Search results

1

Methodological Problems of Polygraph Examination

100%

Ibek A.

Internal Security

|

2012

|

vol. 4(2)

173-190

EN

The so-called methodological models of investigation, that is tools for carrying out reasoning which play a key role in the uncovering process and evidence proceedings, have been developed in recent years, based on the descriptive theory of evidence in criminal procedure. One of the methods to obtain evidence is the printing examination, where more information can reliably applied to logical inferences with the necessary elements to ensure the correctness of inferences. This article attempts to present a research perspective of the concept of these printing models, and thus using the conceptual apparatus, which has not been previously used in the analysis of these studies, demonstrate that the printing examination plays an important role in constructions proposed by the nowadays currents of reasoning processes. This conceptual apparatus enables the increase of the capacities of analysis and any possible review of the printing examinations with identification of weak points of the reasoning process. The article presents the basic assumptions of the models in order to transfer their abilities to interpret the opinion of printing examination from a methodological point of view. The reader is familiarized with the structure of the so-called Evidential argument, built on the basis of such opinions, and which reflects the expert’s reasoning process. In addition, the author mentions issues relating to the approximate analysis of the argument resulting from the study and its possible criticism by the process organ. The role of the printing examination is also discussed (or more precisely — its result) in the generated past scenarios of fragments of criminal investigations. The author concludes that the need for the so-called intersubjective control of printing examination opinions, is largely conditioned by the quality of work of an expert, with particular emphasis on the correctness of reasoning carried out in the course of expertise.

2

The Problems and Limits of Fair Credibility Assessment in German Criminal Law. Discussion about Systematization and Improvement of the procedure of Credibility Assessment

100%

Zöhner M.

Internal Security

|

2011

|

vol. 3(2)

105-130

EN

The role of an expert in a criminal proceeding is disputable. On the one hand, the expert’s “monopoly” is criticized, namely the fact that the judge’s responsibility is reduced because they have to trust in the expert’s specialist conclusion. On the other hand, the expertise process is analyzed as a whole by psychologists and non-experts not only from the methodical point of view but also in terms of its contents. The diagnostic process of the credibility assessment requires an enormous cognitive accomplishment of the expert. This is the result of the complexity of the expertise task because there exists no valid theory of credibility, which could link psychologically meaningful constructs in a universally valid law. For that reason, experts have to adapt themselves to a variety of small laws (so called indicators). Added to the high complexity of the credibility assessment there are also high demands on the court in respect of the quality of the expert. On the one hand, the expert has to observe the legal and ethical frameworks and act in a structured and scientific way. On the other hand, his or her way of thinking has to be flexible and self-critical. The problems of the credibility assessment raise the question of how exactly the expert assessment proceeds and where do its borders lie. Then the identification of its borders can contribute to more transparency and with that to the improvement of the expert assessment’s quality. This article deals not only with the difficulties of credibility assessment but also with the possibilities of the systematization and improvement of the credibility assessment’s procedure. First of all, the judge’s expertise and the expert’s position in the criminal proceeding are explained. Afterwards the complex diagnostic process of the credibility proceeding is explained. Then the author explains problems and limite of the credibility proceedings and their consequences within the practical application of the credibility proceeding. Finally, several possibilities that can contribute to improvements in quality are discussed.

3

Obrońca wobec opinii biegłego w procesie karnym

100%

Widacki J.

Studia Prawnicze: rozprawy i materiały

|

2015

|

issue 1(16)

6-20

EN

In accordance with the binding criminal procedure, the defender may request that an expert witness is called to court by addressing an appropriate motion to a judicial body (the prosecutor or the court). The body may consider the motion but is not obliged to do so. Once the witness has been called to court, he or she can be questioned, and his or her expertise and/or impartiality can be examined. Demanding the appointment of a different expert witness is also an option once circumstances that allow or require the exclusion of the previous one have occurred. A motion to appoint another expert witness before the court can be made, yet only if it has been proved that the current expert opinion has been incomplete or unclear, internally contradictory, or contradictory to other opinions issued in the same case. An expert witness may be called to court only by a judicial body. The defender has no right to the appointment of his or her own expert witness. The most recent revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (KPK), whose goal was to increase the degree of fairness of trials, still does not envisage the option to have expert witnesses called to court by the defence. The court and prosecutor will continue to have a monopoly on the appointment of expert witnesses. The defence can only provide ‘a private opinion’ issued at its behest. This cannot, however, have the status of an expert opinion (with all the due consequences) but only the status of a private statement that may be read out at the trail but cannot be confronted with an expert witness opinion.

