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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  judgements
help Sort By:

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

The practice of applying the provision of Article 297 of the Polish Penal Code

100%
Gutbier K.
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Kryminologicznego im. prof. Stanisława Batawii
|
2018
|
vol. 25
197-222
EN
The aim of the publication is to present the results of research on the issue of the application of the provision of Article 297 of Polish Penal Code in practice and an attempt to evaluate them and an attempt to formulate conclusions.The features characterizing the offense under Article 297 § 1 of Polish Penal Code, which reads as follows: who, in order to obtain for himself or someone else, from a bank or organizational unit conducting similar economic activity under the Act or from an authority or institution with public funds - credit, monetary loan, surety, guarantee, letter of credit, subsidy, subsidy, confirmation by the bank of a liability arising from a surety or a guarantee or similar cash payment for a specific business purpose, payment instrument or public contract, submit counterfeit,converted, attesting untruth or unreliable document or unreliable written statement regarding circumstances of significant importance in order to obtain the mentioned financial support,payment instrument or order, it is punishable by imprisonment up from 3 months to 5 years.Discussed are also the indications of committing an act consisting in abandoning the notification in Article 297 § 2 of Polish Penal Code, worded as follows: who, in breach of a binding obligation, does not notify the relevant entity of the situation that may affect the cessation or limitation of the financial support referred to in § 1 or the public order or the possibility of further use of the electronic payment instrument.Next, the methodology of the research was described in detail. The research was of an files nature and concerned final judgments issued by courts of second instance. The time period of researches was from 2012 to 2016. A purposeful selection was also made due to the legal qualification of the deed on the basis of which the conviction was handed down in the first instance, i.e. the offenses under Article 297 of Polish Penal Code. Then the results of the research were presented and an attempt was made to comment on the results obtained. The conclusions from the research indicated, among others, the cases of lack of correct understanding of the provision, confusion of concepts, unnecessary automatic cumulative classification of the deed,narrowing the use of the instruments mentioned in the provision to credits, loans and subsidies,and many more cases.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The practice of applying the provision of Article 297 of the Polish Penal Code

