Ściganie zbrodni międzynarodowych : uwagi dotyczące konieczności wprowadzenia zmian w polskim prawie karnym

Studia Prawnicze 2024, nr 2, s. 7-34.

Współautorstwo: Grzebyk, Patrycja; Wierczyńska, Karolina

W artykule zaprezentowano wyniki badań mających za przedmiot odpowiedź na pytanie, czy polskie prawo karne jest ukształtowane w sposób umożliwiający prowadzenie skutecznych, czyli pozwalających na oskarżenie konkretnych osób i wydanie wobec nich wyroków, postępowań karnych w sprawie zbrodni międzynarodowych, do których ścigania jest zobowiązana Polska. Wnioski z badań wskazują, że tak nie jest. Regulacje dotyczące definicji zbrodni międzynarodowych i zasad wykonywania jurysdykcji wobec nich są niewystarczające. W pierwszej części artykułu wyjaśniono, że ściganie zbrodni międzynarodowych stanowi zobowiązanie międzynarodowoprawne Rzeczypospolitej i brak podejmowania działań na rzecz wykonania tego obowiązku wiąże się z odpowiedzialnością w prawie międzynarodowym. W drugiej skupiono się na zasygnalizowaniu braku penalizacji danych zbrodni międzynarodowych w polskim k.k. albo rozbieżności pomiędzy definicjami zbrodni międzynarodowych w prawie międzynarodowym a tymi przyjętymi w polskim k.k. W trzeciej części przeanalizowano kwestie dopuszczalności wykonywania jurysdykcji przez sądy polskie nad zbrodniami międzynarodowymi popełnionymi poza terytorium państwa polskiego. Artykuł wieńczą konkluzje, w których podkreślono, że brak realizacji przez Polskę zobowiązań międzynarodowych prowadzi nie tylko do „strukturalnej bezkarności”, lecz także do niezrealizowania celów stojących przed wymiarem sprawiedliwości w sprawach karnych.

The article presents the results of research aimed at examining whether Polish criminal law is shaped in a way that allows for conducting effective, i.e. allowing for the indictment of specific persons and the issuance of sentences against them, criminal proceedings in the case of international crimes, which Poland is obliged to prosecute. The conclusions from the research indicate that this is not the case. The regulations concerning the definition of international crimes and the principles of exercising jurisdiction over them are insufficient. Not only is the prosecution of international crimes an international law obligation of the Republic of Poland, as explained in the first part of the article, but the lack of action to fulfil this obligation also carries international legal responsibility. Not only does the second part focus on signalling the lack of penalization of certain international crimes in the Polish Penal Code, but it also highlights discrepancies between the definitions of international crimes in international law and those adopted in the Polish Penal Code. Finally, the third part analyzes the issues of the admissibility of exercising jurisdiction by Polish courts over international crimes committed outside the territory of the Polish state. The article ends with conclusions that emphasize that Poland’s failure to implement its international obligations leads not only to „structural impunity” but also to the failure to achieve the goals of the criminal justice system.

The EU E-evidence Package from the Polish Perspective : High Time for a Systemic Change

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2024, t. 33, nr 5, s. 125-153.

The article focuses on the problems resulting from the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings and for the execution of custodial sentences following criminal proceedings. Once the Regulation enters into force (18 August 2026), national courts will be able to include data obtained as a result of issuing of a European Production Order and (at an earlier stage) a European Preservation Order in the case file and then assess their admissibility. The e-evidence package offers procedural authorities a tool to gather electronic evidence. At the same time, this package is silent about the way these evidence – so easily and quickly acquired from service providers in other Member States – should be treated by national courts. Meanwhile, this is the stage that is decisive for justice systems and may lead to numerous – both legal and practical – problems. Therefore, the article deals with the problem of how the e-evidence package looks from the Polish perspective and how Polish courts can admit electronic evidence into criminal trial. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the problem of direct application of this Regulation and the problem of equivalence of the powers of national authorities towards service providers residing in other states and service providers residing in Poland. In this area, an analysis of national legal framework is presented, the aim of which is to show whether there are currently adequate and equivalent legal grounds for issuing production and preservation orders in national law towards national providers. The analysis shows that several changes in the Polish law are necessary in order to secure and ensure the effective application of the Regulation.

