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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  right to appeal
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The law of appealing judicatures already constituted a grounded and unquestionable value of the military criminal trial in the first quarter of the 20th century. What was important from the point of view of an accused was a guarantee of the ban of judicature in the second of an accused in the second instance. The Polish Army, restoring after 1918, needed regulations regulating the criminal proceeding. For obvious reasons, there was no possibility to use native regulations of the prepartition period. What they decided on was using regulations of partitioned nations, namely a German and Austrian act of a military criminal proceeding. Each of these acts guaranteed the right to submit the means of appealing defined by its regulations referring to the Roman maxim Reformatio in peius iudici appellato non licet. A radical change of opinions took place in line with the army code of the criminal proceeding from 1936 that replaced foreign solutions. It included going away from the guarantee of the reformationis in peius ban, in favour of the possibility to judicature in the revision instance irrespective of a direction of appeal. It was the result of the criticism of the appealing system functioning in the common jurisdiction. Also, a revision of so far existing views on the usefulness of a criminal repression and punishment dimension took place. A new criminal procedure was undoubtedly influenced by a doctrine of a total nation that faced a favourable legislative basis. The necessity to follow the so called military reasons in a criminal proceeding derived from a new basic act from 1935.
PL
Artykuł poświęcony jest modelowi kontroli sądowej decyzji wydawanych przez Prezesa UKE. Model ten jest określony w ustawie z dnia 16.07.2004 r. Prawo Telekomunikacyjne i przewiduje, że kontrolę sądową decyzji wydanych przez Prezesa UKE sprawują sądy administracyjne. Jednakże od niektórych decyzji tego organu przysługuje odwołanie do sądu powszechnego (Sądu Okręgowego w Warszawie – Sądu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów). Oba rodzaje kontroli sądowej decyzji wydawanych przez Prezesa UKE różnią się od siebie zasadniczo. W związku z tym, głównym celem artykułu jest przedstawienie charakteru prawnego modelu kontroli sądowej decyzji wydawanych przez Prezesa UKE oraz przedstawienie istotnych różnic w sposobach kontroli sądowej sprawowanej przez oba rodzaje sądów, tj. sądy administracyjne oraz sądy powszechne (SOKiK).
EN
The model of judicial control of the decisions of the President of the Offi ce of Electronic Communications (hereinafter the UKE President) is subject of this paper. This model is defined in the Telecommunications Law Act (hereinafter the TL) and provides two different judicial procedures against decisions of the UKE President. It is a general principle that the UKE President decisions are subject to judicial control exercised by administrative courts. However, some decisions enumerated in the TL are subject of judicial review exercised by common courts [the Regional Court in Warsaw – the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereinafter the SOKiK)]. Both types of judicial control differ from each other substantially. Therefore, the main goal of the article was to present a model of judicial control of the decisions made by the UKE President together with an indication of the legal basis of this model. In addition, signifi cant differences were determined in the way of judicial control by both types of courts, i.e. the administrative courts and common courts (SOKiK).
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.