76%
Gutbier K.
Biuletyn Kryminologiczny
|
2018
|
issue 25
197-222
PL
The aim of the publication is to present the results of research on the issue of the application of the provision of Article 297 of Polish Penal Code in practice and an attempt to evaluate them and an attempt to formulate conclusions. The features characterizing the offense under Article 297 § 1 of Polish Penal Code, which reads as follows: who, in order to obtain for himself or someone else, from a bank or organizational unit conducting similar economic activity under the Act or from an authority or institution with public funds - credit, monetary loan, surety, guarantee, letter of credit, subsidy, subsidy, confirmation by the bank of a liability arising from a surety or a guarantee or similar cash payment for  a  specific  business  purpose,  payment  instrument  or  public  contract,  submit  counterfeit, converted, attesting untruth or unreliable document or unreliable written statement regarding circumstances  of  significant  importance  in  order  to  obtain  the  mentioned  financial  support, payment instrument or order, it is punishable by imprisonment up from 3 months to 5 years. Discussed are also the indications of committing an act consisting in abandoning the notification in Article 297 § 2 of Polish Penal Code, worded as follows: who, in breach of a binding obligation, does not notify the relevant entity of the situation that may affect the cessation or limitation of the financial support referred to in § 1 or the public order or the possibility of further use of the electronic payment instrument. Next,  the  methodology  of  the  research  was  described  in  detail.  The  research  was  of  an  files nature  and  concerned  final  judgments  issued  by  courts  of  second  instance.  The  time  period of  researches was from 2012 to 2016. A purposeful selection was also made due to the legal qualification of the deed on the basis of which the conviction was handed down in the first instance, i.e. the offenses under Article 297 of Polish Penal Code. Then the results of the research were presented and an attempt was made to comment on the results obtained. The conclusions from the research indicated, among others, the cases of lack of correct understanding of the provision, confusion of concepts, unnecessary automatic cumulative classification of the deed, narrowing the use of the instruments mentioned in the provision to credits, loans and subsidies, and many more cases.   Celem publikacji jest przedstawienie wyników badań dotyczących problematyki zastosowania przepisu art. 297 k.k. w praktyce oraz podjęcie próby ich oceny i sformułowania wniosków. Opisano znamiona charakteryzujące przestępstwo z art. 297 § 1 k.k., który brzmi następująco: kto, w celu uzyskania dla siebie lub kogo innego, od banku lub jednostki organizacyjnej prowadzącej podobną działalność gospodarczą na podstawie ustawy albo od organu lub instytucji dysponujących środkami publicznymi – kredytu, pożyczki pieniężnej, poręczenia, gwarancji, akredytywy, dotacji, subwencji, potwierdzenia przez bank zobowiązania wynikającego z poręczenia lub z gwarancji lub podobnego świadczenia pieniężnego na określony cel gospodarczy, instrumentu płatniczego lub zamówienia publicznego, przedkłada podrobiony, przerobiony, poświadczający nieprawdę albo nierzetelny dokument albo nierzetelne, pisemne oświadczenie dotyczące okoliczności o istotnym znaczeniu dla uzyskania wymienionego wsparcia fnansowego, instrumentu płatniczego lub zamówienia, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 3 miesięcy do lat 5. Omówiono także znamiona popełnienia czynu polegającego na zaniechaniu powiadomienia z art. 297 § 2 k.k., o następującym brzmieniu: kto wbrew ciążącemu obowiązkowi, nie powiadamia właściwego podmiotu o powstaniu sytuacji mogącej mieć wpływ na wstrzymanie albo ograniczenie wysokości udzielonego wsparcia fnansowego, określonego w § 1, lub zamówienia publicznego albo na możliwość dalszego korzystania z instrumentu płatniczego. Następnie została dokładnie opisana metodologia przeprowadzonych badań. Badania miały charakter aktowy i dotyczyły prawomocnych orzeczeń wydanych przez sądy drugiej instancji. Cezurą czasową objęto okres od 2012 do 2016. Dokonano także wyboru celowego ze względu na kwalifkacje prawną czynu na podstawie, którego dokonano skazania w pierwszej instancji, tj. przestępstwa z art. 297 k.k. Następnie przedstawiono wyniki badań oraz podjęto próbę skomentowania otrzymanych rezultatów. Wnioski z badań wskazały, między innymi, na przypadki występowania braku prawidłowego zrozumienia przepisu, mylenie pojęć, niepotrzebnej automatycznej kumulatywnej kwalifkacji czynu, zawężenie stosowania instrumentów wymienionych w przepisie do kredytu, pożyczki oraz dotacji oraz a wiele innych.
EN
The aim of the publication is to present the results of research on the issue of the application of the provision of Article 297 of Polish Penal Code in practice and an attempt to evaluate them and an attempt to formulate conclusions. The features characterizing the offense under Article 297 § 1 of Polish Penal Code, which reads as follows: who, in order to obtain for himself or someone else, from a bank or organizational unit conducting similar economic activity under the Act or from an authority or institution with public funds - credit, monetary loan, surety, guarantee, letter of credit, subsidy, subsidy, confirmation by the bank of a liability arising from a surety or a guarantee or similar cash payment for  a  specific  business  purpose,  payment  instrument  or  public  contract,  submit  counterfeit, converted, attesting untruth or unreliable document or unreliable written statement regarding circumstances  of  significant  importance  in  order  to  obtain  the  mentioned  financial  support, payment instrument or order, it is punishable by imprisonment up from 3 months to 5 years. Discussed are also the indications of committing an act consisting in abandoning the notification in Article 297 § 2 of Polish Penal Code, worded as follows: who, in breach of a binding obligation, does not notify the relevant entity of the situation that may affect the cessation or limitation of the financial support referred to in § 1 or the public order or the possibility of further use of the electronic payment instrument. Next,  the  methodology  of  the  research  was  described  in  detail.  The  research  was  of  an  files nature  and  concerned  final  judgments  issued  by  courts  of  second  instance.  The  time  period of  researches was from 2012 to 2016. A purposeful selection was also made due to the legal qualification of the deed on the basis of which the conviction was handed down in the first instance, i.e. the offenses under Article 297 of Polish Penal Code. Then the results of the research were presented and an attempt was made to comment on the results obtained. The conclusions from the research indicated, among others, the cases of lack of correct understanding of the provision, confusion of concepts, unnecessary automatic cumulative classification of the deed, narrowing the use of the instruments mentioned in the provision to credits, loans and subsidies, and many more cases.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Normy ius cogens w orzeczeniach i opiniach doradczych Międzyamerykańskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

65%
Lis E.
Studia Prawnicze
|
2017
|
issue 2 (210)
31-66
PL
The concept of ius cogens norms is one of the most controversial issue in the international law. These norms were definied in the art. 53 of Vienna Convention on the law of treaties of 1969, according to which ius cogens norm it is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of the international law having the same character. This definition indicates that these norms limit the ability of States of creation or change the norms of the international law. However, the indicated definition does not include examples, scope and substance of ius cogens norms. In the commentary to the art. 50 of the draft articles on the law of treaties the International Law Commission stated that substance of these norms will be worked out in the States’ practice and in the judicial decisions of international courts . Contrary to International Court of Justice Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in its judicial decisions in great measure widened the scope and the substance of ius cogens norms. Consequently, IACtHR has developed a progressive case law in this realm. In separate opinion, in the case Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago from 2005, judge A.A. Conçado Trindade concluded that the IACtHR, in identification of ius cogens norms, have done more than any other international court. In its judgements and advisory opinions IACtHR recognized that e.g. forced going missing, tortures, discriminations, extrajudicial executions are the infringements of ius cogens norms. Taking into consideration jurisprudence of the IACtHR it is hard to say on what grounds it was prescribed that a given norm is forming a part of ius cogens. This article analyses the way the IACtHR identified ius cogens norms. Therefore it was indispensable to define its competence ratione materiae. Next, taking into consideration the gravity and the nature of infringement and the fact that all infringements of human rights which have been described simultaneously constitute violation of other human rights, this paper is limited only to three of them. It also outlines what functions, in the jurisprudence of IACtHR, fulfil the attribution to the norms the status of ius cogens norms.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Prezentacja informacji o założeniach, osądach i szacunkach w sprawozdaniach finansowych – przegląd i ocena rozwiązań stosowanych przez największe spółki giełdowe w Polsce

