Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article focuses on the termination of the contract of employment without notice, due to employee’s fault, because of the commission of the obvious crime, during the contract of employment; the crime disallows the further employment on the workplace (what is definied in art. 52 § 1 point 2 L.C.). The author comes to the conclusion, that a obvious crime is a crime which existence is certain, undisputed, there is no objective doubts as to its existence, the evidence of its commission do not raise any doubt; facts of the case ensures, that the employee has committed a crime. The obvious crime is also characterized by the fact, that it make impossible further employment of an employee who committed this obvious crime on the workplace. This impossibility should not be an objective impossibility to continue the employment on the workplace, but in common sense, should argue for an immediate removal this employee from his workplace. However, the author takes the assumption that art. 52 § 1 point 2 L.C. is not compatible with art. 42 paragraph 3 of the Constitution, because it violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. It allows for the assignment of a crime (obvious) to the employee, even though there is no final judgment of the court.
PL
Sąd Najwyższy w orzeczeniu, które było przedmiotem glosowania, poruszył kwestię pracownika, o którym mowa w art. 218 § 1a k.k. Sąd ten odniósł się do zagadnienia, jaki jest desygnat i jakie są granice pojęcia „pracownik”, a także co jest przedmiotem ochrony powyżej wskazanego przepisu, jaki jest jej zakres. Glosator – w tymże kontekście – poddał analizie myśl Sądu Najwyższego. Autor glosy zgodził się w głównej mierze z poglądem, że „zakresem art. 218 § 1a k.k. objęte są tylko osoby będące pracownikami w rozumieniu art. 2 k.p. i art. 22 § 1 i § 11 k.p.”, uznał go jednak za niepełny, bowiem należy mieć także na względzie w przypadku przestępstwa z art. 218 § 1a k.k., art. 8 ust. 2a ustawy o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych, gdzie – w przypadku ubezpieczeń społecznych – pojęcie pracownika jest nieco szersze niż to zawarte w przepisach kodeksu pracy. Glosator uznał za zasadne twierdzenie, że przedmiotem ochrony art. 218 § 1a k.k. są wszelkie prawa pracownika wynikające ze stosunku pracy lub ubezpieczenia społecznego oraz podzielił postulat de lege ferenda, „aby ochroną art. 218 § 1a k.k. objąć również osoby pozostające w stosunkach zatrudnienia innych niż stosunek pracy” i – o czym nie wspomniał sąd w glosowanej uchwale – stosunek cywilnoprawny, o którym mowa w art. 8 ust 2a ustawy o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych.
EN
The Supreme Court, in the ruling which is subject to this commentary, addresses the notion of an employee referred to in Article 218 § 1a of the Criminal Code. The court discussed the issue of the designation and limits of the notion of “employee” and the subject-matter of protection of the provision referred to above along with its scope. The commentator – in this context – analyses the Supreme Court’s thinking. The commentary’s author agrees in most part with the belief that “the scope of Article 218 § 1a CrC covers only persons who are employees within the meaning of Article 2 LC and Article 22 § 1 and § 11 LC”, though he deems it incomplete as one also needs to take into account Article 8(2a) of the act on social insurance, where – with regard to social insurance – the notion of an employee is slightly broader than the one included in the provisions of the Labour Code. The commentator believes it legitimate that the subject-matter of protection of Article 218 § 1a CrC includes all employee rights resulting from an employment or social insurance relationship. The commentator shares the de lege ferenda postulate for the “protection under Article 218 § 1a CrC to include also persons in employment relationships other that a contract of employment” and, which the Court did not address in the discussed resolution, the civil law relationship referred to in Article 8(2a) of the Social Insurance Act.
EN
The Supreme Court, in the ruling which is subject to this commentary, addresses the notion of an employee referred to in Article 218 § 1a of the Criminal Code. The court discussed the issue of the designation and limits of the notion of “employee” and the subject-matter of protection of the provision referred to above along with its scope. The commentator – in this context – analyses the Supreme Court’s thinking. The commentary’s author agrees in most part with the belief that “the scope of Article 218 § 1a CrC covers only persons who are employees within the meaning of Article 2 LC and Article 22 § 1 and § 11 LC”, though he deems it incomplete as one also needs to take into account Article 8(2a) of the act on social insurance, where – with regard to social insurance – the notion of an employee is slightly broader than the one included in the provisions of the Labour Code. The commentator believes it legitimate that the subject-matter of protection of Article 218 § 1a CrC includes all employee rights resulting from an employment or social insurance relationship. The commentator shares the de lege ferenda postulate for the “protection under Article 218 § 1a CrC to include also persons in employment relationships other that a contract of employment” and, which the Court did not address in the discussed resolution, the civil law relationship referred to in Article 8(2a) of the Social Insurance Act.
DE
Der Aufsatz enthält Feststellungen und Anmerkungen bezüglich des Funktionierens von fremden Personennamen, insbesondere neuer Zuzügler aus dem Ausland, im städtischen Polnisch des 17. und 18. Jhs. In den analysierten Schriftdenkmälern gibt es viel interessantes anthroponymisches Material, denn über zwei Jahrhunderte ist dieser Landstrich unter der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens geblieben (1228-1466), und darüber hinaus zogen hierher Niederländer und Schotten. In der Stadt waren auch Juden wohnhaft. Das anthroponymische Material wurde 80 handschriftlichen Stadtbüchern aus Chełmno entnommen. Diese Quellen sind meist formlos abgefaßt, so daß sie lebendiges Polnisch jener Zeit vermitteln. Auch die Formen der Personennamen haben demzufolge kolloquialen Charakter. Fremde Namen passen sich schnell dem polnischen Sprachsystem an. Es gibt verschiedene Formen dieser Anpassung: graphische und phonetische Veränderungen, z.B. Gern - Giere; Übersetzung fremder Vornamen (möglicherweise auch der Zunamen): Paul - Pawel. Am deutlichsten kommt die Polonisierung durch Wortbildungsmittel zum Vorschein, was vor allem an Frauennamen sichtbar ist, die Suffixe -owa, -ka, -ina und -ska bei verheirateten Frauen bzw. -ówka, -anka im Falle der ledigen Frauen annehmen.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.