Search results

1

Przywilej księżnej Katarzyny i jej synów dla Kożuchowa z 1419 roku.

100%

Karczewska J.

Studia Zachodnie

|

2014

|

vol. 16

223 - 227

2

Zasady ustania przywileju ujęte w kan. 82 KPK

100%

Dzierzon G.

Roczniki Nauk Prawnych

|

2013

|

vol. 23

|

issue 1

81-91

EN

The presented study provides an interpretation of can. 82 of CIC/83. From the analysis it follows that the hypotheses codified in can. 82 result from positive law. The first hypothesis implies that the legislator does not allow for non-burdensome privileges to cease through prescription. This is due to the fact that a privilege holder can renounce a privilege, and this renouncement is legally valid if it has been accepted by a competent authority (can. 80, §1). The second hypothesis implies that privileges burdensome to others cease through prescription (cann. 197-199). According to the doctrine, prescription is a similar process to a customary practice becoming law.

3

Chrystianizacja prawa po „edykcie mediolańskim”

84%

Żurek A.

Vox Patrum

|

2014

|

vol. 61

73-88

EN

The Constantine breakthrough was the beginning of changes in the whole Roman Empire state system. In Roman Law that process meant the introduction of Christian elements into legislation. The process of Roman Law Christianization was started by the Emperor Constantine the Great and was proceeded by his successors. The scope of those changes is difficult to determine. It is even more difficult to determine those changes mechanism of introduction. It is sure that Church was not the initiator of them. Even priests not always had been satisfied with those changes. Simplifying, those changes could be reduced to three areas: law and rules regarding the Christian cult; respecting the Christian spirit laws, and, finally, to, so called, privileges which were bestowed to the Catholic Church. It seems to be that this process did not open the way to introduction of confessional state but strengthened its tolerant – in religious case – character. This article is a systematization attempt of these issues, especially in the face of the numerous appearing allegations.

4

Borzykowski przywilej immunitetowy – na drodze do emancypacji kościoła w Polsce piastowskiej

84%

Lis A.

Roczniki Administracji i Prawa

|

2021

|

vol. 4

|

issue XXI

15-26

EN

The reason for calling the synod in Borzykowa was the bull “Significavit nobis” issued in 1210 by Pope Innocent III, which renewed the principle of seniority. At the synod, the possibilities of counteracting the effects of this bull were discussed. The bishops were also to approve Leszek the White’s right to hold the Kraków throne. During the synod, prince Władysław Odonic granted the Cistercian order a land in the castellany of Przemyśl in order to establish a monastery. In turn, the knight Sławosz resumed granting Sławoszów to the monastery in Busko. According to historiography, the dukes issued a set of privileges, including a great privilege for the Church (privilegium fori, ius spolii). The Borzykowski privilege became the basis for the independence of the Church from the Piast monarchy in district Poland.

PL

Powodem zwołania synodu w Borzykowej była wydana w 1210 roku przez papieża Innocentego III bulla „Significavit nobis” wznawiająca zasadę senioratu. Na synodzie radzono nad możliwościami przeciwdziałania skutkom tej bulli. Biskupi mieli również zatwierdzić prawo Leszka Białego do utrzymania tronu krakowskiego. Podczas synodu książę Władysław Odonic nadał zakonowi cystersów ziemię w kasztelanii przemęckiej w celu założenia klasztoru. Z kolei rycerz Sławosz wznowił nadanie Sławoszowa klasztorowi w Busku. Według historiografii książęta wydali wówczas zbiór przywilejów, a wśród nich wielki przywilej dla Kościoła (privilegium fori, ius spolii). Przywilej borzykowski stał się podstawą niezależności Kościoła od monarchii piastowskiej w Polsce dzielnicowej.

5

Issue of privileges in the social security system. Part 2

71%

Kasprowicz Ł.

|

2019

|

vol. 13

|

issue 3

223-246

PL

Autor obrazuje problematykę przywilejów dla wybranych grup zawodowych, uprawniających m.in. do wcześniejszej emerytury, na podstawie powoływanych regulacji prawnych. Celem artykułu jest w szczególności udzielenie odpowiedzi na główne pytanie badawcze, czy uprzywilejowane uprawnienia emerytalne dla wybranych grup zawodowych mają uzasadnienie w kontekście zasad określonych w konstytucji RP. Celem jest także wykazanie, że tak obszerny zakres przywilejów polegających na zwolnieniu wybranych grup zawodowych z obowiązku opłacania składek na ubezpieczenie i uprawniających do wcześniejszej emerytury stanowi czynnik bardzo kosztowny i destrukcyjny dla całego systemu i dla ogółu ubezpieczonych w powszechnym systemie emerytalnym. W konkluzjach opracowania przedstawiono zapatrywania autora skłaniające do likwidacji większości powoływanych przywilejów i zbudowania powszechnego, jednolitego i spójnego modelu systemu zabezpieczenia społecznego, obejmującego wszystkie grupy zawodowe. Wyjątek w tym zakresie mogłyby stanowić jedynie szczególnie uciążliwe lub szkodliwe warunki pracy, znacząco wpływające na utratę zdrowia.

