In the literature and jurisprudence there are distinguished two opposite principles ruling over revealing the truth: a material truth principle (objective) and a formal truth principle (procedural). In the proceedings based on the material truth principle, judicial decisions in the matter of the actual state should reflect the reality. The judge aims to clarify all circumstances essential to solve a case in order to reveal a really existing legal relation bounding both parties to litigation. On the other hand, in proceedings based on the formal truth principle, judicial decisions in the matter of the actual state should only reflect the factual material and evidence gathered by the parties. In the study there is presented an evolution of norms and doctrinal opinions in the matter of the endeavor to establish the truth in civil proceedings connected with amendments to the Civil Procedure Code in 1996, 2000, 2005 and 2012.
The ethos of the lawyer in western societies is mainly founded on a culture of the Enlightenment. In effect, it tends to treat law in a purely rational and instrumental manner. The Law and Literature movement, as opposed to this traditional approach, searches for lost dimensions of the lawyer’s ethos, trying to discover interpretative, rhetoric and narrative aspects in the practice of law.
The aim of the article is to present how the material truth principle will change according to an amendment to the Polish Criminal Procedure Code, which will come into force on 1st January 2015. The amendment reduces an inquisitorial role that court plays under current regulations by transfering a duty of introducing evidence to litigators. In this article there is an attempt to present possible dangers connected with such regulations. Specifically, the major stress was put onto answering the question how the public prosecution would tackle that issue and how it would influence the material truth principle. The author attempted to show that a dispute about making criminal procedure more contradictorial is in fact a conflict between basic principles of criminal trial, which is the material truth priciple. and effectiveness directive.
The feminist critics of western epistemology reveal political implications of a conception of truth. As a consequence of this a legal process is also in a broad sense inflicted by politics. The feminist jurisprudence claims that the modern law is founded on patriarchal values and interests and neglects voices of social groups which are located on the edge of the society.
Coherent thoughts about the truth seem to be more difficult than about any other abstract concepts. According to some fundamental presuppositions, the truth should be one and in a sense unchangeable. On the other hand, even a simple observation suggests something opposite – the truth seems to be variable and relative and that is why given in some different, alternative forms. The paper deals with all the above mentioned problems and other relative ones concerning the truth. The entire discussion coincides with an ancient dictum being the title of the article
The article Truth in criminal trial points out great importance of facts in every criminal procedure. The author presents a new look at some legal regulations in Poland. For example he strongly criticizes laws (and practice!) which forbid disclosure of a criminal’s personal data. It is just unfair towards decent citizens because they might be future victims of such criminals. By the way: veritatem sequi est tueri iustitiam.
The article has been thought as a contribution to the discussion on comprehension of truth within the framework of the domestic jurisprudence. The author, describing philosophical and theoretical assumptions with respect to positivism epistemology indicates - basing on the sources presented in this article - the transformations to which the concept of the so-called ‘objective truth’ was subject and the extent to which various political and social factors influenced the concept mentioned. As he concludes complexity and dynamics concerning transformations of the domestic legal culture, as well as conflicts between the written law and the practice are disclosed in lawyers’ attitude to the truth.
Concepts of material and formal truth have a long and well-grounded tradition in the doctrine of law. It seems, however, that they need some clarification and conceptualisation in purely philosophical and logical terms. In this paper, we propose such a theoretical analysis. These considerations are followed by a review of the key aspects of the current Polish legislation, which is written from the point of view of the conclusions reached through the first level of analysis.
Javier Barnes wyróżnił trzy generacje postępowania administracyjnego. Niniejszy esej będzie próbą analizy Kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego pod kątem trzech generacji postępowania administracyjnego. Pierwsza generacja jest najstarsza. Jest to postępowanie orzecznicze, czyli klasyczne postępowanie administracyjne. Organy administracji publicznej wydają formalne decyzje adresowane do indywidualnego adresata. Model ten w anglosaskiej literaturze określany jest jako command and control. Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego zawiera wyłącznie normy I generacji. Druga generacja postępowania administracyjnego, zwana rulemaking procedure, czyli postępowaniem w sprawach wydawania aktów administracyjnych generalnych nie doczekała się całościowego uregulowania w polskim systemie prawa. W tym zakresie istnieje cały szereg regulacji o charakterze szczegółowym w przepisach prima facie materialnego prawa administracyjnego. Inaczej niż w I generacji postępowania administracyjnego generalny akt administracyjny kierowany jest do adresata określonego w sposób generalny. Trzecia generacja postępowania administracyjnego, czyli postępowanie służące kształtowaniu i wdrażaniu polityki publicznej, nie została uregulowana w Kodeksie postępowania administracyjnego. W polskim systemie prawa administracyjnego normy zawierające cechy III generacji znajdują się w ustawie z dnia 3 października 2008 r. o udostępnianiu informacji o środowisku i jego ochronie, udziale społeczeństwa w ochronie środowiska oraz o ocenach oddziaływania na środowisko (Dz. U. 2013, poz. 1235 ze zm.).
