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.

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.

Public Morality as a Premise for Animal Protection – Constitutional Aspects

The aim of the article is to present public morality as a basis for restrictions on constitutional freedoms and rights with the potential to include the protection of animals. The consequence of such an interpretation would be (at least partial) consideration of animal interests when conflicted with the human ones. The paper outlines the current status of animals in Polish law, focusing on the obligation of humane treatment and the possible legal subjectivity of animals. References to public morality in the context of animal protection in the Constitutional Court’s judgment on ritual slaughter and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are discussed. What is important for allowing stronger legal protection of animals, grounded also in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, is the recognition of the limitations resulting from anthropocentric view of law.