polish code
Recently Published Documents





2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-541
Kazimierz J. Leżak

The article discusses recent changes in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure in the sphere of the prosecutor’s right to oppose decisions made by a court during the trial. The purpose of the article is to show the public prosecutor’s increasing interference in the course of criminal proceedings, which, as a result, makes it possible to take control over the course and outcome of specific criminal proceedings.

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 91-123
Maciej Zachariasiewicz

The article is dedicated to the (still relatively unknown) EU Regulation 2016/1191. The Regulation disposes of some of the formalities with respect to circulation of the public documents within EU. In particular, no legalization in any form, including the apostille under the Hague Convention, will be needed with respect to documents covered by the Regulation. Unliked originally planned by the Commission, the Regulation does not, unfortunately, completes a more challenging goal of mandating recognition of the civil status throughout the Union. This issue still remains subject to national conflict-of-law rules. Moreover, the scope of Regulation is relatively narrow. It does not, again regrettably, apply to many public documents which are crucial in cross-border transactions (excerpts from commercial registers, powers of attorney for sale of immovable property). The author analyses to what extent Regulation 2016/1191 offers progress in circulation of documents. This question is first raised in light of the long standing application of the Hague Apostille Convention. The author then attempts to discern the effective role of the Regulation given the fact that under Article 1138 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, no legalization in any form is in principle required for the foreign public documents to be treated as authentic and official proof in Poland (although the practice often is to ask for the apostille even if not required by law). Still, the Regulation 2016/1138 might come of assistance for the parties in some respects. First, it will facilitate acceptance of Polish public documents in those Member States, which have so far required apostille. Second, the Regulation may help to overcome an incorrect practice in Poland of requiring apostille by the officials, where Article 1138 actually dispenses of such formality. Third, the Regulation introduces an administrative cooperation based on the IMI system which allows to verify doubts as to the authenticity of the public document from another Member States. This last feature of the Regulation, it is argued, may prove of its true value to the freedom of circulation of public documents within the EU.

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 185-204
Adrianna Niegierewicz-Biernacka

Abstract One of the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV–2) in the context of the impact on the Polish criminal trial was the introduction to the Code of Criminal Procedure of a new preventive measure related to the protection of medical personnel, specified in the new editorial unit – Art. 276a of the CCP. This measure was introduced by the Act of March 31, 2020, amending the Act on special solutions related to the prevention, counteraction, and combating of COVID-19, other infectious diseases and the crisis situations caused by them, and some other acts, and is a novelty in the Polish criminal procedure. The purpose of this article is to investigate a new preventive measure defined in Art. 276a of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms of the legitimacy of its introduction to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. Three research problems will be analysed. The first concerns the extent to which the introduction of the new preventive measure under Art. 276a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary in terms of the need to provide special protection to medical personnel in Poland. The second research problem concerns the extent to which the application of the new preventive measure under Art. 276a of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to the assumptions of the Polish legislator and what is the ratio legis of the analysed regulation. The third research problem boils down to the extent to which the amendment to Art. 276a of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to the rules of legislative technique.

2021 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 35-46
Anna Boguska ◽  
Łukasz Pisarczyk

The purpose of this article is to present the safeguard role of the labour law in the context of labour law disputes. Authors deliberate to what extent the procedural law impacts the substantive law. Particular attention was paid to new institutions of the Polish code of civil proceedings introduced by the law of 4 July 2019 and their influence on the procedural position of the parties of the employment relationship.

2021 ◽  
pp. 174889582110567
Arkadiusz Lach

Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Dorota Krekora-Zając ◽  
Błażej Marciniak ◽  
Jakub Pawlikowski

Personal data protection has become a fundamental normative challenge for biobankers and scientists researching human biological samples and associated data. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) harmonises the law on protecting personal data throughout Europe and allows developing codes of conduct for processing personal data based on GDPR art. 40. Codes of conduct are a soft law measure to create protective standards for data processing adapted to the specific area, among others, to biobanking of human biological material. Challenges in this area were noticed by the European Data Protection Supervisor on data protection and Biobanking and BioMolecular Resources Research Infrastructure–European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI.ERIC). They concern mainly the specification of the definitions of the GDPR and the determination of the appropriate legal basis for data processing, particularly for transferring data to other European countries. Recommendations indicated in the article, which are based on the GDPR, guidelines published by the authority and expert bodies, and our experiences regarding the creation of the Polish code of conduct, should help develop how a code of conduct for processing personal data in biobanks should be developed.

