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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Obrona z urzędu w stadium wykonawczym w świetle projektu ustawy z dnia 27 września 2013 r. o zmianie ustawy — Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw

100%
Chabier P.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2013
|
vol. 30
247 - 263
EN
The article raises the issue of influence of the proposed changes of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the Executive Criminal Code with regard to public defence for sentenced persons. According to the current regulation, a sentenced person can defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of his own choice or, if they do not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free. The author notes that the proposal of penal procedure reform will automatically change (through the use of Article 1 para. 2 of the Executive Criminal Code) the executive procedure. Sentenced persons will therefore not be obliged to prove their indigence to receive a public defender. They will only need to submit a simple application for a public defender without any further explanations. The only difficulty may be an application fee in the amount of 600 PLN. Having regard to the approval by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of the revision of the abovementioned law on 30 August 2013, the Marshal of the Sejm submitted an adopted bill to the President of the Republic of Poland for signature. The amendment is expected to enter into force at the beginning of July 2015.
2

Z problematyki obrony obligatoryjnej w świetle nowelizacji kodeksu karnego wykonawczego z dnia 16 września 2011 r.

100%
Chabier P.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2012
|
vol. 28
173-185
EN
The aim of the present article was to search for the answer: why did the legislator only on 16 September 2011 incorporate the changes into the Executive Criminal Code regarding the indications for receiving mandatory defence. The author also sought the occasion to discuss the questions arising from such measure: to what extent do the norms providing for the obligation of defence in the Executive Criminal Code commeasure with the norms included in the Code of Criminal Procedure, what kind of standards for mandatory defence are already set, i.e. by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland case law, what are the conditions for mandatory defence in executive procedure, or what arethe limits towards the right to choose defence counsel. The results of the analysis — in the matter suggested in this article — became the basis for formulating the conclusion that one of the most important issues of mandatory defence is that the incorporated changes opened a wide range of new possibilities both to a judge and a convict. Nonetheless, the prospects of those changes are truly luminous.
3

Orzecznictwo Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka a prawo do korespondencji skazanego i tymczasowo aresztowanego

63%
Chabier P., Kwieciński A.
Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego
|
2013
|
vol. 29
147 - 172
EN
The article focuses on the exercise of the right to correspondence by persons held in penitentiaries. The author’s analysis of the latest changes in this respect not only is based on the national regulations but is also performed in terms of their compliance with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. A particular emphasis is put on the admissible restrictions in prisoners’ or detainees’ correspondence with their lawyers, public authorities, court authorities, legislators, law enforcement agencies and international organisations for the protection of human rights.
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.