EN

The author illustrates the issue of privileges for selected professional groups that entitle them, inter alia, to retire at an earlier age, based on the legal regulations in force. The purpose of the article is, in particular, to answer the main research question whether the privileged pension rights for selected professional groups are justified in the context of the principles laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. It also aims to demonstrate that such a wide range of privileges that exempt selected professional groups from the obligation to pay insurance premiums and entitle them to early retirement is a very costly and destructive factor for the entire system and for all the insured in the common pension scheme. The conclusions present the author’s views that inspire to revoke the majority of privileges and create a universal, uniform and coherent model of the social security system covering all professional groups. An exception in this area could only be particularly arduous or harmful working conditions that significantly affect health.

6

PRIVILEGED MOBILITY AND UN-MEDIATED CHOICE? THE CASE OF YOUNG PEOPLE LIVING IN TRANSNATIONAL LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS

67%

Stasińska A.

Studia Humanistyczne AGH

|

2019

|

vol. 18

|

issue 3

89-102

PL

W postmodernistycznych czasach, w których podkreśla się zjawiska, takie jak fl uidyzacja, indywidualizm i kosmopolityzm, mobilność staje się oczywista i naturalizowana, a jednocześnie społecznie pożądana i wymagana. Dlatego też, wykorzystując etnografi ę, warto przyjrzeć się indywidualnym doświadczeniom jednostki. Uczestnicy badań autorki to ludzie młodzi, wykształceni i mobilni, którzy realizują swoje marzenia i cele, mieszkając w dużych miastach. Są to Polacy, ludzie z Europy i poza jej granic, którzy utrzymują transnarodowe, intymne relacje na odległość. Ich kapitał społeczny i kulturowy oraz kulturowe kompetencje sprawiają, że można ich określić mianem grupy społecznie uprzywilejowanej. Antropologia migracji rozpoznałaby ich jako tych, którzy podróżują z wyboru, są więc reprezentantami migracji uprzywilejowanej, nie przymusowej. Na podstawie badań etnografi czne, przeprowadzone przez autorkę w latach 2016–2018, artykuł ten wykorzystuje perspektywę rozmówców oraz autoetnografi czną, by spojrzeć na pojęcie przywileju (Amit 2007) i jego ograniczeń przez pryzmat mobilności. By pokazać, w jaki sposób mobilność zakorzeniona jest w codziennym życiu uczestników badań oraz to w jaki sposób są oni uprzywilejowani, niniejszy artykuł prezentuje szczegółowy portret grupy badanej. Autorka stawia tezę, iż mobilność zdefi niowana jako jeden z najbardziej stratyfi kujących czynników (Bourdieu 1984), może być stosowana jako lustro odzwierciedlające pozycje w warstwach społecznych. W tym szczególnym kontekście etnografi cznym mobilność przestrzenną można postrzegać jako użyteczne narzędzie, które ujawnia społeczne i indywidualne wymiary uprzywilejowania osób, które żyją transnarodowych relacjach na odległość.

EN

The imperative to be mobile in today’s western societies can be interpreted as the individual’s need for mobility to accomplish individual plans and projects (Kesselring 2005).In postmodern times of emphasized fl uidifi cation, individualism and cosmopolitanism, mobility becomes self-evident and naturalized, yet socially desirable and anticipated. Therefore it is valuable to use ethnography to look at individual experiences. They are young, educated, and mobile, pursuing their dreams and goals while living in big cities: Poles and other (not only) European citizens who maintain transnational long-distance relationships create perfectly suitable representatives of the category of ‘privileged mobility’. This article is based on ethnographic fieldwork. I conducted in 2016–2018, and it employs an auto-ethnographic perspective in order to examine the notion of privilege (Amit 2007), with its borders and limitations, through the analytical lens of mobility. The article puts forward the perspective of my research participants and thus provides a detailed portrait of the researched group, in order to show how mobility is rooted in their everyday lives and how privileged they really are.I argue that mobility, defi ned as one of the most stratifying factors (Bourdieu 1984), can be applied as a mirror that refl ects position in the social strata. In this specifi c ethnographic context, spatial mobility can be seen as a useful tool, which exposes social and individual dimensions of being privileged while living in transnational long-distance relationships.

7

Město Brušperk v kontextu biskupských měst na severovýchodní Moravě

67%

Knopová K., Kocourek T.

