scholarly journals „Osoba podejrzana”, „podejrzany” i „oskarżony” w polskim procesie karnym – zakres pojęciowy

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-171
Author(s):  
Mariusz Kucharczyk

The subject of this article is nomenclatural interpretation of the notions of “a person of interest”, “a suspect” and “a defendant” in Polish Code of Criminal Procedure – the parties in criminal proceedings who are suspected of committing a crime or who are charged with a crime. The article discusses the legal definitions of the word “suspect” according to Article 71 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (i.e. a person against whom a statement of objections has been issued and a person who has been charged on the grounds of examination of the person in question as a suspect) as well as the word “defendant” according to Article 71 § 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (sensu stricto and sensu largo). Moreover, the article provides an overview of the available definitions of “a suspect” and “a person of interest” – parties named directly in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition to that, the article discusses the notion of “actual suspect” (whose definition and understanding varies in the doctrine), which emerged from the previously effective Code of Criminal Procedure. The article analyses the legal standing of such an “actual suspect” in the context of Article 233 § 1a of the Criminal Code (a regulation which is considered potentially unconstitutional). While discussing the figure of the “suspect”, the author analyzes terms such as “issuing” and “preparation” – in connection with Article 71 § 1 and 313 § 1 of the Criminal Code and the lack of agreement within the discipline regarding the precise time at which the statement of objections has been issued (which is connected with obtaining the position of the passive party to proceedings in criminal procedure).Moreover, the article discusses in some detail the legal standing of a person against which a motion has been presented, according to Article 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the discontinuation of proceedings and issuing preventive measures protecting the person of an insane perpetrator – in the context of nomenclature.

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
Т.Д. Дудоров ◽  
А.Ю. Кирюхин

The article proposes an analysis of the formation and development of the doctrine on criminal procedure functions in the science of the Russian criminal process, concludes that the meaning and structural binding of the content of the concept of "criminal-procedural function" and the principle of adversarial function are impractical. The authors proposes to proceed from the systemicity of criminal proceedings, the goals and objectives of each stage, which determine the activities of the participants in the criminal process, and ultimately - from the general purpose, enshrined in Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Its provisions could be used in scientific studies on the subject at hand.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-148
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Limańska ◽  
Marta Pustuła

This article addresses some amendments of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as they affect the position of the injured party. The Act of 19 July 2019 amending the Polish Code of Criminal Code provides for a number of changes relating to that participant of criminal proceedings. The paper deals with the extension of the time limit within which it is possible to withdraw a motion to prosecute, changes to the so-called subsidiary complaint, setting a deadline for questioning the injured under Articles 185a and 185c of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure or serving the injured party with an order to pay (injunctive judgment) alongside the instructions on how to appeal against the judgment and simultaneously file a statement that the injured will act in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecution counsel. The analysis is aimed to establish whether those changes have led to the strengthening or weakening of the position of the injured party.


Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".


Author(s):  
Ulyana Polyak

The current criminal procedure law of Ukraine stipulates that a witness is obliged to give a true testimony during pre-trial investigation and trial, however, the legislator made an exception for this by specifying the categories of persons who have been granted immunity from immunity, ie they are released by law. testify. The article deals with the problems of law and practice regarding the prohibition of the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings and the release of him from the obligation to keep the notarial secret by the person who entrusted him with the information which is the subject of this secret. The notion of notarial secrecy is proposed to be changed, since the subject of this secrecy is not only information that became known to the notary public from the interested person, but also those information that the notary received from other sources in the performance of their professional duties, as well as the procedural activity of the notary himself, is aimed at achieving a certain legal result. The proposal made in the legal literature to supplement the CPC of Ukraine with the provisions that a notary is subject to interrogation as a witness on information that constitutes a notarial secret, if the notarial acts were declared illegal in accordance with the procedure established by law The proposal to increase the list of persons who are not subject to interrogation as witnesses about the information constituting a notarial secret is substantiated, this clause is proposed to be supplemented by provisions that, apart from the notary, are not notarized, other notarials, notaries as well as the persons mentioned in Part 3 of Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Notary". Amendments to the current CPC of Ukraine by the amendments proposed in this publication will significantly improve the law prohibiting the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings, as well as improve certain theoretical provisions of the institute of witness immunity in criminal proceedings.


De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Valkova-Terzieva ◽  

The subject of this research is a specific prerequisite for the termination of criminal proceedings in public criminal cases, regulated in Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. This analysis was necessitated by the fact that the European Union had introduced certain obligations for the Member States.


