Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2020)

Articles

Controversy over the Reform of Criminal Procedure Introduced by the Act of 19 July 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tekapr.2020.13.2-21  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2020-12-31

Abstract

An extensive reform of criminal procedure entered into force on 4 October 2019, implementing numerous changes to all of its stages. The changes were justified by a few goals, amongst which the one considered the most important was creating conditions for quicker resolution of cases in court proceedings, i.a. by counteracting the possibility of the obstruction of justice as well as preventing unnecessary repetition of evidentiary procedures. The legislator also aimed to remove the redundant formalisms occurring in the proceedings as well as designed mechanisms with the purpose of accelerating the preparatory proceedings and strengthening the position of the aggrieved in the criminal procedure. Undoubtedly the legislator’s intentions were legitimate and solved some of the fundamental problems that occur in the contemporary criminal procedure, particularly in regards to its extensive length. Solutions adopted in the Act, as a rule, deserve praise, particularly when it comes to removing unnecessary formalisms of the criminal procedure. However, despite the declaration of respect and compliance with the required procedural guarantees, especially those connected to the protection of the rights of the parties as well as the principle of the fairness of a criminal trial, the legislator was not able to fully maintain the standard of the guarantees, as it was reduced to accelerate the proceedings. In this aspect the discussed amendment can raise serious concerns. This article attempts to analyse the solutions adopted in the amendment, particularly those that cause the biggest controversies, especially concerning their compliance with the requirements of the Polish Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the minimal standards relating to the subject set by the European Union.

References

  1. Drajewicz, Dariusz. 2017. “Reguły ne peius – uwagi de lege lata i de lege ferenda.” Przegląd Sądowy 4:86–120. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hofmański, Piotr. 2005. “Przewlekłość procesu karnego w Polsce i środki jej zwalczania.” In Zagubiona szybkość procesu karnego. Jak ją przywrócić, ed. Stanisław Waltoś, and Janina Czapska, 19–80. Warszawa: LexisNexis. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hofmański, Piotr, and Andrzej Wróbel. 2010. “Komentarz do art. 6 EKPC.” In Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Komentarz do art. 1–18. Tom I, ed. Leszek Garlicki, 241–460. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hypś, Sławomir. 2019. “Komentarz do art. 66 k.k.” In Kodeks karny. Komentarz, ed. Alicja Grześkowiak, and Krzysztof Wiak, 522–31. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jeż–Ludwichowska, Maria. 2011. “Krytycznie o koncepcji prekluzji dowodowej.” In Iudicium et Scientia. Księga Jubileuszowa prof. Romualda Kmiecika, ed. Anna Przyborowska–Klimczak, and Adam Taracha, 539–52. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jodłowski, Jan. 2013. Zasada prawdy materialnej w postępowaniu karnym. Analiza w perspektywie funkcji prawa karnego. Warszawa: LEX a Wolters Kluwer business. [Google Scholar]
  7. Koper, Radosław. 2018. “Sens i bezsens reguł ne peius w procesie karnym.” Palestra 1:28–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mierzwińska–Lorencka, Joanna. 2020. Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz do nowelizacji 2019. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sakowicz, Andrzej, ed. 2015. Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sakowicz, Andrzej, ed. 2018. Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck. [Google Scholar]
  11. Skrętowicz, Edward. 2009. “Z problematyki rzetelnego procesu karnego.” In Rzetelny proces karny. Księga jubileuszowa Profesor Zofii Świdy, ed. Jerzy Skorupka, 21–27.Warszawa: Oficyna. [Google Scholar]
  12. Świecki, Dariusz. 2020. „Komentarz do art. 454 k.p.k.” In Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, ed. Jerzy Skorupka. Legalis. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zagrodnik, Jarosław, ed. 2020a. Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz praktyczny do nowelizacji 2019. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zagrodnik, Jarosław, ed. 2020b. „Komentarz do art. 378a k.p.k.” In Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, ed. Jerzy Skorupka. Legalis. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.