Wieki Stare i Nowe

|

2022

|

vol. 17

|

issue 22

1-13

EN

The study deals with the development of Brušperk, which lies in northeastern Moravia. The town was founded in 1267-1268 by the Bishop of Olomouc, Bruno of Schauenburg. Brušperk was located in the territory that belonged to the Olomouc bishopric and since the 14th century was a part of the Hukvaldy manor. The first written mention of Brušperk comes from the founding charter of the town, which is, however, the medieval forgery. On the basis of other documents, we came to the conclusion that the dating of the founding document, namely 6 December 1269, is incorrect. The town was probably founded in prior to this date. Brušperk was founded as a town on the green land. Brušperk was the centre of jurisprudence for the surrounding villages: Fryčovice, Staříč, Paskov, and Stará Ves nad Ondřejnicí. This area is delimited by the so-called Brušperk vikbild to which these villages belonged. The town of Brušperk was endowed with important privileges, such as the privilege called in Czech odúmrť, the granting of which was very valuable to Brušperk. However, Brušperk was no exception; this privilege was granted by Bishop Mikuláš to most episcopal towns. The office of township reeve in Brušperk was most of the time hereditary and he was vassal of Bishop of Olomouc. The possibilities for where to conduct research in the future are still wide. In Brušperk itself, there is still a lack of detailed archaeological research in the city centre and its immediate surroundings, namely, the square, the cellars of old houses in the square, and the area around the church and the historic town centre. This archaeological research could bring new knowledge to the question of the fortifications of the town in the Middle Ages. Although the shape of the square has remained virtually unchanged since the Middle Ages, there is still the opportunity to learn, as no view or plan has been preserved from earlier times that the original appearance of the town would suggest (the oldest veduta Brušperka dates back to 1727).

PL

Artykuł dotyczy średniowiecznego osadnictwa miasta Brušperk w XIII-XV wieku oraz jego pozycji w posiadłościach hukwaldzkich i majątkach diecezji ołomunieckiej. Opisano w nim m.in. lokację miasta Brušperk, a także nadany jego mieszkańcom przywilej dziedzczenia majątku po zmarłym przez jego bliskich krewnych (právo odúmrti). Opracowanie opiera się przede wszystkim na badaniach literatury i źródeł historycznych.

8

The Legal Nature of the Act of Celebrating the Holy Mass

67%

Kasperowicz P.

Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Absolwentów i Przyjaciół Wydziału Prawa Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego

|

2023

|

vol. 18

|

issue 20 (2)

109-122

EN

The work aims to show the relationship that occurs between the church authority and the celebration of the Eucharist. It is worth emphasizing that concepts such as potestas, auctoritas or iurisdictio are still at an early stage of research development, and are inextricably linked to the mission of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, and constitute a specific heritage of the legal doctrine of the Church from which it is difficult to cut off when wanting to describe the issue in a canonical manner celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist. In addition, canonical concepts such as bring, right, authorization, or duty allow a better understanding of the nature of the power necessary to celebrate the Holy Mass.

PL

Praca ma na celu pokazanie relacji, jaka zachodzi pomiędzy władzą kościelną a celebrowaniem Eucharystii. Warto podkreślić, że takie pojęcia jak potestas, auctoritas czy iurisdictio są wciąż we wczesnym stadium rozwoju badań, a nieodłącznie wiążą się z misją głoszenia Ewangelii i sprawowania sakramentów oraz stanowią specyficzne dziedzictwo doktryny prawnej Kościoła, od którego trudno się odcinać chcąc opisywać na sposób kanoniczny zagadnienie celebracji sakramentu Eucharystii. Ponadto kanoniczne pojęcia takie jak przywiej, uprawnienie, upoważnienie czy obowiązek umożliwiają lepsze zrozumienie natury władzy niezbędnej do sprawowania Mszy św.

9

Nieznany przywilej odpustowy dla parafii św. Mikołaja i św. Barbary w Radzimiu (AGAD, sygn. Dok. Perg. 7410)

67%

Skoczyński M.

Studia Lednickie

|

2019

|

vol. 18

135-149

EN

A previously unknown document, which contains an indulgence privilege for the parish church of St. Nicolas and St. Barbara in Radzim (signature Dok. Perg. 7410), can be found in the repertory of the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. On the basis of the external and internal features of the diploma it has been concluded that it was issued on 20 March 1499 in Cracow, at the time of the sejm. The Primate of Poland, the Archbishop of Gniezno and the Bishop of Cracow Cardinal Frederick Jagiellon, the archbishop of Lviv Andrzej Róża from Boryszewice, Krzesław Kurozwęcki the Kujawski bishop, the bishop of Poznań Jan Lubrański, the bishop of Oradea Mare (Gran Varadino, Nagyvárad) Domokos Kálmáncsehi, the bishop of Chełm Maciej from Stara Łomża, the bishop of Warmia Łukasz Watzenrode and the titular bishop of Aenus and the Poznań suffragan Wojciech from Bydgoszcz were the issuers of the document. The document was issued on the request of the then provost in Radzim, the Canon of Poznań Jan from Góra. It guaranteed in total 140 days of indulgence for the believers who visited the temples on certain days and who said Our Father and Hail Mary prayers for the unity and peace of the Catholic Church and peace of the Kingdom of Poland. An indulgence could also be obtained after donating to the parish the books, grails and church equipment on those dates. Indulgences assigned to the church, despite their attractiveness, did not function long in the awareness of the local community and in the 17th century the anniversary of dedication was the only indulgence day which was celebrated. The document was later sent to the archive of the Radzivills in Nieśwież, and then further in the 20th century to the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw.

