odpowiedzialność karna

  • Odpowiedzialność karna głowy państwa na przykładzie Prezydenta Rumunii

    Author: Sabina Grabowska
    Institution: Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
    Year of publication: 2010
    Source: Show
    Pages: 127-136
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2010.01.10
    PDF: ppk/01/ppk110.pdf

    The Constitution of Romania of 1991 provides the President with an immunity. Exclusion from prosecution granted by the immunity is not only connected with the lack of legal liability for statements or political opinions stated by the President in the course of his office and after. The President is protected from the liability during the course of office and after his mandate expires also as far as actions and damages inflicted in connection with his powers are concerned. Analysis of the President’s liability requires distinction of constitutional and criminal liability. Constitutional liability includes liability towards the electorate as well as suspension from the office which can result in the recall of the President. Criminal liability, on the other hand, should be associated with the lack of civil and penal liability for actions and opinions stated by the President in the course of his office and after. However, according to the Article 96 (1) of the Constitution the Parliament is entitled to indict the President for the high treason. The constitution limits the President’s criminal liability only to penal liability for the high treason. It does not regulate the President’s immunity in other penal issues.

  • Odpowiedzialność karna Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej

    Author: Malwina Milczarek
    Institution: Uniwersytet Łódzki
    Year of publication: 2010
    Source: Show
    Pages: 137-153
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2010.01.11
    PDF: ppk/01/ppk111.pdf

    In this paper, we presented the criminal responsibility of the Republic of Poland President before the Tribunal of State and related issues. Objective scope of this responsibility against other republican European countries was described. Time scope of the criminal responsibility of the president as well as matters related to the procedure and modes of impeachment by the National Assembly have also been mentioned. In the second part of the paper, we presented the right to fair trial issues and characterized the role of the Tribunal of State as the adjudicating body in the criminal proceeding. International Criminal Court judicature was also mentioned.

  • Trybunał Stanu w polskim porządku ustrojowym. Zagadnienia wybrane

    Author: Bartłomiej Opaliński
    Institution: Akademia L. Koźmińskiego w Warszawie
    Year of publication: 2011
    Source: Show
    Pages: 111-130
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2011.02.06
    PDF: ppk/06/ppk606.pdf

    The article concentrates on issues of the State Tribunal in contemporary political order of the Republic of Poland. In the beginning there was explained the place of the State Tribunal in the system of separated powers. Next, applying the legal-historical method there was reconstructed its model in Polish political regulations, starting from the Constitution on 17 March 1921. Hereinafter there was made analysis of the contemporary position and competence of that State Tribunal and who can be the subject to his cognition. There was distinguished a constitutional and disciplinary responsibility, clarifying the being and premises for each of them. On the basis of made arrangements there was taken an attempt of evaluation of the contemporary constitutional regulation, formulating appropriate conclusions de lege ferenda.

Wiadomość do:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart