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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  domniemanie prawne
help Sort By:

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

Domniemania prawne w dziedzinie materialnego prawa małżeńskiego w KPK z 1983 roku

100%
Góralski W.
Ius Matrimoniale
|
2005
|
vol. 16
|
issue 10
119-137
EN
Nel campo del diritto matrimoniale sostanziale del Codex Juris Canonici del 1983 il legislatore ecclesiastico ha stabilito dieci presunzioni legali (iuris) che portano, soprattutto nei processi matrimoniali, la certezza, anche se solo indiziaria e probabile (la presunzione è una prova sui generis).Nello suo studio l’autore presenta e commenta le singole presunzioni, inserite nei seguenti canoni del CJC: 1060 (favor matrimonii); 1061 § 2 (la consummazione del matrimonio); 1086 § 3 (dubbio circa il battesimo); 1096 § 2 (la scienza minima sulla natura del matrimonio); 1101 § 1 (la conformité del consenso ai segni esterni); 1107 (la perseveranza del consenso matrimoniale prestato); 1138 § 1 (la paternité); 1138 § 2 (la legitimité della prole); 1150 (favor fidei); 1152 § 2 (il perdono tacito all’adultero).
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Praesumptio w Kodeksie Jana Pawła II z 1983 roku

84%
DULLAK K.
Prawo Kanoniczne
|
2016
|
vol. 59
|
issue 3
97-121
EN
There is variety of synonyms being used in Polish language to describe Latin praesumptio. At law sciences presumption is an interdisciplinary phrase and so it is not unambiguous. Therefore it is worth monitoring the types of the presumptions and the context of their appearance at John Paul II Code of Canon Law (CCL) of 1983. In general, we divide the presumptions into actual or judicial ones and those of law – assumed by the legislator. The former ones are drawn from authentic prerequisites. It creates the possibility to reach an objective truth. The more consistent conclusions that the judge will draw from different prerequisites the greater possibility will be reached. The latter ones – the presumptions of law – rely on assuming some facts, based on legal provisions, as proven, in case of lack of the contrary evidence. They’re divided into ordinary (relative) and absolute ones. The ordinary presumption can be refuted if false conclusions are proven. An absolute presumption takes place if the legislator refuses to admit directly the contrary evidence and assumes indirect one. The Author of the Code applies the ordinary presumptions of law only (mutable ones) which means that they can be refuted by counter-evidence. As regards the actual presumptions – they do not occur at CCL-83. They’re assumed by the judge during the trial. The John Paul II CCL applies the presumption of law with respect to the persons, circumstances and objects. Based on thorough analysis of the code contents it results that the most of the presumptions relates to the circumstances (there are as much as 13); we’ll find two less as regards the persons and only three regarding the objects. Of all 27 presumptions applied in CCL – we’ll find 14 in Book IV regulating the office of sanctifying in the Church, 7 applies to general norms (Book I) and the remaining ones we’ll find in Books: III, V, VI and VII; the last 2 contains Book II. Most of the presumptions in CCL occur in canons referring to the marriage.
PL
W języka polskiego używa się różnych synonimów na określenie łac. praesumptio. W naukach prawnych, domniemanie jest sformułowaniem interdyscyplinarnym, a więc nie jest jednoznaczne. Stąd warto prześledzić rodzaje domniemań, konteksty ich występowania w Kodeksie Kana Pawła II z 1983 roku. Najogólniej domniemania dzieli się na faktyczne zwane też sędziowskim i prawne – które zakłada sam prawodawca. Pierwsze z nich zostaje wyprowadzane z autentycznych przesłanek. Stwarza to możliwość dotarcia do prawdy obiektywnej. Możność będzie większa, im więcej zgodnych wniosków sędzia wytoczy z różnych przesłanek. Drugie - domniemanie prawne polega na przyjęciu na podstawie przepisu prawnego, niektórych faktów za udowodnione w przypadku braku dowodów przeciwnych. Domniemanie to dzieli się na zwykłe (względne) i bezwzględne. Względne można obalić, gdy wykaże się nieautentyczność wniosku, zaś bezwzględne występuje wtedy, gdy prawodawca nie dopuszcza wprost dowodu przeciwnego, ale dowód pośredni. Autor kodeksu posługuje się jedynie domniemaniami prawnymi zwykłymi czyli wzruszalnymi, to oznacza że można je obalić przeciwdowodem. Jeżeli chodzi o domniemania faktyczne, to w KPK-83 one nie występują. Owe domniemania wnioskuje dopiero sam sędzia podczas procesu. Kodeks Jana Pawła II posługuje się presumpcją prawną w odniesieniu do osób, okoliczności oraz rzeczy. Z dokładnej analizy treści kodeksu wynika że najwięcej presumpcji dotyczy okoliczności, jest ich aż 13, o dwie pozycje mniej znajdziemy w grupie presumpcji dotyczących osób, zaś zaledwie trzy domniemania dotyczą rzeczy. Spośród 27 zastosowanych w kodeksie presumpcji większość (14) uplasowała się w księdze czwartej regulującej uświęcające zadania Kościoła, siedem dotyczy norm ogólnych (I księga), zaś pozostałe po jednym domniemaniu znajdziemy w księgach: III, V, VI i VII, pozostałe dwa przeanalizowane przypadki zawierają się w księdze II. Najczęściej domniemania w prawie kanonicznym występują w kanonach traktujących o małżeństwie.  
3