W artykule skupiono się na problemach wynikających z przyjęcia rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2023/1543 z dnia 12 lipca 2023 r. w sprawie europejskich nakazów wydania i europejskich nakazów zabezpieczenia dowodów elektronicznych w postępowaniu karnym oraz w postępowaniu karnym wykonawczym w związku z wykonaniem kar pozbawienia wolności. Po wejściu w życie tego rozporządzenia (18 sierpnia 2026 r.) sądy krajowe będą mogły wykorzystywać w postępowaniu karnym dane uzyskane w wyniku europejskiego nakazu wydania dowodów elektronicznych oraz (na wcześniejszym etapie) europejskiego nakazu zabezpieczenia dowodów elektronicznych, a następnie oceniać ich dopuszczalność. Pakiet e-dowodów oferuje organom procesowym narzędzie umożliwiające gromadzenie dowodów w formie elektronicznej. Jednocześnie w pakiecie tym nie wspomina się o tym, w jaki sposób te dowody – tak łatwo i szybko uzyskane od usługodawców w innych państwach członkowskich – powinny być traktowane przez sądy krajowe. Tymczasem jest to kluczowy etap oceny wyników tej współpracy dla organów wymiaru sprawiedliwości oraz może rodzić liczne problemy, zarówno prawne, jak i praktyczne. Dlatego w artykule przeanalizowano, jak wygląda pakiet e-dowodów z polskiej perspektywy oraz w jaki sposób polskie sądy mogą dopuszczać w procesie karnym dowody elektroniczne uzyskane od usługodawców na podstawie przepisów tego rozporządzenia. Ponadto zwrócono uwagę na problem bezpośredniego stosowania przepisów rozporządzenia oraz problem równoważności uprawnień organów krajowych wobec usługodawców mających siedzibę w innych państwach i wobec usługodawców mających siedzibę w Polsce. W tym obszarze przedstawiono analizę krajowych ram prawnych, której celem jest pokazanie, czy obecnie istnieją w polskim procesie karnym odpowiednie i równoważne podstawy prawne do wydawania nakazów wydania i zabezpieczenia dowodów elektronicznych w prawie krajowym wobec usługodawców krajowych. W wyniku przeprowadzonej analizy wykazano, że w celu zabezpieczenia i zapewnienia skutecznego stosowania rozporządzenia konieczne jest dokonanie zmian w polskim prawie karnym procesowym.

The ICC enters into the future : the digital-evidence revolution or evolution?

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 2024, t. 10, nr 3, s. 1-40.

Investigations into core international crimes should take into consideration the new, digital environment of evidence gathering. They cannot be conducted based solely on analogue means in a world that has become digital so fast. The ICC is taking an active part in the digital revolution in its investigations of core crimes, by establishing a new model of coping with the gathering, analysis, and management of digital evidence: the OTPLink and Project Harmony. In this article, firstly the response of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to the digital environment of evidence-gathering is analyzed, whereby the OTP decided to use algorithms in order to more effectively manage evidence. The legal character of these new developments is analyzed, as well as the dangers they pose for the assessment of evidence and the fact-finding process. In this analysis it is also necessary to establish whether this is indeed a “AI revolution”. Further analysis will focus on answering the question whether the digitalized tools used by the OTP fulfill all the preconditions necessary in order to ensure the credibility and authenticity of digital evidence. At the same time it is necessary to distinguish between the case law of the Chambers that relies on the traditional assessment of open sources, and the Internet-derived evidence based on the revolutionized algorithm-based gathering and management of evidence by the OTP. To this end there is a need to analyze the attitude toward digital evidence adopted so far by the Chambers with respect to the assessment of digital evidence and the use of such evidence in fact-finding. The key question that needs to be answered is whether the revolution is taking place only before the OTP, whereas the Chambers adopt a more evolutionary attitude.

As investigações sobre crimes internacionais graves devem levar em consideração o novo ambiente digital de coleta de provas. Não é possível conduzi-las baseando-se exclusivamente em meios analógicos em um mundo que se tornou digital tão rapidamente. O Tribunal Penal Internacional (TPI) participa ativamente da revolução digital na investigação de crimes graves, estabelecendo um novo modelo para lidar com a coleta, análise e gestão de provas digitais: o OTPLink e o Projeto Harmony. Neste artigo, primeiramente, será analisada a resposta do Gabinete do Procurador (OTP) ao ambiente digital de coleta de provas, onde o OTP decidiu utilizar algoritmos para gerenciar provas de forma eficaz. O caráter jurídico desses novos desenvolvimentos será analisado, bem como os perigos que eles apresentam para a avaliação de provas e o processo de apuração dos fatos. Nesta parte, será também necessário estabelecer se isso constitui, de fato, uma "revolução da IA". Além disso, a análise abordará a questão de saber se as ferramentas digitalizadas utilizadas pelo OTP cumprem todos os pré-requisitos no que diz respeito à credibilidade e autenticidade das provas digitais. Contudo, é necessário distinguir entre a jurisprudência das Câmaras, que se baseia na avaliação tradicional de fontes abertas e provas derivadas da internet, e a coleta e gestão de provas baseada em algoritmos revolucionados pelo OTP. Para esse fim, é preciso analisar a atitude adotada até o momento pelas Câmaras em relação à avaliação das provas digitais e ao uso dessas provas na apuração dos fatos. A questão central que precisa ser respondida é se a revolução está ocorrendo apenas no âmbito do OTP, enquanto as Câmaras apresentam uma atitude mais evolutiva.

