Search results

1

Zasada jawności i jej ograniczenia – postępowanie dyscyplinarne wobec kontrolerów NIK

100%

Róg Ł.

Kontrola Państwowa

|

2017

|

vol. 62

|

issue 2 (373)

8-17

EN

The principle of openness is one of the basic principles of the criminal procedure. It is understood as a directive which provides the society with access to information about criminal procedures. Since the amendments to the Act on the Supreme Audit Office of 23rd December 1994 entered into force, as a result of which Article 4a was added (Disciplinary responsibility of nominated auditors), the principle of openness has not been discussed separately in studies dedicated to the disciplinary proceedings at NIK. Article 97p of the Act on NIK refers to appropriate application of the regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to issues that are not regulated in the Act. Taking the above into account, it needs to be considered to what extend the closing of the hearing to the public can be applied to disciplinary proceedings against nominated auditors.

2

Odpowiedzialność za mniejszej wagi naruszenie obowiązków – rozwiązanie stosowane wobec mianowanych kontrolerów NIK

100%

Róg Ł.

Kontrola Państwowa

|

2017

|

vol. 62

|

issue 6 (377)

21-33

EN

The Act on the Supreme Audit Office of 23rd December 1994 was amended with chapter 4a (Disciplinary responsibility of nominated auditors) that regulates another issue, too, namely that of the responsibility for a lower importance breach of an employee’s duties, or a negligence of the dignity of the position. The examples of such breaches include, e.g. delays or leaving the post without notifying the supervisor. The article aims at presenting the origins of responsibility for such breaches in the provisions that regulate the disciplinary responsibility, at discussing its advantages and (potential) disadvantages, and at proposing general principles for its application with regard to nominated auditors, on the basis of the concept of a lower importance case, formed in relation to material provisions of the criminal law.

3

Sądowoadministracyjna kontrola oceny kwalifikacyjnej kontrolera – glosa częściowo aprobująca do wyroku WSA w Warszawie

88%

JARZĘCKA-SIWIK E., CHOTKOWSKA B.

Kontrola Państwowa

|

2017

|

vol. 62

|

issue 6 (377)

8-20

EN

The commented judgement of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw of 2nd June 2015 (SA/Wa 1920/14) has had a significant impact on the change of the interpretation of the regulation on decisions issued by the President of the Supreme Audit Office. Namely it accelerated the court and administrative control of adjudicating related to a negative evaluation of a nominated auditor. Simultaneously, the Court decided – unjustly, according to the authors of the article – that a negative evaluation by the supervisor of a nominated auditor is an administrative decision of first instance. While a decision of the President of NIK, made on the basis of Article 76a (3) of the Act on NIK – is considered the final administrative decision. In their article, the authors present in detail the legal status and they analyse the stance of the Regional Administrative Court, justifying their reasoning in the area.

Refine search results

3 Kontrola Państwowa

2 Róg Ł.

1 CHOTKOWSKA B.

1 JARZĘCKA-SIWIK E.

3 2017

Zasada jawności i jej ograniczenia – postępowanie dyscyplinarne wobec kontrolerów NIK

Odpowiedzialność za mniejszej wagi naruszenie obowiązków – rozwiązanie stosowane wobec mianowanych kontrolerów NIK

Sądowoadministracyjna kontrola oceny kwalifikacyjnej kontrolera – glosa częściowo aprobująca do wyroku WSA w Warszawie