10

Przestępczość polityczna - zarys problematyki

60%

Falandysz L., Poklewski- Koziełł K.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1989

|

issue XVI

189-210

EN

The interest in political crime has been growing in the Polish doctrine of penal law and criminology of the 1980's. In 1982, the Institute of Penal Law of Warsaw university organized a conference dealing with the problems of political crime and the status of political prisoners. In 1984, the works of J. Kubiak and S. Hoc were published, with those of T. Szymanowski and S. Popławski to follow during the next two years. In 1986, articles by Z. Ciepiński and S. Pawela appeared in the organ of the Academy’s of Internal Affairs Institute of Law, and the Learned Society for Penal Law devoted one of its 1987 session to the problems of political crime. The present paper formulates and develops the main threads of the lectures delivered in 1982 and 1987 by the present authors. Accepting the opinions of O. Kirchheimer and S. Schafer, classical in a sense, as to the extreme complexity of political crime and the impossibility of formulating a universal criterion basing on which such crime might be distinguished, we give an outline of the chief elements of that interesting social phenomenon. The oldest Roman legal constructions of proditio and perduellio were transformed during the period of empire into crimen leasae maiestatis, an institution that was to persist for centuries to come in the shape of offences against state or the ruler. The origins of the modern history of political crime as a separate legal category date back to the end of the 18th century and the changes brought about by the French Revolution. In the early half of the 19th century, France and Belgium were the first to grant to political offences a privileged status among prohibited acts, introducing the competence of assizes, a separate system of penalties, and abolishing death penalty towards political offenders; this also took place in several other European countries. The privilege of political offences was based mainly on their distinct motives and their perpetrators personality traits. The 19th-century optimism and romanticism of approach towards political crime paled in the late half of the century as the surge of anarchistic and revolutionary movements grew. The legal status of a political offender started to worsen; the great 20th-century dictatorships were tragic to their real and supposed antagonists, treated with particular severity so as to terrify the citizens. In about two centuries of modern history, the legal category of political offence went through all possible extremes: now the time has come to reconsider it. A general, universal and timeless definition of political offence does not seem possible, even the most extreme of its forms being relativistic. Offenders called by some ,,terrorists’’ are ,,fighters for liberty’’ in the eyes of others. On the other hand, state terror is sometimes given the neutral name of ,,special operation’’ or ,,new policy’’. Last of all, one might also say quoting the extreme section of radical criminology that there is a political entanglement to all offences, administration of justice being an instrument of politics. Also the opposite is sometimes contended, namely, that political crime does not exist at all, enemies of the system being common criminals or madmen. There is also a marked trend to exclude terrorism, war crimes, and genocide from the discussed definition. In international law, the notion of political crime is purely functional: the separate states base on it when refusing extradition and granting political asylum. As regards the internal penal legislation, some states only distinguish political offence as a legal notion. There are in the doctrine of penal law three basic methods of defining that notion. According to the objective approach, the kind good being assaulted constitutes the essence of political crime: thus the group of such acts is restricted to direct attempts against the state's basic political interests only. According to the second conception, the subjective one political crime is any prohibited act committed for political motives or to political end. The third, mixed theory consists in taking both these aspects into account: the interest protected by law and the perpetrator's ideological motivation or aims which cannot be recognized as censurable. Additionally, the preponderance or domination theory allows for a punishable act to be recognized as a political offence if political elements prove to have predominated in the given circumstances, aims, and motives. Robert Merton's was the most successful attempt to characterize a political (nonconformist) offender. Contrary to the common offender, his political counterpart 1) makes no effort whatever to hide his infringement of norms he repudiates or questions as to their legal validity; 2) he wants to replace the norms he considers wrong with other norms based on a different moral foundation; 3) his aims are completely or largely disinterested; 4) he is commonly perceived as quite different a person than a common offender. If we broaden the notion of ,,nonconformist" by adding adjectives like ,,religious" and ,,ethical" to it, we bring it closer to that of ,,convictional criminal" used by Schafer and of ,,prisoner of conscience" used by the Amnesty International. The radical trends in sociology and criminology of the recent decades brought an important element to change the aproach to political crime: an opinion is promoted that the state itself is the main source of that crime as it may use every possible legal norm and institution to fight its opponents. As opposed to the two countries where the conception of political criminals