The Polish Investigation into Core Crimes Committed in Ukraine : Practical Aspects of the Functioning of the JIT

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2023, t. XLIII, s. 323–338.

Współautorstwo: Nasiłowski, Michał

This article explains the legal basis and reasons for establishing a Joint Investigation Team by the Polish Prosecutor’s Office, investigating crimes committed as a result of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It analyses the reasons why this investigation is so highly demanding and describes how it requires an unconventional approach to work from investigators, as well as enormous coordination efforts and support from the EU organs. Other states are involved in the JIT on an unprecedented scale, as well as the OTP ICC, and unconventional support has been offered by the EU organs, especially in the area of digitalisation of the exchange of evidence. The article highlights the state and picture of investigations conducted into crimes committed in Ukraine, both in domestic jurisdictions and before the ICC, as well as possibly before an international or internationalised tribunal established to adjudicate the crime of aggression. It explains how the Polish investigation – conducted within the framework of a JIT – has become an important element of ‘strategic litigation networks’ for serious international crimes.

Odpowiedzialność przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym za zbrodnie prawa międzynarodowego popełnione w czasie konfliktu w Ukrainie

Palestra 2022, nr 4, s. 7-30.

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals are held responsible for crimes under international law, which are listed in Article 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is currently the only international court that exercises universal jurisdiction in criminal matters of international concern. Only specific individuals whose actions displayed the elements of the crime can therefore be prosecuted for committing a crime under international law. The question whether a person may be held criminally responsible in this forum should be considered at successive levels of analysis.

Stosowanie mechanizmów prawa procesowego do eliminacji dowodów niepożądanych w procesie karnym

Palestra 2022, nr 6, s. 7-35.

Since the entry into force of Article 168a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (i.e. 15.04.2016) the Polish courts have been faced with the need to find an answer to the question of how to proceed with evidence whose legality may be questioned. The content of this provision clearly indicates (in principle and briefly speaking) that in the process of making factual findings the courts (and other bodies involved in the procedure) should use prima facie illegal evidence, i.e. evidence obtained in violation of the law or used in a manner contrary to the provisions of law. The introduction of this provision into the system of criminal procedure made the system of evidence proceedings - rather rudimentary and unclear from the outset - even more vague and internally inconsistent. This article presents an analysis of the model of Polish evidence law in terms of the elements of the mechanism of excluding undesirable evidence from the trial. Such elements include: the manner in which evidence is adduced in the trial; the stage of assessing the admissibility of evidence; the moment when inadmissibility becomes apparent, and finally the model of the adopted procedure of deciding on the admissibility of evidence. It is important to establish not only why the evidence is considered inadmissible (from the point of view of its illegality), but above all how, i.e. in what procedure, such a decision is taken. The result of this analysis must have inevitably been postulates of legislative amendments, indicating the changes that are necessary in order to create a functional model of the mechanism for assessing the admissibility of evidence.

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial : a comparative approach

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal 2021, t. 7, nr 1, s. 43-92.

Este artigo pretende apresentar dois modelos de exclusão de provas indesejáveis que operam em ordenamentos continentais e de common law. São analisados os mecanismos de bloqueio de informações antes de se tornaram provas no processo penal, os quais podem ser definidos como instrumentos (soluções) adotadas em um determinado modelo de processo penal que permite a verificação e eventual exclusão de provas inadmissíveis pois definidas como indesejáveis à verificação dos fatos. Com base em uma "perspectiva de modelo”, será descrito o funcionamento desses mecanismos de exclusão (ou bloqueio) de provas indesejáveis nos Estados Unidos e na Inglaterra, na Alemanha, na França, na Polônia e na Itália. Também serão analisados o estágio da eliminação e o tipo de procedimento para aplicar o bloqueio. Analisar-se-á o modo em que a análise atomística e holística da prova atua e as suas consequências. A última parte do texto irá demonstrar como a existência de distintos motivos para a exclusão da prova na forma de ilegalidade, não fiabilidade e irrelevância, a depender da gravidade da violação da lei, podem resultar em diferentes consequências. Isso permitirá verificar se os modelos continentais ou de common law são coerentes e efetivos e se eles atendem ao objetivo almejado de eliminar provas indesejáveis. Nas conclusões, será demonstrado que o árbitro final sobre admissibilidade da prova em ambos os modelos é o julgador e como isso autoriza a ponderação dos interesses legalmente protegidos em cada caso. Assim, também se observará que no modelo continental de exclusão de provas indesejáveis não se pode afirmar que há um mecanismo integralmente desenvolvido para bloquear informações de se tornarem provas no processo penal.

