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

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  uzasadnienie wyroku
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The paper analyses the right to a court in the context of the right to reasons for judgment. In the proceedings before the administrative courts in cases, in which the complaint has been dismissed, reasons for judgment shall be given at the request of a party filed within seven days from the day of pronouncement of the judgment or delivery of a transcript of its operative part of the judgment. Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is necessary to appeal against this judgment. However, the courts often refuse to prepare it. The courts state that the request for reasons has not been submitted in time-limit prescribed by law. The parties often fail to meet the time-limit, because of misunderstanding of court’s instructions. Those instructions are given on the standard form, together with the information about the date of the hearing. The standard form is not clear and do not precisely show the correct way of party’s behavior. The paper postulate that it could be remedied by establishment of clear rules of conduct.
Język Polski
|
2023
|
vol. 103
|
issue 1
20-35
EN
The paper focuses on the rhetorical and performative aspects of judicial discourse, highlighting in particular the generic properties of judgments and the dialogic nature of legal justification. Using the tripartite model of concession (Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson; Barth-Weingarten) designed for the analysis of spoken interaction, it demonstrates that legal justification exhibits features of dialogic discourse – including the presence of anticipatory rebuttal (anteoccupatio) and acknowledgment (concessio) – and may therefore be interpreted as a “mute dialogue” with the evoked adversary.
PL
Niniejsze opracowanie wskazuje na pragmatyczno-retoryczne elementy dyskursu sądowego. W szczególności zwraca uwagę na cechy gatunkowe wyroku i dialogiczny charakter uzasadnień wyroków. W analizie wykorzystano trójsegmentowy model koncesywności (Couper-Kuhlen i Thompson; Barth-Weingarten), opracowany z myślą o analizie interakcji mówionej, i pokazano, że wyroki mają cechy dyskursu dialogicznego, w którym występują strategie uprzedzania kontrargumentów (anteoccupatio) oraz pozornej zgody (concessio). Analiza dowodzi ponadto, że uzasadnienia wyroków można postrzegać jako „niemy dialog” prowadzony z nieobecnym adwersarzem.
EN
The article concerns the problem of the statement of reasons, in case of non-applying an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty. According to Article 424 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has to justify applying an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty. The author proves that the court also has to justify non-applying an extraordinary mitigation of the penalty, in case of “situations provided for in a statute” (Article 60 § 1 of the Penal Code) or it is possible that perpetrator fulfilled the conditions of obligatory extraordinary mitigation of the penalty (e.g. Article 60 § 3 of the Penal Code).
PL
W opracowaniu opisano problem uzasadnienia niestosowania nadzwyczajnego złagodzenia kary w wyroku skazującym. Zgodnie z art. 424 § 2 k.p.k. wyjaśnienia wymaga przede wszystkim uzasadnienie stosowania tej konstrukcji. Autor podaje argumenty na rzecz tezy, iż sąd jest zobowiązany do uzasadnienia nieskorzystania z nadzwyczajnego złagodzenia kary, gdy w sprawie wystąpił „wypadek przewidziany w ustawie” (art. 60 § 1 k.k.) lub prawdopodobne jest spełnienie przez sprawcę przesłanek podstawy obligatoryjnego nadzwyczajnego złagodzenia (np. art. 60 § 3 k.k.).
EN
The subject of this work is the issue of the constitutionality of § 9522 of the Rules of Procedure of Common Courts. Based on the analysis of regulations in the field of criminal proceedings, the author tries to demonstrate the non-compliance of this provision with the principle of the right to defence, the principle of the right to an effective remedy, the principle of the exclusivity of the act and the prohibition of creating apparent powers, and, therefore, proposes its own, different regulation of this issue, which would allow for compliance of national regulations with the standards of fair trial.
PL
Procedural formalism requires conformity to requirements concerning the approach to procedural measures as to the form, location, and time of their commencement. The timely completion of each procedural measure, including applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification thereof, remains a condition for its effectiveness. It goes without saying that the court will reject any delayed application for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification in closed session – whereas discrepancies in adjudicature as well as doctrine doubts have arisen with regard to effects of filing “premature” applications. It has been ultimately ruled that any applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification filed on the day of yet prior to judgment delivery shall be considered ineffective. The judgment only exists once it has been delivered or once its operative part has been signed, i.a. it can only become the object of other procedural measures as of that moment rather than as of that day. Every period defined as a specific time span has to be framed with occurrences outlining its beginning and end, respectively. It is impossible to calculate a period as of a procedural measure which has not been completed yet. Since the securing of a justification of a judgment delivered in one’s own case is an expression of exercising the right to fair trial, and aspects of the right to trial include the right to a defect-free judgment, such right ought to be exercised only provided that the relevant application moved for is defect-free as well. Making the effectiveness of an application for the drafting and submitting of judgment justification dependent on the delivery of the operative part of a judgment concerns both the act of filing a letter with the court and submitting the same at an operator’s postal premises.
PL
Jednym z elementów prawa do sądu jest wywodzone z prawa do odpowiedniego ukształtowania procedury sądowej prawo jednostki do rzetelnego uzasadnienia rozstrzygnięcia w sprawie. Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że jest to element kluczowy w sprawach, w których sąd orzeka o prawach i wolnościach jednostki wyznaczając ich granice. W wyroku z 9 marca 2023 r. w sprawie Cupiał przeciwko Polsce Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka oceniając zarzut naruszenia prawa do rzetelnej procedury sądowej, podkreślił szczególną rolę właściwego uzasadnienia wyroku. Autorka postrzega ten wymóg za jedną z podstawowych gwarancji poszanowania praw i wolności jednostki, którymi w kontekście omawianej sprawy jest wolność sumienia i religii oraz prawo do zapewnienia dzieciom wychowania i nauczania moralnego i religijnego zgodnie ze swoimi przekonaniami. Analiza wskazanego zagadnienia dokonana została w oparciu o metodę dogmatyczno-prawną.
EN
One of the elements of the right to a fair trial is the right of the individual to a reliable justification of the decision in the case, derived from the right to the appropriate shaping of the court procedure. The aim of the article is to show that this is a key element in cases where the court adjudicates the rights and freedoms of an individual, setting their limits. In the judgment of March 9, 2023, in the case of Cupial against Poland, the European Court of Human Rights emphasized the special role of a reliable justification of the judgment. The author considers this requirement as one of the fundamental guarantees of respecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, which in the context of the discussed case is the freedom of conscience and religion, and the right to ensure children a religious upbringing in accordance with parents convictions. The analysis of the indicated issue was made on the basis of the dogmatic-legal method.
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.