Przepadek w znowelizowanym kodeksie karnym

60%
Błaszczyk M.
Studia Iuridica
|
2016
|
vol. 65
93-108
EN
Under the Act of 20 February 2015 – changing the Penal Code and some other acts, from 1 July 2015 the forfeiture has been removed from the catalogue of penalties – the art. 39 point 4 of the Penal Code was repealed – and also from the catalogue of security measures of an administrative nature – the wording of the art. 99 § 1 of the Penal Code has been changed, the art. 100 of the Penal Code has been repealed and its content has been transferred to the art. 49a of the Penal Code. Currently, the forfeiture is fully regulated in chapter Va of the Penal Code, entitled „Forfeiture and compensatory measures”. Changing the normative status of the forfeiture is not understood. I consider it as a mistake. This change was not associated with changes of the normative status of forfeiture in the Fiscal Penal Code and Code of Offences. Besides the changes concerning the status of the forfeiture which has obviously system nature under the amendment came to repeal the provisions of articles 44 § 8, 45 § 6 and art. 45 § 4 of the Penal Code. These were changes of organizational character. They were accompanied by changes in the provisions of the Executive Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which took over the content of the repealed provisions of the Penal Code. The wording of the art. 45 § 3 of the Penal Code regulating one of the legal presumptions relating to the forfeiture of financial benefits has been changed. This has increased the warranty standard of that provision.
4

Kryteria oceny dowodów w procesach o nieważność małżeństwa

60%
Witkowski W.
Kościół i Prawo
|
2014
|
issue 3 (16) nr 1
87-107
EN
Evidentiary procedure is elementary part of every court process. The judge derives moral certitude (which is necessary to pronounce the sentence) from the proofs. Cumulation of the evidences is not enough – the judge needs to weigh them. The procedural canon law uses two different systems of weighing proofs: system of formal truth and system of free appraisal of evidence. The number of evidences and their sources demands pointing the way they were verified. The first measure is usefulness of evidence for the case. The first analysis of usefulness should be done by the parties, who adduce or deliver such a proof. The judge can decide that some of proofs have no connection with the case. Next measure of proofs is licitness. When the proof is not licit or it was gained indecent way, it cannot be used in trial. Very similar measure to licitness is legitimacy. As far as evidentiary prohibitions, validity of legal acts and penal protection of evidentiary means are concerned legitimacy is seen in the same way as licitness. Another criteria is presumption of certain proof’s probative force which coming from legal presumptions included in legal provisions. Important group of legal criterions are formal requirements such as time, form and way of adducing the proofs. There can be applied means which enhance proof’s credible for confirmation of proof’s probative force. The personal evidentiary means as declaration of the parties and testimonies should be strengthen by an oath and testimonial letters. Meanwhile for the material proofs as documents it is needed presumption that they arose in tempore non suspecto.
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.