This text presents two models of elimination of undesired evidence that operate in common law and continental law states. It analyses the mechanisms of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial which can be defined as the procedural instruments (solutions) adopted in a given model of criminal trial that allow for assessment and eventual elimination of inadmissible evidence as deemed to be undesired in the process of fact-finding. On the basis of a „model approach” it will be shown how such mechanisms of elimination (or blocking) of undesired evidence function in the United States and England, Germany, France, Poland and Italy. Also the stage of elimination will be analysed, as well as the type of procedure of applying a blockade. It will be explained in what ways the atomistic and holistic assessment of evidence work and what consequences they have. The last part of the text will show how the rationale for elimination of evidence in the form of illegality, unreliability or relevance, may result in various consequences depending on the seriousness of violation of law. These elements of analysis will allow to examine whether the continental and common law models of elimination of undesired evidence are coherent and effective and whether they allow for achieving the assumed goal of eliminating of undesired evidence. In the conclusions it will be shown that the final arbiter of admissibility of evidence in both procedural models is a judge and how this solution allows for weighting legally protected interests in every case. The argumentation presented in the article will also lead to an observation that in the continental model of elimination of undesired evidence it cannot be said that there is a full-fledged “mechanism” of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial.

Better to Explain or to Testify? : The Position of the Accused as a Source of Oral Evidence in a Criminal Trial in a Comparative Perspective

Comparative Law Review 2021, t. 27, s. 47-77.

In this article the position of the accused as a source of personal evidence in three different European legal systems: Poland, Germany, and England, will be presented. This analysis will be oriented to understand the way of functioning of the two different models of giving statements of fact by the accused at a criminal trial. The main difference is that in the common law model of criminal trial the accused may only present evidence by testifying as a witness speaking about what happened, whereas in the continental model the accused gives a specific personal type of evidence (that in the Anglo-Saxon literature is rather described as “oral evidence”) that is known as explanations. From this differentiation several consequences arise: among others, the possibility of presenting untruthful explanations and presenting many versions of events in the continental model which have to be assessed by the judges. At the same time, the same right of the accused to silence and not to give incriminating evidence applies in both models of criminal trial – however, in two different shapes and with different types of limitations.

Admissibility of Evidence Obtained as a Result of Issuing an European Investigation Order in a Polish Criminal Trial

Review of European and Comparative Law 2021, t. 46, nr 3, s. 67-92.

This article analyses the admissibility of evidence gathered by the Polish procedural authorities as a result of issuing an European Investigation Order, on the basis of provisions implemented due to the adoption on the 3th of April 2014 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. This Directive created a mechanism that allows for transfer of evidence between EU Member States. In this text the question will be answered how to deal with results of investigative measures that have been legally obtained in the executing state but despite acting in accordance with the legality principle by both states, happen to be illegal in the issuing Member State. Another discussed problem is how the rules of admissibility of evidence obtained from the result of issuing an EIO work in Poland – or at least how they should operate. The second discussed issue thus will refer to the current provisions in force in Poland regulating the method of dealing with evidence obtained abroad – that is also with evidence transferred from other Member States. It will be shown that they are unclear and may lead to undesirable results. In addition, suggested changes in Polish law will be proposed.

Head of State Immunity In Triangular Relations : The Case Of Al-Bashir Before The ICC

Chech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law 2019, t. 10, s. 47-63.

Współautorstwo: Wierczyńska, Karolina

In its last decision on the cooperation of Jordan the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court referred inter alia to the issue “whether Head of State immunity fi nds application in a situation where the Court requests a State Party of the Rome Statute to arrest and surrender the Head of State of another State (in this instance, Sudan), which, while not being state party to the Rome Statute, is the subject of a referral to the Court by the UN Security Council (further SC or UN SC) and, in terms of Resolution 1593, obliged to fully cooperate with the Court.” Specifi cally, the question was whether the president of Sudan, which is not a State Party of the ICC Statute, Omar Al-Bashir, was immune from the jurisdiction of Jordan, which is an ICC State Party, when it executed an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in a case referred to the Court by the resolution of the SC. The Appeals Chamber concluded that Jordan was obliged to execute the ICC arrest warrant as in result of the SC resolution the status of Sudan versus the ICC was equated with that of a state party to the Rome Statute. Thus, the obligation to cooperate with the ICC rested on both states – and on Jordan because of obligation of all state parties to cooperate with the ICC. In the contribution this decision is analysed particularly in the context of vertical and horizontal relationship between State Parties and the ICC and the obligation of third states in the context of the Security Council resolution. Th e ambiguous relation between the ICC and the SC, arising from this decision, will also be analysed.

