Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie działalności Komisji Odpowiedzialności Zawodowej Tłumaczy Przysięgłych w Ministerstwie Sprawiedliwości z perspektywy jej blisko dziesięcioletnich doświadczeń. W części teoretycznej omówimy ramy prawne, procedurę postępowania oraz rodzaje wydawanych przez KOZ kar. W części praktycznej przeprowadzimy analizę ilościową i jakościową przypadków, które były dotychczas rozpoznawane na rozprawach prowadzonych przed komisją. Analiza ta pozwoli na wyodrębnienie różnych typów błędów popełnianych przez tłumaczy przysięgłych. W centrum zainteresowania znajdą się błędy merytoryczne tłumaczy przysięgłych, zwłaszcza te, które wywarły lub mogły wywołać negatywne skutki prawne.
EN
The aim of the paper is to present the operation of the Commission for Professional Accountability of Sworn Translators at the Minister of Justice looking back on its almost ten-year history. In the theoretical part, we will discuss the legal framework within which it operates, the procedure it follows and the types of penalties it may impose. In the practical part, we will carry out a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the cases which have been heard so far at hearings conducted before the Commission. The analysis will allow us to distinguish different types of infringements committed by sworn translators. We will focus our attention on translation errors, especially those which had or might have had adverse legal consequences.
The article is devoted to presenting connections between interaction of investigation procedures and disciplinary proceedings as two stages of proceedings in student’s disciplinary cases. Considerations included in this article are subordinated to assumption, according to which the actual shape of the interaction mentioned above is determined by the way in which the issue of the scope of the interaction of investigation procedures is resolved as well as the impact of the actions taken in these proceedings on the examination of the case in disciplinary proceedings. The analysis of the first of the issues mentioned above gives ground for statement that regulation included in the Act on Higher Education and Science (according to which – returning the petition for punishment in order to complementing the investigation procedures) leads directly to increasing the burden of proof of the investigation procedures in terms of substantive examination of the student’s disciplinary case. The legal solution indicated above determines the wide scope of consolidation of evidences for the Disciplinary Board during the investigation procedures; in fact subject to disproportionate expansion and prepares a disciplinary case for resolution by this committee. This assessment is supported by regulating the impact of the evidence that was perpetuated in investigation procedures on the examination and adjudication of the case in disciplinary proceedings. It resulting in a wide-ranging possibility of using this evidence as a basis for a judgment on disciplinary liability.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.