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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  polski kodeks karny
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Beginning of the Debate on the Codification of Polish Law after the World War I: The Issue of the Codification Commission Autonomy in the Light of Political Declarations

100%
Gałędek M.
Studia Iuridica
|
2019
|
vol. 80
119-134
EN
The purpose of this article is to analyze the ideological basis of concepts that underpinned the establishment of the Codification Commission by virtue of the Act of 3 June 1919 and to assess its position within the system of authorities of the Second Republic of Poland. The author has found that the issues around shaping the relations of the Codification Commission with the Government and the Sejm have been covered in literature of the subject in a one-sided manner. Authors who have devoted their attention to the issue of autonomy of the Codification Commission formulated their evaluations based on the interpretation of the regulations in the drafts of the Act that established the Commission, as well as on their subsequent application that enabled the restriction of this autonomy. They did not, however, sufficiently account for the ideological declarations, thus in fact rejecting the deputies’ assertions of their striving to ensure “complete autonomy and self-sufficiency” of the Codification Commission, and the Government’s affirmations that it did not aim to “subject” the Commission to its control. Meanwhile, the author’s intention is to show that there was a widespread consensus at the time, especially at the Sejm, which sovereignly decided on the wording of the Act on the Codification Commission, that deputies had adopted a law that sufficiently protected the autonomous status of the Commission and its apolitical nature.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The practice of applying the provision of Article 297 of the Polish Penal Code

99%
Gutbier K.
Biuletyn Kryminologiczny
|
2018
|
issue 25
197-222
PL
The aim of the publication is to present the results of research on the issue of the application of the provision of Article 297 of Polish Penal Code in practice and an attempt to evaluate them and an attempt to formulate conclusions. The features characterizing the offense under Article 297 § 1 of Polish Penal Code, which reads as follows: who, in order to obtain for himself or someone else, from a bank or organizational unit conducting similar economic activity under the Act or from an authority or institution with public funds - credit, monetary loan, surety, guarantee, letter of credit, subsidy, subsidy, confirmation by the bank of a liability arising from a surety or a guarantee or similar cash payment for  a  specific  business  purpose,  payment  instrument  or  public  contract,  submit  counterfeit, converted, attesting untruth or unreliable document or unreliable written statement regarding circumstances  of  significant  importance  in  order  to  obtain  the  mentioned  financial  support, payment instrument or order, it is punishable by imprisonment up from 3 months to 5 years. Discussed are also the indications of committing an act consisting in abandoning the notification in Article 297 § 2 of Polish Penal Code, worded as follows: who, in breach of a binding obligation, does not notify the relevant entity of the situation that may affect the cessation or limitation of the financial support referred to in § 1 or the public order or the possibility of further use of the electronic payment instrument. Next,  the  methodology  of  the  research  was  described  in  detail.  The  research  was  of  an  files nature  and  concerned  final  judgments  issued  by  courts  of  second  instance.  The  time  period of  researches was from 2012 to 2016. A purposeful selection was also made due to the legal qualification of the deed on the basis of which the conviction was handed down in the first instance, i.e. the offenses under Article 297 of Polish Penal Code. Then the results of the research were presented and an attempt was made to comment on the results obtained. The conclusions from the research indicated, among others, the cases of lack of correct understanding of the provision, confusion of concepts, unnecessary automatic cumulative classification of the deed, narrowing the use of the instruments mentioned in the provision to credits, loans and subsidies, and many more cases.   