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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  judicial crime
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This review is devoted to the publication by Konrad Graczyk titled Sprawa Ignacego Kaczmarka. Studium przypadku niemieckiego zabójstwa sądowego z 1944 r. oraz rozliczeń z okupacją niemiecką [The Case of Ignacy Kaczmarek. A Case Study of the German Court Murder in 1944 and Settlements with the German Occupation]. The text outlines the issues addressed in the monograph, discusses the relevance of the subject matter, the structure of the work and the fundamental thesis assuming that the judgement mentioned in the title was a judicial crime, which the author has managed to justify convincingly on various levels. In the review, several comments are also made on specific issues, such as the conditions of the factual situation of the title case, the Radbruch formula or the offence of “bending the law” as known in German law.
EN
In seven landmark resolutions passed after 2019, the Supreme Court has authorised the prosecution of martial law judges and prosecutors. A democratic legal state, based on the tri-partition and balance of powers, must take special care to ensure that the judiciary is self-controlled as the one not subject to counterbalancing by the other two powers. The resolutions of the Supreme Court allow for accountability of crimes committed by the judiciary, which constitute communist crimes, and thus meet public expectations. The article presents the grounds for criminal liability of martial law judges and prosecutors, the concept of communist crime, judicial crime, the facts assessed by the Supreme Court in its resolutions and the forms of judicial crimes committed by judges and prosecutors.
PL
Opracowanie poświęcono tzw. case study – przypadkowi pociągnięcia do odpowiedzialności karnej przed sądem polskim nazistowskiego prokuratora Josefa Abbotta za jego działalność na ziemiach polskich okupowanych przez Niemcy podczas II wojny światowej. We wstępie zarysowano zagadnienie odpowiedzialności karnej prawników III Rzeszy, zwracając uwagę na odmienne podejście w Republice Federalnej Niemiec i Niemieckiej Republice Demokratycznej. Następnie przybliżono sylwetkę Abbotta, przedstawiono zarys Sądu Specjalnego w Gdańsku (przed którym Abbott oskarżał) i jego przewodniczącego, który mimo starań strony polskiej nie został ekstradowany. Najistotniejszy element opracowania stanowi omówienie tytułowego procesu Abbotta, który miał miejsce w latach 1949–1950. Szczególną uwagę zwrócono na treść zgromadzonych dowodów i ich ocenę przez sąd polski, w efekcie czego linia obrony oskarżonego została obalona. Wartość tytułowego kazusu polega na tym, że wśród niewielu przypadków prawomocnego skazania prawników III Rzeszy wyróżnia się on ze względu na zastosowane przepisy, stanowiące podstawę prawną skazania, a co za tym idzie zastosowany model odpowiedzialności tych prawników.
EN
This article is devoted to a case study of the Nazi prosecutor Josef Abbott held criminally liable before a Polish court for his activities in the Polish territories occupied by Germany during World War II. In the introduction, the problem of the criminal liability of the Third Reich’s lawyers is outlined, drawing attention to the different approaches used by the German Federal Republic and in the German Democratic Republic. This is followed by a look into Abbott’s life story, and an outline of the Special Court in Gdańsk (before which Abbott was the prosecutor) and of that Court’s president, who, despite the best efforts of Polish authorities, was not extradited. The most important element of this study is the discussion of the process against Abbott, which took place in the years 1949–1950. Special attention has been paid to the evidence gathered and its evaluation by the Polish court, as a result of which the defendant’s line of defence was rejected. The value of the case is that, against the background of the few examples of legally valid convictions of Third Reich lawyers, this one is distinguished by the provisions applied as the legal basis for the conviction and, consequently, by the adopted model of such lawyers’ liability.
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.