EN
Javier Barnes has distinguished three generations of the administrative procedure. The aim of this essay is to examine the Polish Administrative Procedure Code and some other Polish statutes in terms of those three generations of the administrative procedure. The first generation of the administrative procedure is the oldest one. It is a typical adjudication procedure model where a public authority issues a formal and binding administrative decision addressed to an individually designated addressee, also called command and control in the Anglo-Saxon legal language. The Polish Administrative Procedure Code contains the first generation procedure regulations only. The second generation, i.e. rule-making procedure, is not expressly specified in the Code, though it is present in the Polish administrative law system. There is a number of statutes comprising substantial administrative regulations aiming to protect such values as public safety, health, etc. Unlike in the instance of the first generation, it results in producing an administrative act designed to address a wider and abstractly named audience, instead of a specifically identified legal and/or natural person. The third generation of the administrative procedure consists of making a public policy and implementing the procedure and it is the most complex legal regulation of the administrative activity. The best example of law containing such a sophisticated procedure in Poland is the Act on the provision of information about the natural environment and its protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment (Journal of Laws of 2013, item 1235, as amended) of 3 October 2008.
Obecnie temat medycznego zastosowania marihuany poruszany jest publicznie częściej niż w ubiegłych latach. Najnowsze badania kliniczne potwierdzają leczniczy aspekt jej działania na organizm człowieka w walce z różnymi chorobami, które dotąd nie były możliwe do wyleczenia lub choćby do zmniejszenia ich wyniszczających skutków. Na świecie kolejne kraje dopuszczają obrót konopiami, albo całkowicie, albo jako quasi-legalizację. Polski system prawny nie dopuszcza obecnie wariantu legalizacji cannabis, jednak opinia publiczna wyraża w coraz większym procencie poparcie dla wprowadzenia legalnego używania marihuany do celów medycznych, a instytucje państwowe nawołują rząd do uregulowania tej kwestii. W środowiskach wspierających politykę antynarkotykową mówi się jedynie o negatywnych następstwach zażywania miękkich narkotyków. Warto zrobić bilans korzyści i strat oraz przeanalizować badania, by rozstrzygnąć dylemat − czy marihuana to samo zło, czy może rzeczywiście szansa na skuteczne leczenie?
EN
Nowadays medical use of marijuana is being brought up in public more often than in the recent years. The latest clinical trials confirm its healing effect on a human body in a fight against different kinds of diseases, which before its legalization were incurable or debilitating. In the world more and more countries legalize or quasi-legalize cannabis trade. The Polish legal system does not currently allow legalization of cannabis, however, the public opinion is voicing its approval for introducing legal, medical usage of marijuana, and public institutions agitate the government for regulation of this issue. Anti-drug communities speak only about negative consequences of using soft drugs. It is worth doing a balance of gains and losses and reanalyzing research to resolve the dilemma − is marijuana the pure evil or is it a real chance for effective treatment?
W ostatnich latach zaobserwowano zmianę podejścia administracji federalnej Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki Północnej do zagadnienia zażywania marihuany. Nastąpiło przejście od wojny pochłaniającej wiele ofiar, do faktycznego pozostawienia decyzji o legalizacji marihuany poszczególnym stanom. Autor opisuje wskazany proces, przedstawia kontrowersje, jakie wywołał przełomowy wyrok w sprawie Gonzales v. Reich, analizuje status prawników z branży narkotykowej (tzw. „marijuana lawyers”), wskazuje na proces planowania podatkowego w aspekcie handlu marihuaną, a także przedstawia skalę osiąganych przez podmiot publicznoprawny zysków z obłożenia zażywania marihuany podatkami obrotowymi, oraz z nałożenia podatków dochodowych na dochód dealerów i podmiotów z nimi współpracujących.
EN
Over the last few years there has been noticed a change in the approach of the federal administration of the United States of America to the issue of marijuana. There has been done a shift from war absorbing many victims to leaving a decision on legalizing marijuana actually up to the individual states. The Author describes that process, presents controversies caused by a breakthrough judgment in the case of Gonzales v. Reich, analyses a status of lawyers from the drug industry (called “marijuana lawyers”), indicates a tax planning process in the aspect of marijuana trade and shows the scale of gain received by the public structures due to imposing turnover taxes on using marijuana and income taxes on dealers and entities cooperating with them.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.