2021 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-404
Michał Sędziński

This article discusses an issue associated with verifi cation proceedings in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. It attempts to determine the legal nature of activities related to the “verifi cation of one’s own information”, referred to in § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Although verifi - cation proceedings have become the subject of numerous publications and studies, the link between the “verifi cation of one’s own information” and “verifi cation roceedings” has not been determined, similar to the nature of § 5 mentioned above has not been established eithe Therefore, this article seeks to determine whether the activities referred to in Article 307(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure form a part of verifi cation proceedings or whether they are distinct from this stage of proceedings and whether they impact such proceedings. Furthermore, the discussion covers also the consequences of a situation in which information about an offence, obtained through a traditional report or from other sources, is not confi rmed. In particular, this article analyses a situation in which a refusal to initiate an investigation is issued.

2021 ◽  
pp. 262-281
Jacek Kosonoga ◽  
Sławomir Żółtek

The subject of the article is a new preventive measure introduced last year in Article 276a of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure for the protection of the medical staff or persons chosen to help them. Authors discuss in detail the need for such a measure, its purpose and functions, the level of protection it offers, the basic grounds for its application, the various type of injunctions associated with the preventive measure, the associated surety or financial guarantee, and the period of time for which such an injunction may remain in force as well as the authorities applying the preventive measure. Due to the scale of comments, often critical, the issue discussed in the article may turn out to be useful for both legal practitioners and theoreticians.

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-359
Tomasz Jakubiak

W art. 178 pkt 2 k.p.k ustawodawca zapisał: „Nie wolno przesłuchiwaćjako świadków: (…) duchownego co do faktów, o których dowiedziałsię przy spowiedzi”. Ponieważ norma w nim zawarta odwołuje się doogólnych terminów (bo wspólnych dla wielu Kościołów i wspólnot religijnych), ale i za razem niezdefiniowanych w k.p.k., jak chociażby termin„duchowny”, stosowanie przedmiotowego zakazu dowodowego okazujesię napotykać na trudności interpretacyjne. Biorąc pod uwagę powyższe problemy, głównym celem, jaki przyświecał autorowi przy powstaniu tego artykułu, było określenie desygnatów terminu „duchowny” z art. 178 pkt 2 k.p.k dla Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego. Dla jego realizacji autor określił kryteria wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne omawianego pojęcia, co z kolei okazuje się nieodzowne w opisaniu zakresu podmiotowego przywołanej normy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 245
Sebastian Kidyba

<p>The study provides an analysis of the status of representatives in disputes with the company and, consequently, of the rules of representation in those disputes. The research problem addressed herein is based on the analysis of Article 210 § 1 and Article 253 of the Polish Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies (CCPC). These rules govern issues related to the occurrence of disputes with the company and, in particular, the problem of the participation of the company’s representatives in those disputes. It should be clear that power of attorney plays a special role in the regulation of the Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies. It is also widely applicable not only in the classic representation of entities or persons within the company, but also of the company itself. A representative is granted a special status due to the transactions in which he participates. One should also keep in mind the situations where a representative represents the company in classical activities besides Articles 210 or 253 CCPC. In that case, the representative’s authorisation is “activated” by the body usually having the power to do so (the management board) or by other representatives (statutory representatives or representatives appointed under a power of attorney, if the conditions laid down in Article 106 of the Polish Civil Code are met). Another situation is when they are appointed by a meeting of shareholders or partners (Articles 210 and 253 CCPC). Another feature of the special power of attorney is the use of it in disputes and not in legal transactions. It can therefore be concluded that the use of the word “representative” in the context of the provisions of the Polish Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies may be of particular importance.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document