Occupational Safety of Municipal Police Officers: Assessing the Vulnerability and Riskiness of Police Officers’ Work

The municipal police agencies increase the safety of a municipality’s citizens and thus increase their quality of life. When performing interventions, municipal police officers may endanger their safety and health. This paper deals with the analysis of the riskiness of municipal police officers working in the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic from 2004 to 2019 and the assessment of their occupational safety. The risk analysis was carried out on the basis of a risk matrix and calculations of the probability of attack and injury to municipal police officers. Using the Pearson correlation coefficient, the dependence between the selected variables was investigated. The reliability of this dependence was examined by the determination coefficient. The main result of the paper is the determination of the riskiness category of municipal police officer work based on the assessment of the occupational health protection of officers through statistical indicators of their activities and risk matrix. The results will serve as part of the explanatory memorandum for the proposal of legislative changes in order to increase the occupational health protection of municipal police officers.

PUNISHMENT FOR SLANDER

Federal Law No. 538-FZ of 30 December 2020 substantially tightened the sanctions of the libel article, which previously contained only fines and compulsory labour, by including com-pulsory labour, arrest and imprisonment in most of them. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explained the changes by the need to provide the court with the choice of fair punish-ment, without specifying this provision in detail. As part of the research described in the article, statistics for the Russian Federation for 2013-2020 were taken from the reports of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to study the practice of punishment for defamation. The analysis showed that law enforcers used the potential of sanctions of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code in their previous edition to a very limited extent. This was reflected in the high share of fines among penalties imposed, as well as in insignificant amounts of fines even for qualified and especially qualified types of libel, despite the fact that sanctions provide for high maxi-mum fine limits - from RUB 500,000 in part 1 of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code to RUB 5 million in part 5. In particular, the share of fine among penalties imposed for simple libel was over 85%, and the average fine was equal in 2018 to RUB 11,500. - 11.5 thousand roubles, in 2019 - 13.7 thousand roubles, in 2020. - 16.3 thousand roubles. In 2018, the average fine for public libel (part 2, article 128-1 of the Criminal Code) was 19,500 rubles; in 2020 - 23,100 rubles. - The sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles, while the sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles. Moreover, over a quarter of those convicted for especially qualified defamation under part 5 of article 128-1 of the Criminal Code were sentenced to a fine of 5,000 rubles, i.e., one thousand times less than the maximum limit established by the sanction. Only in single cases of slander convictions, the fine exceeded 100 thousand rubles. The establishment of custodial sentences for qualified and especially qualified types of defamation seems excessive: a verbal crime against a person's honour and dignity does not require such a harsh criminal legal response. Moreover, the legislator has designed sanctions with too broad a framework, fraught with the risk of arbitrariness in sentencing and the for-mation of contradictory judicial practice (for example, under part 5 of article 128-1 of the RF Criminal Code, both a fine of 5 thousand rubles, and imprisonment for the period of 5 years can be imposed). The inclusion of arrest in the sanction cannot be considered justified, as this type of punishment has not been introduced yet. The optimum way to improve the sanctions for the part 2 to 5 parts of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code of the RF would be to enhance them with correctional labour and restriction of freedom. These types of punishments corre-spond to the typical level of public danger of qualified and especially qualified types of slan-der and perpetrators of such deeds. Their inclusion in the sanctions would compensate for the disadvantages of the latter, related to the restrictions enshrined in the law on imposing com-pulsory works and large fines.

Electronic Evidence in Intellectual Property Disputes under the Council of Europe’s Guidelines

On 30 January 2019 the Council of Europe adopted guidelines on electronic evidence in civil and administrative law accompanied by the Explanatory Memorandum. The authors summarize and analyse this soft law instrument with respect to intellectual property (hereinafter “IP”) disputes. They explain why its creation is important for the proper administration of justice and how it addresses and reflects technological developments, new business models and evolving case-law. Several conclusions have been identified regarding how use of the Guidelines will address current practical problems for courts in IP disputes. Both authors took active part in the preparatory works and believe it is in the interest of justice and effective IP protection that these guidelines are publicly available in the member states and widely disseminated among professionals dealing with electronic evidence.

On the right to education in the light of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Idea – declarations and polemics – educational reality

The Polish authorities, before the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, carried out a thorough analysis of the internal law in order to determine the degree of compliance of its provisions with the provisions of that document. The effects of these analyses have become an important argument for the draft law on ratification of the Conventionsubmitted to the Parliament on the 27th of April 2012 by the Government of our country. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government argued that our country was already ensuring the proper implementation of its provisions, also in the sphere of education. This optimistic view of our legal reality was not shared by everyone. Polemics with declarations propagated by the authorities of the country appeared both before and after the ratification of the Convention, which took place in 2012. They also addressed solutions in the field of education of persons with disabilities, i.e. compliance of the provisions of our educational law and their practical implementation in accordance with art. 24 of the Conventionen titled „Education”. Various parties spoke out, including the Ombudsman, a state body independent of other authorities. Some of mentioned polemics, but also recommendations made during them, are the content of this article.