separate status was born, France and Belgium - discussed particularly broadly by the authors of lectures - the United States repudiate in their law and law courts decisions the existence of political crime. Instead, there is ,,civil disobedience'' which, together with the specifically American constitutional mechanisms, constitutes an instrument of the struggle for the protection of civil rights and liberties. The fact is stressed in the legal and criminological literature that a refusal to recognize the political character of acts that deserve such recognition contributes to the discredit of administration of justice as the establishment's political instrument. At the same time, various methods of illegal ,,neutralization" of political opponents are brought to light, including the so-called dirty tricks of the FBI and the different forms of abuse of authority by the CIA. In Great Britain, there is according to the official standpoint no political crime in the light of penal law. But the problem itself does exist in practice which is evidenced among others by the quest - a feverish one at times - after the measure to control the difficulties resulting from it; among such measures, there are administrative acts or on appropriate interpretation of the existing regulations, e.g. rules of imprisonment. The doctrine of penal law and criminology do not seem too interested in the discussed problem; its treatment by L. Radzinowicz and R. Hood is no doubt an exception, particularly if we consider the fates of the activists of the three socio-political movements before World War I: Chartists who fought for workmen’s rights, Fenians who demanded the grant of rights to the Irish, and suffragists. Despite the fact that the problem is only treated in its historical aspect, materials of immediate interest can be drawn from its analysis. In the Federal Republic of Germany, political crime lacks a separate status: yet a growth in the interest in such crime can be observed. This was particularly true in the seventies and was due to the activities of terrorist groups and to students protests. Also G. Radbruch’s conception of ,,convictional criminal’’ plays a certain part there, among intellectuals with leftist tendencies above all. Also in that country, the discussion grows especially important about the relation between the powerful and the powerless. Another significant point is H. J. Schneider’s demand for the problems of political crime to be granted a privileged position in criminological research. Considering the aspects of that crime in their broad interpretation, Schneider found it possible to include both terrorism and genocide in his discussion; thus, for the first time ever, a profound treatment of Nazi crimes was included in the West-German criminology. In Poland, after the country regained independence in 1918, several different laws were in force for over ten years concerning political crime and prisoners, in a difficult internal situation. In 1931, uniform rules of imprisonment entered into force which provided for no mitigation for political prisoners. The penalty of arrest, introduced by the 1932 penal code admittedly included certain elements of the status of a political prisoner, but the opposition’s struggle for its proper formulation went on till the outbreak of World War II. After the war, ,,counter-revolutionaries’’ and ,,traitors of the nation’’ were treated with utmost severity. This situation in which political opponents were so treated on a mass scale ended with the fall of Stalinism. The recent Polish discussion about the notion and status of political prisoner dates from the events of 1980-1981. Many were not aware at that time that there had been in the 1970’s in Poland a partial legal regulation of the special status of persons defined as perpetrators of political offences. It followed from the fact that Poland ratified in 1958 the ILO Convention No. 105 and that in consequence, the Minister of Justice issued an appropriate order. In the provisions of the decree (issued on the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981) on remittal and forgiveness of certain offences, those ,,committed for political reasons’’ were mentioned amond others. Thus the lawyers could argue that the notion of political offence was know to the legislator, the only problem consisting in providing a more detailed legal regulation of that sphere. But the authorities chose a different solution. At the beginning, those convicted of the sc-called ,non-criminal" acts were granted an actual (and not legal) status of political prisoners. Later on, most of such persons were released from prison by the terms of the succeeding amnesty acts. in 1986, the Act on ,,decriminalization'' transferred the competence to decide in most of those cases to misdemeanour courts. The interest in the problems of political crime, increased since 1982, still persists in the circles of the Polish doctrine of penal law and criminology. There is a general trend to give that notion a broader interpretation as compared with the present doctrine of penal law which practically limits its range to offences against the state's basic political and economic interests only. We believe the Polish doctrine of penal law; criminology and legislation in Poland now face at least three basic questions: 1) whether to introduce into the law a special status of political offenders and prisoners in its traditional construction; 2) whether to recognize similarly a privileged legal situation of a larger group of ,,ideological nonconformists" mentioned by the ILO Convention No. 105;3) whether and to what extent to include in the notion of political offence the prohibited acts committed by state functionaries while exercising authority.

