délivré ne pourra ni être poursuivi ou jugé en sa présence ni être, détenu …i.e. under the Treaty, the specialty limitation is restricted, from the procedural point of view, to those processes involving physical, personal enforcement against the subject of extradition—he will not be “summoned” for interrogation, nor judged “in his presence”, nor “detained”; the Extradition Law, however, contains no such restriction, with the exception of detention which, by its very nature, requires physical enforcement.

Constitutional Law in 1959–1960

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-135
Author(s):  
David Fellman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Important Place ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Pacific Ocean

The personnel of the Supreme Court remained unchanged during the 1959 Term. From the point of view of the decisions rendered in the public law field, this was an undistinguished Term. Few of the constitutional cases are likely to hold an important place among the precedents, and a considerable number of well-argued decisions turned entirely upon private law questions. But there was no dearth of writing, during the period under review, about the Court as an institution and about the Justices who sit there.Note may be made at this point of the latest chapter in the long dispute over the so-called tidelands. In 1947 the Supreme Court had ruled that, as against the claims of California, the United States possessed paramount rights in lands underlying the Pacific Ocean seaward from the low-water mark. Similar rulings were made in 1950 as regards the claims of Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. But with the enactment in 1953 of the Submerged Lands Act, the United States relinquished to the coastal states all of its rights in all lands beneath navigable waters within the three-mile limit, and in excess of that limit within state boundaries as they existed at the time a state became a member of the Union, or as theretofore approved by Congress. The limit of the grant was three leagues (about ten and one-half miles) in the Gulf of Mexico and three geographical miles in the Atlantic and Pacific. The actual extent of the claims of the coastal states involved in the question was therefore left to be settled by litigation.

scholarly journals Les exigences de l'impartialité quasi-judiciaire

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 585-594
Author(s):  
Patrice Garant
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Past Behavior ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Worth Reading ◽  
The One

The Supreme Court decision commented upon is another important administrative law decision which relates to principles of natural justice, and especially to the nemo judex rule (freedom from bias). Speaking for the majority, Mr. Justice Laskin states that the function exercised by the National Energy Board under section 44 of the National Energy Board Act is quasi-judicial although it consists in issuing a licence according to an extensive discretionary power. Consequently, principles of natural justice must be applied. The nemo judex rule means that if there is a "reasonable apprehension of bias" due to the past behavior or actions of a member of a quasi-judicial tribunal, that member must be disqualified from acting. Otherwise, the decision rendered by the tribunal must be quashed. Two years before his appointment to the Board, the chairman of the National Energy Board had in fact participated actively in operations and decisions bearing on the very subject-matter subsequently submitted to the Board. That placed the chairman in a situation of conflict of interest, although he had no personal pecuniary interest in the matter involved. The majority of the Supreme Court dissagrees with Mr. Justice de Grandpré's dissent as well as with the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. Each expresses a point of view which is worth reading. The majority of the Supreme Court applies to administrative boards or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions the same critérium as the one applied under the common law to any inferior court. Another remarkable judgment of our Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Delimitation of insolvency offenses from other related criminal/non-criminal acts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Ursu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Scientific Study

This article aims to clarify the aspects of criminal liability for insolvency offenses, from the point of view of their delimitation from other related acts. In order to achieve the mentioned purpose, the author identified certain prejudicial actions that could have the capacity to create confusions as an effect of their similarity to the crimes provided for in art. 252 and 253 Penal Code of the RM, and the analysis of the comparative elements is necessary in order to establish their correlation and delimitation. Following the scientific study undertaken, some qualification rules were formulated taking into account the specifics of criminal acts of insolvency-related offenses, being developed and proposed for application some certain explanatory guidelines concerning the analyzed criminal facts.

scholarly journals Uncertain causation: two hunters dilemma

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-61
Author(s):  
Богдан Петрович Карнаух
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Vicious Circle ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Causal Nexus

According to the general principles of tort law, in order to succeed a plaintiff must prove causal nexus between the damage he or she sustained and the actions of a particular defendant. However, in some factual situations this task appears to be impossible, and the question arises whether the plaintiff should be left uncompensated or rather the general rule on proof of causation has to be relaxed. In a groundbreaking case Summers v. Tice (the facts of which are also known as ‘two hunters dilemma’), the Supreme Court of California favored the latter option. The Court shifted the burden of proof and decided that under these exceptional circumstances it is for each of the defendants to absolve himself from liability by providing evidence that he could not had caused the damage. The conclusion of the Court does not cause any doubts. However scholars dispute over the exact explanation of that conclusion, because it is the explanation that is crucial for future similar cases.The circumstances of the Summers case are thoroughly analyzed by many writers. Some suggest that even the number of defendants matters (supposing thus, that if there were three of them the court would not have reached the same conclusion). On the other hand, the character of their activity is underlined. The proponents of this point of view focus on the fact that the members of hunting party can coordinate their actions and it is this opportunity of coordination that justifies the burden shifting. The common denominator for numerous authors is spotlighting the fact that both hunters are at fault for causing the uncertainty, even though one of them might not be at fault for causing damage. However, in some other situation the uncertainty could have been caused without their fault. The author doubts if in the latter case the defendants should escape liability.The author offers the following explanation of the two hunters dilemma. Whenever it has been proven that defendants acted negligently subjecting the plaintiff to a certain type of risk and it has been proven that one of them did actually caused plaintiff’s damage, neither of the defendants can absolve himself from liability merely relying on the fact that the damage may have been caused by the other defendant. Otherwise the vicious circle will arise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document