Nazi Crimes in Poland : a Never-Ending Search for Justice

Contemporary Central & East European Law 2019, nr 1, s. 142-160.

This article deals with the model for prosecuting Nazi crimes committed in Poland in the light of the model presently used in international criminal law. It tries to answer the question: should the investigation of crimes of international law be handed over to transnational tribunals? Should they be hybrid tribunals involving a national factor, or completely supra-national tribunals like the International Criminal Court? Is it legitimate to transfer jurisdiction over these matters to national courts? The case of unpunished Nazi crimes in Poland may give a partial answer to this question. Certainly, various attempts made after World War II, including procedures brought before Polish courts, have contributed to understanding the function of international criminal law, and finding the answer to the question of the best model for prosecuting crimes of international law. At present, we also have the experience of international criminal tribunals, in particular the ICC, which is an efficient machine for prosecuting crimes of international law. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from its functioning that could improve the work of Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) prosecutors, and shed new light on the considerations regarding the prosecution of Nazi crimes in Poland after World War II.

Pozycja procesowa oskarżonego jako osobowego źródła dowodowego w Polsce i Anglii : rozważania prawno-porównawcze

Studia Prawnicze 2019, nr 2, s. 97-127.

W artykule przedstawiono problematykę pozycji oskarżonego w procesie jako osobowego źródła dowodowego i procesowe konsekwencje tej pozycji, związane z formą depozycji oraz znaczeniem, jakie im się nadaje. Pozycja oskarżonego stanowi jedną głównych różnic między tradycjami prawa anglosaskiego i kontynentalnego. Analizie zostaną poddane te różnice na przykładzie dwóch systemów prawnych: polskiego i angielskiego. W pierwszej kolejności omówiony zostanie zakres prawa do milczenia oskarżonego i jego ograniczenia w prawie angielskim. Następnie, analizie zostanie poddana forma składania przez niego oświadczeń w procesie. W ramach rozważań prowadzonych w artykule znajdzie się też analiza odmienności między formą i procesowymi konsekwencjami przyznania się do winy. Rozważania zostaną podsumowane analizą powiązań pozycji procesowej oskarżonego z innymi elementami postępowania karnego, które w powiązaniu ze sobą wpływają na to, czy jest to pozycja korzystna.

The article presents the position of the accused in criminal trial as a personal source of evidence and its procedural consequences. This position is one of the main differences between the adversarial and continental models of procedural criminal law which will be presented on the example of legal systems of Poland and Germany, and England. First of all, the scope of the right to silence and its possible limitations will be discussed – when the accused has no wish to become a personal source of evidence at all. Then, if the accused decides to give up this right, a question arises as to the form by which he makes statements in criminal trial. One of the forms of breaking the silence is e.g. confessing (either in trial or outside trial). Finally, the relationship with other elements of the criminal pro-ceedings will be presented, related to the defendant’s trial position, which influ-ence the procedural position of the accused. The considerations will be summa-rized by the attempt to answer a question, in which legal tradition the position of the accused is in fact more favorable and why it is not possible to give a defi-nite answer to such a question.

Możliwość prowadzenia postępowania karnego w sprawie zbrodni popełnionych w czasie Powstania Warszawskiego przed sądami polskimi : przypadek Heinza Reinefartha

Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 2018, t. 70, nr 2, s. 331-360.

The purpose of this article is to consider if it is admissible, from the point of view of Polish and European Union procedural criminal law, to prosecute crimes committed during the Warsaw Uprising the Polish authorities. To begin with, there are numerous problems which are connected with concluding whether it is possible to initiate proceedings due to the historical nature of the case. The accused are dead and there is also often the case of res iudicata (Latin for “a matter already judged”). Consequently, there are grounds according to Article 17 § 1 point 5, 6 and 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which constitute circumstances which, consequently, must lead to the termination of the proceedings. However, the proceedings in this particular case are not carried out on the grounds of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but rather according to the act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation. This act regulates a different mode of procedure in case of crimes committed against people of Polish nationality or Polish citizens of different nationality between the 8th of November 1917 and the 31st of July 1990. And Nazi crimes are also included among the crimes which are admissible for prosecution. The legal obstacles encountered in such cases are demonstrated on the basis of the crimes committed by Heinz Reinefarth during the Wola massacre.

