W ostatnim okresie do Marszałka Sejmu wpłynęło kilka projektów ustaw, które dotyczyły problemu przedawnienia przestępstw o charakterze seksualnym 1 , głównie w odniesieniu do jego terminu. Przedłożone projekty, zawierające propozycje zmian w art. 101 § 4 ustawy z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r.-Kodeks karny 2 (dalej jako: k.k.) lub w art. 105 k.k., zostały wniesione zarówno przez grupy posłów, jak i przez rząd. Ostatecznie 21 lutego 2014 r. przyjęto zmiany w art. 101 § 4 k.k. będące efektem prac nad projektem rządowym 3. Ponieważ problematyka walki z tego typu przestępczością jest przedmiotem prawa Unii Europejskiej, o czym będzie mowa w dalszej części artykułu, można rozważyć, czy i w jakim zakresie proponowane zmiany, odnoszące się do terminu przedawnienia, są zgodne z przepisami prawa wtórnego UE oraz czy ewentualnie mogą zostać uznane za zmiany, które implementują do prawa polskiego obowiązki nałożone przepisami UE-a zatem, czy dotychczas obowiązujący art. 101 § 4 k.k. nie był zgodny z prawem europejskim. Analiza tego przykładu może być przyczynkiem do dalszej dyskusji nad określeniem zakresu harmonizacji krajowego prawa karnego i zobowiązań państw w dziedzinie prawa karnego materialnego. Artykuł 101 § 4 k.k. w stanie prawnym przed uchwaleniem ww. ustawy 4 stanowi:
This paper starts with a dilemma. How to ensure the adequate protection of individual health data and privacy in a global pandemic, which has intensified the use of digital applications for the purposes of data sharing and contact-tracing? There is no simple answer to this question when choosing between the protection of public health and individual privacy. However, the history of the existing case-law regarding infectious diseases control, both Polish and European, teaches about numerous examples in which health data and privacy were not adequately protected, but, on the contrary, were misused leading to human rights infringements. In light of this case law and public health ethics, this paper argues radically that the use of digital applications to fight the Covid-19 pandemic has not been sufficiently justified at least in the Polish context. Especially, unconvincing benefits from the use of these tools do not outweigh the likelihood of human rights infringements with far-reaching consequences for political, social and economic rights now and in the future. In its novelty, this article combines a historical-legal method with the concept of public health ethics and a human rights-based approach and to foster further research and discussion. The text also responds to the pressing need to analyze those human rights issues embedded in the Polish reality.
This article addresses the migration crisis on the Polish–Belarusian border. The authors believe that the actions of the Polish authorities violated the requirements set by human rights standards, including the obligations arising from Poland’s membership of the EU and the Council of Europe. This is confirmed not only by legal doctrine and the reports of non-governmental organisations, present on the ground despite all the restrictions, but also by interim-measure orders issued by the ECtHR against the Polish government. In the first part of the text, the authors summarise the situation, recalling the most important events that took place on the Polish–Belarusian border. The second part discusses the most important obligations of the EU arising both from the treaties creating it and also from the secondary legislation adopted on their basis. The juxtaposition of the EU’s actual response and the obligations written on paper may lead to the conclusion that the EU’s actions are insufficient under EU law. Relying on the texts of legal acts and other available information, the authors argue that the EU’s actions, in a certain amount of compromise with political interests, even detract from its credibility as an organisation that also aims to protect human rights externally.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.