Gloss to the judgment of the District Court of April 27, 2021 (II W 63/21)

The current Code of Petty Offenses entered into force in a different legal and socio-economic reality. It does not correspond to contemporary realities, its interpretation requires care, due to the necessity to consider the current Polish Constitution. Article 63a of the Code protects against behavior that violates the aesthetics of public space. Such behavior may not be punished when it does not violate public order, as it constitutes a form of exercising individual the freedom of expression.

Gloss to the Judgment of the District Court in Krosno of July 26, 2021, file ref. no. II Ka 191/21

Pro-life activists, publicly displaying banners depicting human fetuses, have raised controversy. In the judgment, the perpetrator, who himself removed the banners and destroyed them while dismantling, was found guilty but not punished. The inability of the person who removes such content to claim their state of higher necessity is a derivative of their actions aiming at interests of the perpetrator who placed the banners. Behavior so directed may be justified as necessary defense, but higher necessity. Legal scholarship assumes that this type of pro-life activity is unlawful, legal practice fails to reflect such an assessment. It is practically impossible to rely on acting in self-defense, which requires the unlawfulness of the attack. If it is possible to call the police, the citizen does not have the right to self-defense. It also does not serve when the police are already there, but it does not intervene.

Public manifestation of disregard for the Polish nation, the Republic of Poland and its constitutional authorities is a misdemeanor. Such disregard is not within the scope of the freedom of public debate. Such disregard is not within the concept of insult.

Gloss on the Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 24, 2023, file ref. no. IV KK 37/22

The purpose of the gloss is to present the correct line of reasoning that the Supreme Court should have adopted to reach the conclusion approved by the glossator. Relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights allows for the acceptance of the absence of a violation of the norm sanctioned as a result of the application of constitutional and convention interpretation, rather than just the lack of social harmfulness of the act, as basis for the denial of the element of criminality. Any legal restrictions on freedom of speech must arise from serious reasons and an urgent societal need.