This study determined whether an adequately regulated hearing by videoconference can become (alone or in conjunction with other measures) an instrument to balance the protection of the rights of the accused with the protection of the interests of witnesses in the criminal process. The authors identified the requirements that a hearing by videoconference must meet the standards established by the European Court of Human Rights. They performed a critical analysis of the existing provisions relating to hearing in Polish criminal procedural law and the practice of their application and showed why in some situations, hearing by videoconference seems to be the most optimal form of hearing. Particular attention was paid to witnesses with specific needs for protection during a hearing. These considerations led the authors to the general (i.e., not exclusively applicable to the Polish legal order) conclusion that hearing by videoconference is a very useful instrument for realising fair trial standards and witness protection.
Przedmiotem opracowania jest nowo wprowadzony do kodeksu postępowania karnego środek zapobiegawczy z art. 276a, który można określić mianem ochrony wykonywania zawodu. Autor dokonuje oceny celowości jego wprowadzenia, a także funkcji, zakresu podmiotowego ochrony, przesłanek stosowania, rodzaju orzekanych zakazów, powiązania z poręczeniem majątkowym oraz okresu stosowania. Wypowiada się krytycznie co do potrzeby wprowadzenia środka oraz wskazuje na brak spójności z przesłankami stosowania środków zapobiegawczych oraz systemem dotychczas obowiązujących środków zapobiegawczych.
Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.
The article discusses the problem of the indeterminate defendant in European tort law systems and in the projects aiming to unify tort law in Europe, such as Draft Common Frame of Reference and Principles of European Tort Law.The given issue relates to a situation where there is a damage caused by one factor, yet upon available evidence one may indicate a few potential factors which might have led to the damage, but it cannot be ascertained which factor was the actual cause of it. The problem is addressed with reference to two scenarios. First, when there is a limited and known number of persons acting tortiously, each of whom potentially might have led to the damage, but only one of them had actually caused it. Second, when it is certain that one tortfeasor from the undetermined group of tortfeasors caused damage to some of the injured persons from the group of the injured persons, but it cannot be established precisely which tortfeasor caused damage to precisely which injured person.In comparative law analysis, one may find various attempts to deal with the given issue, which come from the balance of ratios given to different solutions, as well as the legal possibilities or obstacles in national tort law systems. The main possibilities are: all-or-nothing approach, joint and several liability, and proportional liability. Those solutions are discussed in article in more detail with conclusion that the bold proposition of proportional liability presented in Principles of European Tort Law seems to be the most appropriate.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.