Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

1 Przegląd Legislacyjny

1 2016

Znaleziono wyników: 1

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Konstytucyjne aspekty kar porządkowych pozbawienia wolności

100%

Szwast M. , Szwed M.

nr PL 1(95)

35-58

The article analyses the provisions of the Act on the System of Ordinary Courts regarding sanctions for contempt of court in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Tribunal. The Authors argue that the sanction of deprivation of liberty for such offences has to be considered as a “criminal penalty” and therefore it has to be imposed in the procedure which satisfies the criteria of fair trial set in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, such as access to impartial and competent court, right to effective remedy or prohibition of double jeopardy. The article presents the opinion that the analyzed regulation does not satisfy any of these requirements. One of its major deficiencies is lack of guarantees of access to competent and impartial court due to the fact that the penalty may be imposed by the same judge who was offended by the perpetrator. Moreover the law does not provide effective remedies for persons sentenced for deprivation of liberty. There is a possibility of appealing against the judgment regarding imposition of penalty, however the appeal does not have a suspensive effect. As a consequence, in many cases the appeal is reviewed by the court of second instance after execution of the penalty. Yet another problematic solution in contempt of court proceedings is the provision which explicitly excludes application of ne bis in idem principle, what seems inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In conclusion, the Authors recommend abolishing the penalty of deprivation of liberty for contempt of court. The main purpose of the analyzed provisions, that is maintenance of the order of the judicial proceedings, may be achieved by other less intrusive measures (e.g. expulsion of the persons from the courtroom). More severe sanctions should be imposed in a fair procedure, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Procedure in Misdemeanor Cases.