2020 ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Aleksei Marochkin ◽  
Viktoriya Slyvnaya

Problem setting. Proving in criminal proceedings is evidence collection and research activity of special subjects of criminal proceedings. The specific purpose of prooving is to obtain knowledge that is close to reality. To achieve this purpose, the theory of criminal procedure operates with the concept of “limits of proof”. In view of the above, it is important to study this phenomenon, because, firstly, there is no legislative regulation, and secondly, there is no unity in the theory of criminal procedure on this issue. Target research. The aim of the work is to define the concept of the limits of proof; to find out the moment of reaching the limits of proof and cases of narrowing and expanding the limits of proof; to analyze case law on this issue. Analysis of recent research and publication. The question of determining the limits of proof, their relationship with the subject of prooving has been the subject of scientific research. In particular, the works of such researchers in the field of criminal procedure as A.R. Belkin, V.V. Vapnarchuk, G.F. Gorsky, Yu.M. Groshev, V.S. Zelenetsky, E.G. Kovalenko, L.D. Kokorev, R.V. Kostenko, R.D. Rakhunov, В.В. Rozhnov, V.G. Tanasovich, F.N. Fatkullin, A.A. Khmirov deserve attention. Article’s main body. The article discusses the concept and significance of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings, analyzes the differences between them and other procedural categories, and analyzes doctrinal developments regarding the criteria for reaching boundaries and judicial practice in cases of expanding or narrowing the limits of proof. Conclusions and prospect of development. Thus, the study allows us to state that the concept of the limits of proof in criminal proceedings is multifaceted and important because it aims to achieve fair trial. The limits of proof are individual for each specific criminal proceeding, and an important criterion for determining it is the standard of proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is why the future study of this phenomenon in criminal proceedings becomes relevant due to the need to bring national criminal proceedings closer to European standards of justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1134-1148
Author(s):  
Matthias Jahn ◽  
Charlotte Schmitt-Leonardy

AbstractNegotiated agreements in criminal proceedings have often been regarded as the embodiment of a negative wider trend towards the informalization of the criminal procedure, and have—especially in Germany—long been the subject of vivid controversies. A criminal proceeding in the traditional sense aims to establish the truth ex officio, which is achieved by means of a comprehensive inquiry into the facts conducted by the court during the trial, followed by a sentence that appropriately reflects the individual guilt of the defendant, which can then, in turn, achieve the procedural objective of “justice.” A streamlining of the extensive inquiry into the facts that the court would normally have to conduct via the consensual process of negotiation does not, a priori, fit the mold of a criminal procedure in the aforementioned sense. At the same time, the consensual termination of criminal proceedings—which also includes other forms of termination of the proceeding besides the concept of Verständigung, which occur by means of a preferment of public charges—is, in fact, more prevalent in practice these days than judgments rendered in adversarial trials are. Our Article focuses on the reasons why this stark contrast between legal doctrine and reality came to pass and which aspects of the implementation of the concept of consensus into the German law of criminal procedure still seem problematic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 173-183
Author(s):  
Jan Kil

The subject of the article is the analysis of the admissibility of a partial withdrawal of a principalaction by the prosecutor in the current model of Polish criminal proceedings. The study defines the main procedural rules regarding the issue in question, namely the principle of accusatorial procedure and adversary trial system. In the study, the disposition of Article 14 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being interpreted with the use of linguistic, teleological and functional directives of interpretation. The study also presents the arguments justifying the acceptance of the view of the admissibility of partial withdrawal of the complaint by the public prosecutor. The study presents the procedural implications of the aforementioned standpoint. In the study the possibility of partial withdrawal of the principal action on the basis of pending supplementary or private prosecution proceedings was also analyzed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 95-115
Author(s):  
Jan Kil

The subject of the article is the analysis of the complaint against the judgment of the court of appeal, that has been described in chapter 55a of Polish Code of Criminal Procedure and was introduce by Amending Act of 11th March 2016. The purpose of the article is to present and the analyse the new regulation. The article covers the main issues, which are the most crucial both in law doctrine and the judicial application of law. The author presents the nature of this specific kind of appeal complaint, conditions of its application and the proceedings in this matter. The paper examines each of the issues penetratingly. The study presents the arguments, which justify the implementation of the new appeal measure to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides, the author presents legislative proposals connected with the complaint against the judgment of the court of appeal.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Alexandra Vladimirovna Boyarskaya

The subject. The article is devoted to the investigation of the main direct object and the circle of victims are subjected of harm by criminal acts stipulated by pts. 1, 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.The purpose of the paper is to identify does the art. 294 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation meets the other provisions of criminal procedure legislation.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results and scope of application. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The discrep-ancy lies in terms of the range of participants in criminal proceedings and the functions performed by them, as well as the actual content and correlation of such stages of criminal proceedings as the initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation. In addi-tion, the current state of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account the ever-widening differentiation of criminal proceedings.The circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by such participants in the criminal process as a criminal investi-gator, the head of the investigative body, the head of the inquiry department, the head of the body of inquiry. At the same time, the author supports the position that the criminal-legal protection of the said persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.The circle of criminal acts provided for in art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration, should also be specified with an indication of encroachment in the form of kidnapping, destruction or damage to such a crime as materials of criminal, civil and other cases, as well as material evidence.Conclusions. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The author formulates the conclusion that the circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code should be broadened and joins the position that the criminal-legal protection of these persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document