4

Product Substitutability in Defining the Relevant Market and Expert Evidence: Comments on the Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 29 July 2020 (I NSK 8/19)

88%

Wasilewski R. R.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2021

|

vol. 14

|

issue 24

177-186

FR

Substituabilité des produits dans la détermination du marché pertinent et preuves d’expertise – commentaires sur la base de l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du 29 juillet 2020. (I NSK 8/19). Dans l’une des procédures concernant un pourvoi en cassation formé dans une affaire contre une décision du président de l’Office polonais de la concurrence et de la protection des consommateurs, la Cour suprême, dans son arrêt du 29 juillet 2020 (I NSK 8/19) a exprimé son point de vue sur le rôle des preuves d’experts dans la définition du marché pertinent, et plus particulièrement dans la détermination de la substituabilité des produits. Rejetant le pourvoi en cassation du commerçant, il a déclaré qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de procéder à l’expertise demandée dans le cadre d’une procédure judiciaire, car l’élément décisif pour déterminer la substituabilité des produits est leur perception par les acheteurs et non leur composition chimique. L’objectif de cet article est de présenter l’argumentation de la Cour suprême et de l’analyser sous l’angle de la définition du marché pertinent et de la spécificité des preuves d’experts dans le contexte de la détermination du marché pertinent pour l’application de la loi antitrust.

EN

In one of the court proceedings concerning a cassation appeal, brought against the decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), the Polish Supreme Court expressed in its judgment of 29 July 2020 (I NSK 8/19) a view on the role of expert evidence in the definition of the relevant market, and more specifically, in the determination of product substitutability. By dismissing the corporate applicant’s cassation appeal, the Court stated that admission of expert evidence was not necessary, given that the substitutability of products is decided mainly by customer adoption and not their chemical composition. This article aims to present the arguments cited to this end by the Supreme Court and to analyze them through the prism of defining the relevant market and the specificity of expert evidence in determining the boundaries of the relevant market for the purposes of applying competition law.

5

System biegłych sądowych w sprawach cywilnych we Francji

63%

Rylski P.

Prawo w Działaniu

|

2022

|

issue 50

90-111

EN

The aim of the study is to present the principles of the functioning of the system of court experts in France in relation to civil proceedings. The article discusses the systemic status of experts, the mechanism of appointing experts in civil proceedings and the role of the parties at this stage. The procedural possibilities of the parties’ participation in the preparation of the expert opinion as well as the possibilities of its assessment and questioning were also presented. The method of financing expert opinions and awarding remuneration to experts was indicated. The rules for entering experts on the list of experts in France and the importance of this list for the system of appointing experts in this country were discussed in detail. The issue of advance payments by the parties for the remuneration of experts and the final method of their settlement was also presented. Attention was also drawn to the method of supervision over experts and the possibilities of disciplinary actions against them. The conclusions indicated those French regulations that could be used in other legal systems, including the one in Poland.

PL

Opracowanie ma na celu przybliżenie zasad funkcjonowania systemu biegłych sądowych we Francji, zwłaszcza w postępowaniach cywilnych. W ramach artykułu omówiono ustrojowy status biegłych, mechanizm powoływania biegłych w postępowaniu cywilnym i rolę stron na tym etapie. Przedstawiono także procesowe możliwości udziału stron w przygotowaniu opinii przez biegłego oraz jej ocenę i kwestionowanie. W szczegółowy sposób ukazano zasady sporządzania listy biegłych we Francji i znaczenie tej listy dla systemu powoływania biegłych w tym kraju. Nakreślono też kwestę uiszczania przez strony zaliczek na wynagrodzenie biegłych oraz ostateczny sposób ich rozliczania. Autor artykułu omawia ponadto nadzór nad biegłymi, a także możliwości ich dyscyplinowania. W konkluzjach wskazuje na te z francuskich uregulowań, które mogłyby być wykorzystane w innych systemach prawnych, w tym w Polsce.

Refine search results

2 Internal Security

1 Prawo w Działaniu

1 Studia Prawnicze: rozprawy i materiały

1 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

1 Ibek A.

1 Rylski P.

1 Wasilewski R. R.

1 Widacki J.

1 Zöhner M.

1 2022

1 2021

1 2015

1 2012

1 2011

Methodological Problems of Polygraph Examination

The Problems and Limits of Fair Credibility Assessment in German Criminal Law. Discussion about Systematization and Improvement of the procedure of Credibility Assessment

Obrońca wobec opinii biegłego w procesie karnym

Product Substitutability in Defining the Relevant Market and Expert Evidence: Comments on the Judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 29 July 2020 (I NSK 8/19)

System biegłych sądowych w sprawach cywilnych we Francji