L’objectif de l’article est de déterminer, du point de vue du droit pénal procedural polonais et du droit de l’Union européenne, s’il est admissible d’engager devant la juridic-tion polonaise des poursuites pénales des auteurs de crimes commis lors de l’insurrection de Varsovie. À première vue, de nombreux problèmes sont liés à la nature historique des crimes reprochés à un accusé: les accusés sont morts et nous avons souvent affaire à res iudicata (principe de l’autorité de la chose jugée). Par conséquent, l’article 17 § 1, points 5, 6 et 7 du Code de procédure pénale, contient des indications qui constituent des prémisses négatives pour poursuivre une telle procédure et doivent conduire à son arrêt. Dans ce cas particulier, les poursuites sont basées sur les dispositions de la loi du 18 décembre 1998 sur l’Institut de la mémoire nationale – la Commission de poursuite des crimes contre la nation polonaise, qui régit la procédure de poursuite des crimes commis contre des per-sonnes de nationalité polonaise ou des habitants du territoire polonais ayant la nationalité étrangère, pendant la période du 8 novembre 1917 au 31 juillet 1990. Parmi les crimes visés aux dispositions ci-mentionnés il y a des crimes nazis qui constituent l’exemple des crimes pour lesquels une procédure pénale est autorisée. Sur l’exemple du Carnage du Quartier Wola, le crime imputé à H. Reinefarth, nous mettons en lumière les difficultés juridiques rencontrées lors de l’enquête dans cette affaire.

Utrata uprawnień do kierowania pojazdami w prawie Unii Europejskiej w sytuacjach transgranicznych

Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2018, nr 10, s. 18-27.

Niniejszy artykuł przedstawia konsekwencje utraty prawa jazdy w jednym z państw członkowskim na obszarze innych państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Zakaz prowadzenia pojazdów jest specyficznym środkiem (karnym lub administracyjnym), który doczekał się szerokiej regulacji w prawie międzynarodowym. Poniżej zostaną przedstawione – w zarysie – te regulacje prawa międzynarodowego, jednakże jego głównym tematem jest analiza przepisów dyrektywy 2006/126/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z 20.12.2006 r. w sprawie praw jazdy i konsekwencji wprowadzenia tej dyrektywy dla państw członkowskich i kierowców. Podstawowe pytanie, które powstaje, dotyczy tego, czy dokument wydany w innym państwie członkowskim kreuje uprawnienie do kierowania pojazdem mimo odebrania dokumentu w Polsce. Należy pamiętać, że w tej sytuacji nie chodzi o ważność prawa jazdy jako dokumentu, tylko o ważność uprawnień do kierowania pojazdem mechanicznym. W obecnym stanie prawnym, nawet, jeśli dana osoba ma kilka praw jazdy (jako dokumentów) wydanych w różnych państwach członkowskich, to jeśli traci to wydane w państwie zamieszkania – traci je wszystkie, tracąc uprawnienie do kierowania na terytorium całej Unii Europejskiej.

This article presents the consequences of a driving ban in one Member State in the remaining European Union Member States. The driving ban is a special (criminal or administrative) measure, which is now broadly regulated in international law. Below, the author outlines these regulations of international law, but the main topic is an analysis of the provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, and the consequences of the implementation of this directive for the Member States and for drivers. The basic question that arises is whether a document issued in another Member State creates a licence to drive a motor vehicle even though a document was withdrawn in Poland. It has to be borne in mind that in this situation the issue is not whether the driving licence as a document is valid, but whether a person is validly licensed to drive a motor vehicle. As the law stands now, even if a given person has a few driving licences (documents) issued in different Member States, once he/she loses the licence issued in the state of residence, he/she loses them all and ceases to be licensed to drive in the whole of the European Union.

Kompetencja sądu do zmiany kwalifikacji prawnej czynu przedstawionej w akcie oskarżenia : zagadnienie kompatybilności instytucji procesowych

Państwo i Prawo 2017, nr 2, s. 54-69.

The aim of this paper is to show how a judge's power to change an act's legal classification (or lack of such a power) affects other components of a given model of criminal procedure. The lack, or existence, of this power of the court has a number of procedural consequences. Its existence is linked to a whole doctrine of sameness of the act as charged and as ascribed, and unchangeability of the object of trial. It is an element of the theory of the principle of accusatorial procedure and its influence on the limits of criminal trial. The court's inability to change the legal classification results in introducing the option of adjudicating on the basis of alternative charges and also with respect to the so-called lesser included offences. This subject is also linked to the general ability to change the scope of accusation: whether by changing the contents of the indictment or by going beyond the limits of the accusation in an incidental trial.

O modelowym podejściu do postępowania karnego

Przegląd Sądowy 2017, nr 4, s. 5-23.

In every state there is a separate model of criminal procedure. The concept of a „model” may be understood primarily as a „specimen” structure or procedure. While analysing a certain component of criminal trial „modelling” becomes useful in order to explain and show why certain elements tend to have certain features. In the theory of criminal proceedings a model is understood as a „set of basic components of a system that allows differentiating it from other systems”. These components (simplifying) are constituted by specific procedural institutions, solutions used in a criminal procedure, principles of criminal trial or functions performed by one of the actors in trial. In this article I analyse the concept of a „model” of criminal procedure in a specific state and oppose this concept to an „ideal model” of criminal procedure that describes a certain legal tradition, like e.g. „a model of continental criminal procedure” or „a model of common law criminal procedure”. I also propose the set of basic components of an „ideal model” of criminal procedure that allows to differentiate it from other models.