PL

The interest in political crime has been growing in the Polish doctrine of penal law and criminology of the 1980's. In 1982, the Institute of Penal Law of Warsaw university organized a conference dealing with the problems of political crime and the status of political prisoners. In 1984, the works of J. Kubiak and S. Hoc were published, with those of T. Szymanowski and S. Popławski to follow during the next two years. In 1986, articles by Z. Ciepiński and S. Pawela appeared in the organ of the Academy’s of Internal Affairs Institute of Law, and the Learned Society for Penal Law devoted one of its 1987 session to the problems of political crime. The present paper formulates and develops the main threads of the lectures delivered in 1982 and 1987 by the present authors. Accepting the opinions of O. Kirchheimer and S. Schafer, classical in a sense, as to the extreme complexity of political crime and the impossibility of formulating a universal criterion basing on which such crime might be distinguished, we give an outline of the chief elements of that interesting social phenomenon. The oldest Roman legal constructions of proditio and perduellio were transformed during the period of empire into crimen leasae maiestatis, an institution that was to persist for centuries to come in the shape of offences against state or the ruler. The origins of the modern history of political crime as a separate legal category date back to the end of the 18th century and the changes brought about by the French Revolution. In the early half of the 19th century, France and Belgium were the first to grant to political offences a privileged status among prohibited acts, introducing the competence of assizes, a separate system of penalties, and abolishing death penalty towards political offenders; this also took place in several other European countries. The privilege of political offences was based mainly on their distinct motives and their perpetrators personality traits. The 19th-century optimism and romanticism of approach towards political crime paled in the late half of the century as the surge of anarchistic and revolutionary movements grew. The legal status of a political offender started to worsen; the great 20th-century dictatorships were tragic to their real and supposed antagonists, treated with particular severity so as to terrify the citizens. In about two centuries of modern history, the legal category of political offence went through all possible extremes: now the time has come to reconsider it. A general, universal and timeless definition of political offence does not seem possible, even the most extreme of its forms being relativistic. Offenders called by some ,,terrorists’’ are ,,fighters for liberty’’ in the eyes of others. On the other hand, state terror is sometimes given the neutral name of ,,special operation’’ or ,,new policy’’. Last of all, one might also say quoting the extreme section of radical criminology that there is a political entanglement to all offences, administration of justice being an instrument of politics. Also the opposite is sometimes contended, namely, that political crime does not exist at all, enemies of the system being common criminals or madmen. There is also a marked trend to exclude terrorism, war crimes, and genocide from the discussed definition. In international law, the notion of political crime is purely functional: the separate states base on it when refusing extradition and granting political asylum. As regards the internal penal legislation, some states only distinguish political offence as a legal notion. There are in the doctrine of penal law three basic methods of defining that notion. According to the objective approach, the kind good being assaulted constitutes the essence of political crime: thus the group of such acts is restricted to direct attempts against the state's basic political interests only. According to the second conception, the subjective one political crime is any prohibited act committed for political motives or to political end. The third, mixed theory consists in taking both these aspects into account: the interest protected by law and the perpetrator's ideological motivation or aims which cannot be recognized as censurable. Additionally, the preponderance or domination theory allows for a punishable act to be recognized as a political offence if political elements prove to have predominated in the given circumstances, aims, and motives. Robert Merton's was the most successful attempt to characterize a political (nonconformist) offender. Contrary to the common offender, his political counterpart 1) makes no effort whatever to hide his infringement of norms he repudiates or questions as to their legal validity; 2) he wants to replace the norms he considers wrong with other norms based on a different moral foundation; 3) his aims are completely or largely disinterested; 4) he is commonly perceived as quite different a person than a common offender. If we broaden the notion of ,,nonconformist" by adding adjectives like ,,religious" and ,,ethical" to it, we bring it closer to that of ,,convictional criminal" used by Schafer and of ,,prisoner of conscience" used by the Amnesty International. The radical trends in sociology and criminology of the recent decades brought an important element to change the aproach to political crime: an opinion is promoted that the state itself is the main source of that crime as it may use every possible legal norm and institution to fight its opponents. As opposed to the two countries where the conception of political criminals separate status was born, France and Belgium - discussed particularly broadly by the authors of lectures - the United States repudiate in their law and law courts decisions the existence of political crime. Instead, there is ,,civil disobedience'' which, together with the specifically American constitutional mechanisms, constitutes an instrument of the struggle for the protection of civil rights and liberties. The fact is stressed in the legal and criminological literature that a refusal to recognize the political character of acts that deserve such recognition contributes to the discredit of administration of justice as the establishment's political instrument. At the same time, various methods of illegal ,,neutralization" of political opponents are brought to light, including the so-called dirty tricks of the FBI and the different forms of abuse of authority by the CIA. In Great Britain, there is according to the official standpoint no political crime in the light of penal law. But the problem itself does exist in practice which is evidenced among others by the quest - a feverish one at times - after the measure to control the difficulties resulting from it; among such measures, there are administrative acts or on appropriate interpretation of the existing regulations, e.g. rules of imprisonment. The doctrine of penal law and criminology do not seem too interested in the discussed problem; its treatment by L. Radzinowicz and R. Hood is no doubt an exception, particularly if we consider the fates of the activists of the three socio-political movements before World War I: Chartists who fought for workmen’s rights, Fenians who demanded the grant of rights to the Irish, and suffragists. Despite the fact that the problem is only treated in its historical aspect, materials of immediate interest can be drawn from its analysis. In the Federal Republic of Germany, political crime lacks a separate status: yet a growth in the interest in such crime can be observed. This was particularly true in the seventies and was due to the activities of terrorist groups and to students protests. Also G. Radbruch’s conception of ,,convictional criminal’’ plays a certain part there, among intellectuals with leftist tendencies above all. Also in that country, the discussion grows especially important about the relation between the powerful and the powerless. Another significant point is H. J. Schneider’s demand for the problems of political crime to be granted a privileged position in criminological research. Considering the aspects of that crime in their broad interpretation, Schneider found it possible to include both terrorism and genocide in his discussion; thus, for the first time ever, a profound treatment of Nazi crimes was included in the West-German criminology. In Poland, after the country regained independence in 1918, several different laws were in force for over ten years concerning political crime and prisoners, in a difficult internal situation. In 1931, uniform rules of imprisonment entered into force which provided for no mitigation for political prisoners. The penalty of arrest, introduced by the 1932 penal code admittedly included certain elements of the status of a political prisoner, but the opposition’s struggle for its proper formulation went on till the outbreak of World War II. After the war, ,,counter-revolutionaries’’ and ,,traitors of the nation’’ were treated with utmost severity. This situation in which political opponents were so treated on a mass scale ended with the fall of Stalinism. The recent Polish discussion about the notion and status of political prisoner dates from the events of 1980-1981. Many were not aware at that time that there had been in the 1970’s in Poland a partial legal regulation of the special status of persons defined as perpetrators of political offences. It followed from the fact that Poland ratified in 1958 the ILO Convention No. 105 and that in consequence, the Minister of Justice issued an appropriate order. In the provisions of the decree (issued on the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981) on remittal and forgiveness of certain offences, those ,,committed for political reasons’’ were mentioned amond others. Thus the lawyers could argue that the notion of political offence was know to the legislator, the only problem consisting in providing a more detailed legal regulation of that sphere. But the authorities chose a different solution. At the beginning, those convicted of the sc-called ,non-criminal" acts were granted an actual (and not legal) status of political prisoners. Later on, most of such persons were released from prison by the terms of the succeeding amnesty acts. in 1986, the Act on ,,decriminalization'' transferred the competence to decide in most of those cases to misdemeanour courts. The interest in the problems of political crime, increased since 1982, still persists in the circles of the Polish doctrine of penal law and criminology. There is a general trend to give that notion a broader interpretation as compared with the present doctrine of penal law which practically limits its range to offences against the state's basic political and economic interests only. We believe the Polish doctrine of penal law; criminology and legislation in Poland now face at least three basic questions: 1) whether to introduce into the law a special status of political offenders and prisoners in its traditional construction; 2) whether to recognize similarly a privileged legal situation of a larger group of ,,ideological nonconformists" mentioned by the ILO Convention No. 105;3) whether and to what extent to include in the notion of political offence the prohibited acts committed by state functionaries while exercising authority.

