Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Legal Professional Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in EU Competition Law after the Lisbon Treaty – Is It Time for a Substantial Change?

100%

Turno B. , Zawłocka-Turno A.

|

2012

|

tom 5(6)

193-214

EN

Is there, in the context of the recent developments related to the Lisbon Treaty, a need for substantial change with respect to the scope and application of legal professional privilege (LPP) and the privilege against self-incrimination (PASI) in competition law proceedings before the European Commission? To answer this question this article first briefly describes the current scope of LPP and PASI in EU competition law enforcement proceedings. This is followed by a presentation of the impact that the binding effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and the EU’s prospective accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) may have on LPP and PASI. This analysis includes reasons why it may be necessary for the Commission and the EU Courts to reconsider the current scope of the privileges, and examines what could be considered as significant changes in this respect. In the event arguments for radical reform do not find the requisite political support, the article elaborates some nuanced improvements which could be implemented.

FR

Dans le contexte des changements récents liés au traité de Lisbonne, est-il nécessaire de procéder à des modifications substantielles par rapport au champ d’application du principe de confidentialité des communications entre avocats et clients (LPP) et du droit de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination (PASI) dans les procédures de concurrence menées par la Commission européenne ? Pour répondre à cette question, le présent article donne d’abord une définition sommaire du champ actuel d’application du principe de confidentialité des communications entre avocats et clients et du droit de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination lors d’une procédure communautaire de concurrence. On présente ensuite l’impact possible que peuvent avoir sur les principes LPP et PASI le caractère juridiquement obligatoire de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne ainsi que l’adhésion prochaine de l’Union européenne à la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales. L’analyse tient compte des causes pour lesquelles il peut se montrer nécessaire que la Commission et les juges communautaires révisent le champ actuel d’application des principes susmentionnés et qu’ils étudient ce qui pourrait être considéré comme une modification substantielle en la matière. Dans une situation où les arguments à l’appui d’un changement radical quant à l’approche de ces principes ne trouveraient pas le soutien politique nécessaire, l’article propose certaines « améliorations » susceptibles de mise en œuvre.

2

The Scope of Protection of Legal Professional Privilege in Criminal Proceedings—Selected Issues

88%

Krzyżanowski P.

|

tom 28

|

nr 2 English Online Version

19-36

EN

The chief aim of this study is to explore the essence of legal professional privilege and analyse its scope in criminal proceedings. Legal professional privilege plays an essential role in the criminal process as it guarantees every individual the adequate exercise of his or her right of defence and to a fair trial. It should be stressed that the privilege is not uniform since there is dualism manifested by a distinction between defence lawyer's privilege and advocate's privilege, other than the former. The author discusses the Polish regulations and relevant case law. Also, amendments to the current regulations will be proposed.

3

Ochrona poufności komunikacji z prawnikiem w świetle europejskiego i krajowego prawa ochrony konkurencji

75%

Bundyra A.

|

2018

|

tom 76

122-137

PL

Legal Professional Privilege is a material procedural safeguard that ensures protection of communication between undertaking and its legal counsel in the competition law. It is essential to differentiate the rules governing European and Polish antitrust proceedings in order to guarantee undertakings the widest possible protection against the search of premises. In each case when the primary aim of administrative regulations is to penalize the entrepreneurs for illegal conduct, it should be assured that at least similar safeguards to these adopted in criminal proceedings are secured.

4

W kwestii kolizji art. 180 § 2 kodeksu postępowania karnego i art. 6 Prawa o adwokaturze

75%

Mądrecka E.

Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego

|

2012

|

tom 28

147-160

EN

The article analyzes legal professional privilege in the light of provisions of the Advocate’s Profession Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Professional Ethics and Conduct for Advocates. The author raises the question of conflict between Art. 180 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the advocate’s testimonial privilege and its possible waiver by court’s decision, and Art. 6 of the Advocate’s Profession Act, which treats advocate’s privilege as an absolute rule. The article also comments on the views presented in the doctrine and in judicial decisions. In addition, the author provides an interpretation of the legal regulations/norms and discusses the conflict of legal rules between these regulations. For the purpose of comparison, the article also reviews the situation of advocate–witness in civil and administrative procedures. The legal analysis concludes with proposals de lege ferenda.