This study contains an analysis of the amendments to the Polish Penal Code relating to the term of continuous act made by the Act of October 4, 2018, and the Act of June 19, 2020. The first Act introduced a new section to Article 12 of the Penal Code, which states that “anyone who, in short intervals, using one and the same or identical opportunity or in a similar manner commits two or more intentional misdemeanors against property, if the total value of the property justifies liability for the crime, shall be held liable as for a single crime.” This provision raises a number of doubts about the nature of the institution it introduces – whether it is a type of continuous crime or a real concurrence of misdemeanors. The study also includes an analysis of the second amendment, which changed the penalty for a continuous act. An attempt is then made to evaluate the changes introduced by these two Acts.
Glosa dotyczy problematyki czynu ciągłego i konsekwencji, jakie się z nim wiążą na gruncie prawa karnego. Poruszono w niej zagadnienie istoty czynu ciągłego, ustalania jego ram temporalnych, znaczenia konstrukcji jedności przestępstwa, a w związku z tym również zagadnienie początku biegu okresu przedawnienia czynu ciągłego.
EN
Gloss refers to the problem of continuous crime and the implications of it in criminal law. It touched on the issue of the essence of a continuous crime, the definition of its temporal framework, the meaning of the construction of the unity of the crime, and, therefore, the issue of the beginning of the period of prescription of a continuous crime.
Przemysław Krawczyk discusses the impact of institutions related to the continuity of a crime on the substantive validity of judgments in criminal cases and the ne bis in idem prohibition that flows from it. The study presents the views of doctrine and judicature which treat the scope of the validity of substantive judgment in relation to conduct (acts) committed in the conditions of continuity. It should be noted at the outset that positions on this issue tend to be diametrically different. Moreover, Krawczyk points out how important it is to set temporal limits to the continuity of an offence. This issue is of considerable importance from the point of view of the substantive validity of a ruling issued in a criminal trial, because incorrect or insufficiently precise delimitation of these limits may result in a violation of some fundamental principles of criminal law, both substantive and procedural.
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The study contains an analysis and evaluation of some legal solutions proposed in the draft amendment to criminal law of 25 January 2019, especially regarding the sentence, both statutory and judicial. Attention was paid to changes that constitute the most vivid manifestations of the tendency clearly outlined in the draft — expressed explicitly in the assumptions of the postulated changes — towards increasing the repressive norms of the Penal Code of 1997. This is carried out on three main levels — 1 increasing the severity of sanctions for individual, selected types of crimes, 2 extending the application of the extraordinary institution to tighten the penalties and 3 changes to the court directive on the sentence. The study focuses on changes concerning the foundations and rules of the extraordinary progression of punishment, in particular on the modification referring to criminal liability for an offense committed in the conditions of a continuous act covered by the formula of Article 12 § 1 of the Penal Code. In this case, the project provides for mandatory toughening of the penalty by raising the lower liability threshold by half, and the upper one by two. In this regard, both the arguments of the position approving such a solution and the views of the part of the criminal law doctrine which fully accepts the law adopted in the Penal Code of 1997 and which are binding in this respect are presented.
Summary One of the striking features of contemporary Russian criminal law is the fact that the ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR of 4th March 1929 defining ‘continuous crime’ is still the introduction to the deliberations on this institution, which from the Polish point of view is remarkable, because none of the court decisions issued in Poland in the Communist period has been attributed such importance. It should also be noted that even though in the current Russian Penal Code (1996) there is no regulation for the construction of continuous crime, which is explained by the fact that a common position has still not been set forth on its premises or shape, which in turn raises concern from the point of view of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege.
PL
Streszczenie Znamiennym dla współczesnego rosyjskiego prawa karnego jest fakt, że do tej pory postanowienie Plenum Sądu Najwyższego ZSRR z 4 marca 1929 r., które definiuje przestępstwo ciągłe, stanowi wstęp do rozważań o tej instytucji, co z polskiego punktu widzenia stanowi fenomen, gdyż żadnemu z judykatów wydanych w okresie PRL nie przypisywano tak ogromnego znaczenia. Należy także podkreślić, że również w obecnie obowiązującym rosyjskim Kodeksie karnym z 1996 r. nie uregulowano konstrukcji przestępstwa ciągłego, co tłumaczone jest tym, że po dzień dzisiejszy nie wypracowano wspólnego stanowiska odnośnie do jego przesłanek czy kształtu, co jednakże budzi zastrzeżenia z punktu widzenia zasady nullum crimen sine lege.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.