Celem publikacji jest przedstawienie wyników badań dotyczących problematyki zastosowania przepisu art. 297 k.k. w praktyce oraz podjęcie próby ich oceny i sformułowania wniosków. Opisano znamiona charakteryzujące przestępstwo z art. 297 § 1 k.k., który brzmi następująco: kto, w celu uzyskania dla siebie lub kogo innego, od banku lub jednostki organizacyjnej prowadzącej podobną działalność gospodarczą na podstawie ustawy albo od organu lub instytucji dysponujących środkami publicznymi – kredytu, pożyczki pieniężnej, poręczenia, gwarancji, akredytywy, dotacji, subwencji, potwierdzenia przez bank zobowiązania wynikającego z poręczenia lub z gwarancji lub podobnego świadczenia pieniężnego na określony cel gospodarczy, instrumentu płatniczego lub zamówienia publicznego, przedkłada podrobiony, przerobiony, poświadczający nieprawdę albo nierzetelny dokument albo nierzetelne, pisemne oświadczenie dotyczące okoliczności o istotnym znaczeniu dla uzyskania wymienionego wsparcia fnansowego, instrumentu płatniczego lub zamówienia, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 3 miesięcy do lat 5. Omówiono także znamiona popełnienia czynu polegającego na zaniechaniu powiadomienia z art. 297 § 2 k.k., o następującym brzmieniu: kto wbrew ciążącemu obowiązkowi, nie powiadamia właściwego podmiotu o powstaniu sytuacji mogącej mieć wpływ na wstrzymanie albo ograniczenie wysokości udzielonego wsparcia fnansowego, określonego w § 1, lub zamówienia publicznego albo na możliwość dalszego korzystania z instrumentu płatniczego. Następnie została dokładnie opisana metodologia przeprowadzonych badań. Badania miały charakter aktowy i dotyczyły prawomocnych orzeczeń wydanych przez sądy drugiej instancji. Cezurą czasową objęto okres od 2012 do 2016. Dokonano także wyboru celowego ze względu na kwalifkacje prawną czynu na podstawie, którego dokonano skazania w pierwszej instancji, tj. przestępstwa z art. 297 k.k. Następnie przedstawiono wyniki badań oraz podjęto próbę skomentowania otrzymanych rezultatów. Wnioski z badań wskazały, między innymi, na przypadki występowania braku prawidłowego zrozumienia przepisu, mylenie pojęć, niepotrzebnej automatycznej kumulatywnej kwalifkacji czynu, zawężenie stosowania instrumentów wymienionych w przepisie do kredytu, pożyczki oraz dotacji oraz a wiele innych.
EN
The aim of the publication is to present the results of research on the issue of the application of the provision of Article 297 of Polish Penal Code in practice and an attempt to evaluate them and an attempt to formulate conclusions. The features characterizing the offense under Article 297 § 1 of Polish Penal Code, which reads as follows: who, in order to obtain for himself or someone else, from a bank or organizational unit conducting similar economic activity under the Act or from an authority or institution with public funds - credit, monetary loan, surety, guarantee, letter of credit, subsidy, subsidy, confirmation by the bank of a liability arising from a surety or a guarantee or similar cash payment for  a  specific  business  purpose,  payment  instrument  or  public  contract,  submit  counterfeit, converted, attesting untruth or unreliable document or unreliable written statement regarding circumstances  of  significant  importance  in  order  to  obtain  the  mentioned  financial  support, payment instrument or order, it is punishable by imprisonment up from 3 months to 5 years. Discussed are also the indications of committing an act consisting in abandoning the notification in Article 297 § 2 of Polish Penal Code, worded as follows: who, in breach of a binding obligation, does not notify the relevant entity of the situation that may affect the cessation or limitation of the financial support referred to in § 1 or the public order or the possibility of further use of the electronic payment instrument. Next,  the  methodology  of  the  research  was  described  in  detail.  The  research  was  of  an  files nature  and  concerned  final  judgments  issued  by  courts  of  second  instance.  The  time  period of  researches was from 2012 to 2016. A purposeful selection was also made due to the legal qualification of the deed on the basis of which the conviction was handed down in the first instance, i.e. the offenses under Article 297 of Polish Penal Code. Then the results of the research were presented and an attempt was made to comment on the results obtained. The conclusions from the research indicated, among others, the cases of lack of correct understanding of the provision, confusion of concepts, unnecessary automatic cumulative classification of the deed, narrowing the use of the instruments mentioned in the provision to credits, loans and subsidies, and many more cases.
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.