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
EN
The analysis of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows a clear asymmetry in the rights of the accused and the victim as regards the right to interpreting. Despite the implementation of subsequent amendments, the legislators consistently ignored the rights of the victim with regard to the right to interpreting; when they actually dealt with that issue, it was done in a fragmented and selective manner.Moreover, the exegesis of the provisions on the right to interpreting leads to the conclusion that the analyzed right is not fully regulated by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and some extremely important normative parts of it must be decoded from the Law on the System of Common Courts. Both these spheres interpenetrate each other, which is undeniably undesirable from the point of view of the standard of legal certainty and transparency.This study aims at identifying legislative shortcomings, as well as at proposing de lege ferenda solutions in relation to the analyzed right of the victim to interpreting.
EN
Current legislative activity of the European Union performed under Title V, Chapter 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: “Judicial cooperation in criminal matters” is part of a wider process of internationalisation of criminal law. It shows a paradigm shift of this branch of law, which until now has, fi rst and foremost, been a product of national legal systems. The article discusses selected issues concerning the regulation of criminal prosecution under European Union law. Due to the fact that the present shape of this regulation is the result of a long process of numerous legislative activities as well as various non-legislative forms of international cooperation, the article is not limited to the discussion of the current state of the criminal prosecution in the EU, but takes into account the historical emergence of various institutions, both before and after the establishment of the European Union. Its fi rst part presents the historical development of instruments designed to cope with crime, which the European Community and then the European Union had at their disposal. This part has two objectives: to describe the diffi culties encountered when the fi rst attempts to coordinate the fi ght against crime at the European level were undertaken and to show the signifi cance of the progress that has been made in this area in recent years. After that, selected issues concerning the harmonisation of rules governing the procedural rights of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings are discussed. The issue of minimum standards relating to penalties is also raised. The concluding part of the article assesses, whether the path of internationalization of criminal law chosen by the Member States in the post-Lisbon reality is justifi ed.
EN
The Lisbon Treaty has brought major changes in the functioning of the European Union, including in the area referred to in Art. 4 section 2 point j of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is an area of freedom, security and justice. It should first be noted that characteristic for European Union “pillar structure” has been liquidated. Former pillar III is nowadays covered by a single legal regime. Without a doubt falls conclude that the Lisbon Treaty has made a huge step towards the approximation of the laws of the Member States. Art. 86 TFEU introduces interesting novelty in this plane, providing for the possibility of establishment of an European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is the EU body for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice the perpetrators of crimes against the financial interests of the European Union. Analysis of selected provisions of the Regulation on the establishment of an European Public Prosecutor’s Office leads to conclusion that draft regulation is not deprived of interpretational doubts. For instance there is a forum shopping threat. Fair trial standard and legislative technique have also been violated.
PL
Traktat z Lizbony przyniósł zasadnicze zmiany w funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, w tym w dziedzinie, o której mowa w art. 4 ust. 2 lit. j Traktatu o Funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, czyli przestrzeni wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości. Należy przede wszystkim zauważyć, że zlikwidowano charakterystyczną dla TFUE strukturę filarową, a dawny filar III został objęty jednolitym reżimem prawnym. Bez wątpienia wypada stwierdzić, że Traktat z Lizbony uczynił ogromny krok w kierunku zbliżania ustawodawstw państw członkowskich. Art. 86 TFUE wprowadza interesujące novum na tej płaszczyźnie, przewidując możliwość powołania do życia Prokuratury Europejskiej, czyli unijnego organu do spraw dochodzenia, ścigania i stawiania przed sądem sprawców przestępstw przeciwko interesom finansowym Unii Europejskiej. Analiza wybranych uregulowań projektu rozporządzenia w sprawie ustanowienia Prokuratury Europejskiej pozwala na przyjęcie wniosku, że nie jest to uregulowanie pozbawione wątpliwości interpretacyjnych. Zwracają uwagę choćby takie zagadnienia, jak zjawisko forum shopping, zagrożenie dla gwarancji prawa do sądu czy wreszcie stosowana przez projektodawcę technika legislacyjna.
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.