63%
Klimczak K.
Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne
|
2016
|
vol. CI
255-271
PL
W artykule przedstawiono wyniki badania poświęconego raportowaniu na temat założeń, osądów i szacunków w sprawozdaniach finansowych spółek wchodzących w skład indeksu WIG-20. Celem badania była analiza sposobu i zakresu prezentacji informacji w rocznych sprawozdaniach finansowych. W ramach badania analizie poddano miejsce prezentacji informacji, zawartość wstępnej informacji o oszacowaniach i osądach oraz zakres i jakość prezentowanej informacji na temat zidentyfikowanych obszarów osądów i szacunków w sprawozdaniach finansowych. Z przeprowadzonego badania wynika, że we wszystkich przeanalizowanych sprawozdaniach finansowych uwzględniono informacje na temat szacunków oraz osądów przyjmowanych na potrzeby ich sporządzenia. Spółki prezentują bardzo ogólne i podobne wstępne informacje na temat szacunków i osądów. Podobne obszary są uznawane za szczególnie podlegające osądom i szacunkom przez większość spółek, jednak są one wyodrębniane w sprawozdaniach finansowych z różną szczegółowością. Opisy zidentyfikowanych obszarów osądów i szacunków prezentowane przez spółki są zróżnicowane – zarówno pod względem objętości, jak i jakości.
EN
The article presents the results of the research devoted to reporting on accounting estimates, assumptions and discretionary judgements in financial statements by public companies listed on Warsaw Stock Exchange. The aim of the research was the analysis of the scope and content of disclosures in consolidated annual reports. The analysis included the place of presentation of information, the contents of the preliminary information on the estimates and judgments and the scope and quality of the presented information on identified areas of judgments and estimates in the financial statements. The results of the research indicate that all financial reports included information on the estimates and judgments made for the purpose of the their preparation. Companies present a very general and similar preliminary information on estimates and judgments. Similar areas are considered particularly subject to judgments and estimates by the majority of companies, however, they presented in more detail by some companies than the others. Descriptions of the identified areas of judgments and estimates presented by the company are diverse – both in terms of scope and quality.
5
Content available remote

Hromadné zveřejňování soudních rozhodnutí

51%
Králík L.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2020
|
vol. 159
|
issue 6
491-511
EN
The predictability and consistency of judicial decision-making process as well as legitimate expectation are essential elements of legal certainty of the rule of law. The modern state must ensure that the texts of court decisions, even those of lower courts, are officially available online. Automatic access to original judicial texts aims to increase public legal education while cultivating legal practice as well. The transparency of decision-making processes generally increases the confidence in the state administration or judiciary itself. Even the lower courts decision can be of added value to the legal practice. The current Czech legal order does not explicitly stipulate the legal obligation to publish texts of judicial decisions. The constitutional legal basis for the mass publication reflects the public control and the right to information. The automatic online publication of the judicial texts thus can be considered as the process of active availability of information. The complete availability must be distinguished from the traditional concept of selective institutional publication of the official case law. Another secondary economic reason for automatic publication serves the principle of effective public expenditure.
CS
Předvídatelnost a jednotnost soudního rozhodování či legitimní očekávání jsou základními prvky právní jistoty v právním státu. Moderní právní stát musí zajistit dostupnost textů soudních rozhodnutí i nižších soudů v oficiální elektronické podobě. Automatické zpřístupňování umožňuje zvýšit právní povědomí mezi veřejností a zároveň kultivovat právní praxi. Kompletní zveřejňování textů soudních rozhodnutí obecně slouží k veřejné kontrole soudnictví. Transparentnost rozhodovacích procesů obecně zvyšuje důvěru ve státní správu nebo soudnictví. I texty rozhodnutí nižších soudů mohou být zásadním přínosem pro kultivaci celého právního systému a společnosti. V platném českém právním řádu není výslovně stanovena zákonná povinnost zveřejňovat všechny texty rozhodnutí vrcholných i nižších soudů. Pravidla jsou nastavena pouze na úrovni interních norem. Právní základ pro dosavadní dobrovolné zpřístupňování můžeme dohledat v promítnutí ústavních požadavků na veřejnou kontrolu a právo na informace do zákona o svobodném přístupu k informacím. Hromadné zveřejňování můžeme považovat za zpřístupňování ve formě tzv. aktivního poskytování informací. Hromadné zveřejňování musíme odlišit od tradiční zákonné koncepce výběrové, tzv. institucionální publikace úředních sbírek historicky pouze plnící funkci sjednocování soudního rozhodování. Samotný proces zpřístupňování textů v tzv. oficiálních justičních databázích není možno vykládat jako nezákonný zásah. Dalším vedlejším ekonomickým důvodem automatického zveřejňování je dodržení principu řádného hospodaření se státním majetkem.
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.