The Ethics of Citizenship in Israel

The evaluation of citizenship has always been tied to ethical issues, as citizenship laws reflect existing rules and also define the desired ‘good’ citizen. In order to assess whether ethical considerations have affected the legal construction of citizenship in Israel, I compared the two main laws in Israel that regulate newcomers and their citizenship—the Law of Return (1950) and the Citizenship Law (1952). I examined the legal texts and used content analysis to address the subjective intentions of the legislators who proposed them, as presented in an explanatory memorandum. Many scholars have argued that these laws were introduced as the foundational laws of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, until the 1980s, the Citizenship Law was explained as a technical measure governing the citizenship of non-Jews. Although both laws are presented as ethical, politicians characterize them as mainly republican, concealing their liberal ethical component.

Zasada ważenia interesów w planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym a zasada proporcjonalności. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 11 stycznia 2017 r., II OSK 932/15 – aprobująca

Presented glossary to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 January 2017 (II OSK 932/15) is approved and polemic. The position of the Supreme Administrative Court has been divided that the municipal authorities may, in the local spatial development plan they formulate, restrict the rights of the owners in order to fully realize other values which they consider more important. When discussing polemics with the views expressed in the explanatory memorandum, three factors have been identified in this statement, which have determined the outcome of the findings of the local spatial development plan, the requirements of the public interest, and the future rights of third parties. As a consequence, it was recognized that the statutory principle of weighing interests – by referring to the constitutional principle of proportionality – was consistent with the system of application of the law of planning and spatial planning and shaping the correct relationship between the public interest and individual interests.

The Distinctive Legal Features of Crimes Against Humanity

This research intends to analyze general features and elements of criminal acts against humanity. Also in this paper, special attention was paid to the distinctive features that are crucial in the legal classification of crimes against humanity as offenses punished with international acts and legal regulations of each state. The term Crime against humanity first appeared in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal. In the course of the preparatory work, it had become apparent that certain crimes committed during the Second World War were not, strictly speaking, war crimes. These were crimes whose victims were of the same nationality as the perpetrators, or nationals of an allied State and were committed for different motives. As early as March 1944, the representative of the United States of America on the Legal Committee of the United Nations War Crimes Commission proposed that crimes committed against stateless persons or any other person by reason of their race or religion should be declared "Crimes against humanity". It suggests, in at least two distinct ways, the enormity of these offenses of the other criminal offenses. First, the phrase "crimes against humanity" suggests offenses that aggrieve not only the victims and their own communities, but all human beings, regardless of their community. Second, the phrase suggests that these offenses cut deep, violating the core humanity that we all share and that distinguishes us from other natural beings. This double meaning gives the phrase potency, but also an ambiguity we may trace back to the double meaning of the word "humanity". "Humanity" means both the quality of being human-humanness-and the aggregation of all human beings-humankind. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "Are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings". They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated by a government or a de facto authority. The law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes against public order, crimes against morals, and the like. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

The Distinctive Legal Features of Crimes Against Humanity

This research intends to analyze general features and elements of criminal acts against humanity. Also in this paper, special attention was paid to the distinctive features that are crucial in the legal classification of crimes against humanity as offenses punished with international acts and legal regulations of each state. The term Crime against humanity first appeared in the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 establishing the International Military Tribunal. In the course of the preparatory work, it had become apparent that certain crimes committed during the Second World War were not, strictly speaking, war crimes. These were crimes whose victims were of the same nationality as the perpetrators, or nationals of an allied State and were committed for different motives. As early as March 1944, the representative of the United States of America on the Legal Committee of the United Nations War Crimes Commission proposed that crimes committed against stateless persons or any other person by reason of their race or religion should be declared "Crimes against humanity". It suggests, in at least two distinct ways, the enormity of these offenses of the other criminal offenses. First, the phrase "crimes against humanity" suggests offenses that aggrieve not only the victims and their own communities, but all human beings, regardless of their community. Second, the phrase suggests that these offenses cut deep, violating the core humanity that we all share and that distinguishes us from other natural beings. This double meaning gives the phrase potency, but also an ambiguity we may trace back to the double meaning of the word "humanity". "Humanity" means both the quality of being human-humanness-and the aggregation of all human beings-humankind. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "Are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings". They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated by a government or a de facto authority. The law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes against public order, crimes against morals, and the like. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.