Changing evidentiary rules to the Detriment of the Accused? : the Ruto and Sang Decision of the ICC Appeals Chamber

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2017, t. 37, s. 101-124.

The mai­n­ topi­c of thi­s arti­cle i­s retroacti­ve appli­cati­on­ of procedural cri­mi­n­al law. In­ thi­s text the questi­on­ wi­ll be posed – an­d an­swered – whether the appli­cati­on­ of a n­ew procedu­ral provi­si­on­ that en­tered i­n­to force i­n­ the course of an­ on­goi­n­g proceedi­n­g should i­n­ that proceedi­n­g be con­si­dered as retroacti­ve an­d i­n­ what scope or/an­d un­der what con­di­ti­on­s can­ such retroacti­vi­ty be allowed for. As wi­ll be shown­ the soluti­on­s i­n­ n­ati­on­al juri­sdi­cti­on­s di­ffer accordi­n­g to the common­ law – con­ti­n­en­tal law states di­vi­de. Thi­s problem wi­ll be di­scussed i­n­ the li­ght of a deci­si­on­ i­n­ the ICC Ruto an­d San­g case. In­ thi­s case the ICC Appeals Chamber had to an­swer several questi­on­s pertai­n­i­n­g to the temporal appli­cati­on­ of n­ew procedural provi­si­on­s. Fi­rstly, the Chamber had to deci­de whether a gen­eral ban­ on­ the retroacti­ve appli­cati­on­ of substan­ti­ve law should also apply to procedural cri­mi­n­al law. Secon­dly, the ICC Appeals Chamber had to an­alyze the cri­teri­a accordi­n­g to whi­ch i­t would evaluate whether the chan­ge of rules of cri­mi­n­al procedure i­n­ the course of an­ on­goi­n­g tri­al was to be con­si­dered as havi­n­g a retroacti­ve effect, an­d whether the chan­ge i­n­ the rules of admi­ssi­on­ of evi­den­ce could be con­si­dered detri­men­tal to the accused. Thi­rdly, i­t wi­ll be shown­ that the ICC Appeals Chamber has chosen­ the common­ law con­cept of “due process ri­ghts” rather than­ the i­dea of “i­n­tertemporal rules” kn­own­ from the con­ti­n­en­tal doctri­n­e, an­d why i­t chose to do so.

Amerykański proces karny w poszukiwaniu prawdy materialnej

Palestra 2016, nr 9, s. 48-61.

In this article a question has been posed if the model of criminal procedure functioning the United States of America (known also as the adversarial model of criminal procedure) aims at ruling upon true facts of a case. The analysis of existing procedural mechanisms and conditions led to a conclusion that adversarial procedure is not an effective tool of truth-finding. There are too many prerequisites that render this goal impossible to achieve, among which we can include: fact-finding by a jury (whose verdict is unpredictable), no organ interested in establishing the true account of events, no possibility to influence the evidentiary material both by a professional judge and afact-finder (jury) and finally subordinating the result of a trial (in most cases) to cunning and skills of a lawyer, and not to the strength of substantive arguments.

The Scope of Appeal on Complementarity Issues before the ICC : On the Example of the Appeal of Côte d’Ivoire against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber i in the Simone Gbagbo Case

The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 2016, t. 15, nr 2, s. 326-344.

On 27 May 2015, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (icc) issued a judgment on the appeal of Côte d’Ivoire against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber i of 11 December 2014 entitled “Decision on Côte d’Ivoire’s challenge to the admissibility of the case against Simone Gbagbo”. As a result of this decision, the path to prosecute Simone Gbagbo lies open. The Appeals Chamber confirmed the opinion expressed by the Pre-Trial Chamber that there were no obstacles in the form of national prosecutions which would exclude the icc’s jurisdiction pursuant to the principle of complementarity. This judgment is not only important from the point of view that the icc has found no basis to find the case inadmissible on the grounds of lack of complementarity, but even more so because of the procedural issues at stake. In this decision, solutions can be found that are crucial with regard to the scope and methods of appellate review before the icc.

Instytucja proofing of witnesses przed międzynarodowymi trybunałami karnymi

Palestra 2014, nr 7/8, s. 17-26.

Model kontradyktoryjności w postępowaniu przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym

Państwo i Prawo 2014, nr 10, s. 54-67.