11

Nieznany dyplom Przemysława I Noszaka, księcia cieszyńskiego, z 1380 roku. Przyczynek do pochodzenia Mazańcowskich z Mazańcowic vel Lhotskich z Lhoty (Ligocki z Ligoty)

59%

Gojniczek W.

Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne

|

2021

|

vol. 13

68-81

EN

Archival research in modern sources often brings discoveries of copies of known and unknown medieval documents. Wacław Gojniczek’s research conducted in the State Archives in Bielsko-Biała found an oblata (i.e., the entry of a legal act in court books) of a diploma from 1380. The owner of the document received its widymat (a vidimus, an attested copy) in 1603, and in the same year submitted it to the chancellery of the Bielsko-Biała state lord in order to have it entered in the book of protocols of the Bielsko state country. The document was issued by Przemysław I Noszak, Duke of Cieszyn and Wielki Głogów. The diploma shows that the duke confirmed all of the previously established privileges for the owners of the village of Mazańcowice, located near Bielsko: knights Lenart, Paszek, and Miczek, sons of Wilhelm known as Swidoniczer. The original was written in German on parchment on May 8th 1380 in Skoczów. Wacław Gojniczek submits the hypothesis that the knights from Mazańcowice from the end of the fourteenth century could have been the ancestors of the Lhotski nobility family from Lhota, who in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century were the owners of Mazańcowice.

DE

Bei Archivrecherchen in neuzeitlichen Quellen werden häufig Kopien bekannter und unbekannter mittelalterlicher Dokumente entdeckt. Bei einer Recherche im Staatsarchiv in Bielitz-Biala (Bielsko-Biała) wurde eine Kopie des Diploms aus dem Jahre 1380 aufgefunden. Der Besitzer der Urkunde erhielt dessen Vidimus im Jahre 1603 und reichte es in demselben Jahr bei der Kanzlei des Bielitzer Standesherrn ein, um es in das Protokollbuch der Bielitzer Standesherrschaft eintragen zu lassen. Der Aussteller des Dokuments war Przemislaus I. Noszak, Herzog von Teschen und Gross-Glogau. Laut der Urkunde bestätigte der Herzog alle zuvor erteilten Privilegien für die Besitzer des Dorfes Mazańcowice in der Nähe von Bielitz - die Ritter Lenart, Paszek und Miczek, Söhne von Wilhelm, Swidoniczer genannt. Das Original wurde in deutscher Sprache am 8. Mai 1380 in Skotschau (Skoczów) auf Pergament erstellt. In dem Artikel wird eine Hypothese aufgestellt, dass die Ritter aus Mazańcowice vom Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts die Vorfahren der Adelsfamilie Lhotski aus Lhota gewesen sein könnten, die Mazańcowice im 16. und zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts besaß.

