Polowanie bez uprawnień jako znamię przestępstwa z art. 53 pkt 4 Prawa łowieckiego

• Authors: Miłosz Kościelniak-Marszał

Title variants

EN

Hunting without a licence as a sign of crime punishable on the power of art. 53 item 4 of the Hunting Law

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The normative definition of poaching became a part of the domestic legal order along with the implementation of the Act on the Hunting Law of 13 October 1995. Making use of the circumstance whether a given act of poaching, as a differentiating criterion, is sanctioned by criminal or criminal-administrative responsibility, permits to isolate two contexts of the term ‘poaching’. In a broad sense it will overlap with its normative definition accepted in art. 4 par. 3 of the Hunting Law, whereas poaching proper (sensu stricto) will concern only these behaviours 12 that are intended to take possession of game in the manner which is not hunting or by violating the conditions of admissibility of hunting, which – at the same time – exhaust the signs of a crime or an offence aimed at protection of animals. Among the regulations which typify acts of this kind, the basic role in fighting the hunting crime is played by art. 53 item 4 of the Hunting Law, which penalizes execution of hunting by people who do not hold relevant licences to do so. The changes that followed in consequence of the amendment of the Hunting Law in 2004 were an expression of the legislator’s wish to separate the question of being licensed to hunt from the requirement of holding relevant documents while performing it. An unintended consequence of that move has been, however, a general exclusion of penalization of hunting without relevant authorization. With reference to hunters, the charge of violation of art. 53 item 4 of the Hunting Law can concern exclusively the case of hunting performed by them despite the lack of ‘relevant’ licence. Thus, on the basis of it this can be a non-falconer who hunts with a bird of prey, or a non-selector hunting for males of the fallow-deer who can be held responsible. On the other hand, situations that are particularly vital from the point of view of threat posed to animals, ones that consist in execution of hunting by hunters who do not hold a licence issued by the tenant or administrator of the district remain outside the objective range of influence of the regulation.

Keywords

EN

hunter; hunt; poaching

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski
• Journal: Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
• Year: 2011
• Volume: IX
• Pages: 113-122

Contributors

author

Miłosz Kościelniak-Marszał

• Uniwersytet Opolski w Opolu Wydział Prawa i Administracji, Katedra Prawa Karnego, Zakład Prawa Karnego Procesowego, ul. Katowicka 87a, 45-060 Opole, Poland

References

• Müller Tadeusz, Zygmunt Zwolak. 1998. Prawo łowieckie z komentarzem oraz przepisami wykonawczymi i związkowymi. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
• Kościelniak-Marszał Miłosz. 2009. „Zmiany w Prawie łowieckim – PZŁ de lege ferenda”. Brać Łowiecka (2) : 24-26.
• Penner Leon. 1954. „Art. 270 k.k. w świetle dekretów z 4 marca 1953 r.”. Nowe Prawo (4) : 51.
• Jastrzębski Ludwik, Wiktor Lipko, Eugeniusz Stankiewicz. 1963. Prawo łowieckie. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
• Radecki Wojciech. 1996. „Przestępstwa i wykroczenia łowieckie”. Prokuratura i Prawo (6) : 7-30.
• Radziewicz Piotr. 2004. „W sprawie zgodności przepisów ustawy Prawo łowieckie z Konstytucją”. Zeszyty Prawnicze Biura Studiów i Analiz Kancelarii Sejmu (4) : 16-22.
• Ledwosiński Marek. 2010. „Kłusownicy w mundurach”. Łowiec Polski (4) : 34-37.
• Radecki Wojciech. 2010. Prawo łowieckie. Komentarz. Warszawa: Difin.
• Kościelniak-Marszał Miłosz. 2005. „Przestępstwa i wykroczenia łowieckie”. Brać Łowiecka (12) : 42-43.