PL

Kwerenda archiwalna w źródłach nowożytnych nierzadko przynosi odkrycia odpisów znanych i nieznanych średniowiecznych dokumentów. W trakcie prowadzenia kwerendy w Archiwum Państwowym w Bielsku-Białej odnaleziono oblatę dyplomu z 1380 roku. Właściciel dokumentu w 1603 roku otrzymał jego widymat, a ten tegoż roku przedłożył w kancelarii bielskiego pana stanowego w celu jego oblatowania w księdze protokołów bielskiego państwa stanowego. Wystawcą dokumentu był Przemysław I Noszak, książę cieszyński i Wielkiego Głogowa. Z dyplomu wynika, że książę potwierdził wszystkie wcześniej ustanowione przywileje dla właścicieli wioski Mazańcowice leżącej w pobliżu Bielska – rycerzom Lenartowi, Paszkowi i Miczkowi, synom Wilhelma zwanego Swidoniczer. Oryginał spisano w języku niemieckim na pergaminie w dniu 8 maja 1380 roku w Skoczowie. W artykule postawiono hipotezę, że rycerze z Mazańcowic z końca XIV wieku mogli być przodkami szlacheckiej rodziny Lhotskich z Lhoty, którzy w XVI i w początkach następnego stulecia byli właścicielami Mazańcowic.

12

Kiedy i gdzie została wystawiona Chilandarska povelja Stefana Nemanjicia?

51%

Szefliński B.

Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia

|

2019

|

vol. 26

93-104

EN

The so-called Second Charter for Hilandar given by Stephen Nemanjić is one of the oldest Serbian documents that preserved to our times. It dates itself on 29th September, but without any year or indiction. Since the publishing of Aleksandar Solovjev's paper in 1925 it had been commonly accepted that the charter was given before 1202 because Stephen Nemanjić could name himself the son-in-law of emperor Alexios III Angelos only before the divorce with Eudokia Angelina. However, in 2010 Đorđe Bubalo has noticed that two later inscriptions – discovered after Solovjev's research – also emphasizes family connections between Nemanjić dynasty and Alexios, so the argument used by Solovjev cannot be held. Therefore, Bubalo has reanalysed the charter and suggested a new dating – to 1207-1208. However, one of his arguments – the Second Charter for Hilandar was used by Sava Nemanjić when writing the Life of Blessed Symeon – has lost its strength as such a relation between these texts is questioned in the newest research. Therefore, the objective of the hereby paper is to provide a new analysis of the Second Charter for Hilandar focused on when and (for the first time) where the document was given. The conclusion is that it happened after the hierophany of St Symeon – most probably on 29th September 1210 in the Hilandar monastery.

PL

Tak zwana Druga chilandarska povelja Stefana Nemanjicia jest jednym z najstarszych serbskich dokumentów zachowanych do naszych czasów. Jest ona opatrzona datą 29 IX, ale bez żadnego roku ani indykcji. Od publikacji artykułu Aleksandara Solovjeva w 1925 r. powszechnie przyjmowano, że przywilej został wystawiony przed 1202 r., ponieważ Stefan Nemanjić mógł nazwać siebie zięciem cesarza Aleksego III Angelosa jedynie przed rozwodem z Eudoksją Angeliną. Jednak w 2010 r. Đorđe Bubalo zauważył, że dwie późniejsze inskrypcje – odkryte po badaniach Solovjeva – również podkreślają powiązania rodzinne pomiędzy dynastią Nemanjiciów a Aleksym, więc argument Solovjeva nie może zostać utrzymany. Z tego powodu Bubalo ponownie przeanalizował przywilej i zaproponował nowe datowanie – na lata 1207-1208. Jednak jeden z jego argumentów – Druga chilandarska povelja wykorzystana przez Sawę przy pisaniu Żywota błogosławionego Symeona – stracił swoją siłę, gdyż taki związek pomiędzy tekstami został zakwestionowany w najnowszych badaniach. Z tego powodu celem niniejszego artykułu jest dostarczenie nowej analizy Drugiej chilandarskiej povelji skoncentrowanej na tym, kiedy i (po raz pierwszy) gdzie dokument został wystawiony. W konkluzji stwierdzono, że miało to miejsce po hierofanii św. Symeona – najprawdopodobniej 29 IX 1210 r. w Chilandarze.

Refine search results

Przywilej księżnej Katarzyny i jej synów dla Kożuchowa z 1419 roku.

Zasady ustania przywileju ujęte w kan. 82 KPK

Chrystianizacja prawa po „edykcie mediolańskim”

Borzykowski przywilej immunitetowy – na drodze do emancypacji kościoła w Polsce piastowskiej

Issue of privileges in the social security system. Part 2

PRIVILEGED MOBILITY AND UN-MEDIATED CHOICE? THE CASE OF YOUNG PEOPLE LIVING IN TRANSNATIONAL LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS

Město Brušperk v kontextu biskupských měst na severovýchodní Moravě

The Legal Nature of the Act of Celebrating the Holy Mass

Nieznany przywilej odpustowy dla parafii św. Mikołaja i św. Barbary w Radzimiu (AGAD, sygn. Dok. Perg. 7410)

Przestępczość polityczna - zarys problematyki

Nieznany dyplom Przemysława I Noszaka, księcia cieszyńskiego, z 1380 roku. Przyczynek do pochodzenia Mazańcowskich z Mazańcowic vel Lhotskich z Lhoty (Ligocki z Ligoty)

Kiedy i gdzie została wystawiona Chilandarska povelja Stefana Nemanjicia?