Proceedings before international criminal courts are conducted according to the principle of adversarial proceedings. The elements of procedure that create the specific form of adversarial proceedings have been adapted from different legal systems, both adversarial and non-adversarial. The foundations of criminal trial are non-adversarial: the aim of the trial is to establish the objective truth and the prosecutor becomes an impartial authority of the administration of justice. However, the technical rules of proceedings are based on adversarial systems. Firstly, the parties are responsible for introducing evidence. Secondly, the conduct of the trial is characteristic of these systems: both the consequences of presentation of evidence and the method of examining witnesses. The role of a judge is based on a mixed solution. On the one hand, the judge’s powers are similar to these of a common law judge; on the other hand, they use them in a way known from non-adversarial systems, fulfilling their obligation to establish the objective truth. Consequently, proceedings before international criminal courts have become a sui generis procedure, establishing a new form of adversarial proceedings.

Selection of Defendants before the ICC : between the Principle of Opportunism and Legalism

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2014, nr 1, s. 187-224.

International criminal tribunals had to make a choice between the principles of opportunism and legalism or decide to use a mixture of these both. They had to decide whether a prosecutor should become “the minister of justice” (as in the principle of legalism) or “the first judge” (evaluating in the frames of principle of opportunism the reasonable basis for prosecuting). This article addresses prosecutorial discretion before the ICC with respect to selecting defend­ants. Firstly, it analyzes the main differences between opportunism and legalism of pros­ecution. It also presents models of accusation functioning before the historical and existing international criminal tribunals – which usually opted for opportunism of prosecution. Be­fore the ICC the conditions on which the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation are set in Art. 53(1) of the Statute: “The Prosecutor shall, having evaluated the information made available to him or her, initiate an investigation unless he or she determines that there is no reasonable basis to proceed under this Statute.” It is interesting to observe that this phrase may be interpreted in many various ways, depending on the model of accusation the author belongs to: those coming from the Anglo­Saxon tradition have tendency to search for elements of opportunism; those from civil law states assume that the model of accusation operates according to the principle of legalism. There is also a number of mixed options presented, according to which the ICC operates according to a mixture of these two principles. Finally, the article presents different rules adopted by the ICC Prosecutor (or proposed), which govern the choice of the defendants.

Zagadnienia dopuszczalności materiału dowodowego w sprawach karnych na obszarze Unii Europejskiej

Przegląd Prawa Europejskiego i Międzynarodowego 2012, nr 1, s. 23-52.

Rola prokuratora w postępowaniu przygotowawczym przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym

Studia Prawnicze 2010, nr 2, s. 83-115.

In the process of creation of international criminal tribunals not only criminal procedure sui generis was designed but also for the first time detailed powers of prosecutor had to be adapted to specificity of their functioning. Procedure of international criminal tribunals creates new foundations to the position of prosecutor. The role that is played by this organ in international justice system depends mainly on the position of the tribunal itself. The creators of international tribunals applied legal instruments from several legal systems choosing solutions that seemed most appropriate for organs of international justice. In the consequence such procedure constitutes an amalgamate of common law institutions and solutions used in continental legal systems. In the negotiations during creation of the International Criminal Court for many years the best solutions were discussed and designed. Several questions regarding the shape of procedure had to be answered. The answers influenced not only the powers of prosecutor but also the role of tribunal. The place of prosecutor as an organ of the tribunal was the first issue of fundamental importance. International military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo did not create prosecutor as an independent organ. Prosecutors acted only in the name of the victorious governments. It was only with creation of ad hoc tribunals – International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda – that prosecutor became an independent organ, equipped with his own powers. At the time being, in the procedure before the International Criminal Court independence of prosecutor is the fundamental element of his status and is protected equally to independence of judges. Secondly, the choice between opportunity and legality of prosecution had to be made. It was agreed that prosecutor should take actions only in the most severe situations regarding most serious violations of international criminal law when specific circumstances indicate that they are in the interest of an international organ of justice. Perpetrators of international crimes are usually too numerous to be brought to justice before an international organ. In such situation it is accepted that prosecutor should initiate criminal proceedings only when he sees the procedure to be in interests of international justice. The issue of initiation of procedure was equally crucial. Each tribunal offers to prosecutor such powers, although in the ICC it was one of the most disputed solutions. In the consequence prosecutor plays an important role in the functioning of international justice. Not only he can initiate procedure proprio motu but also chooses situations and perpetrators that should be brought to justice before international tribunals. The shape of pre-trial stage constitutes an amalgamate of different criminal justice systems – both elements of common law and continental legal systems have been employed in order to create procedure most fitted to the specificity of situations that have to be dealt with by international tribunals. Such institutions as disclosure of charges and documents come from common law. Continental legal systems provided solutions of confirmation of indictment and active role of Pre-Trial Chamber in the pre-trial stage. In the consequence system of checks and balances was created – prosecutor conducts the pre-trial stage but most important decisions have to be confirmed by a judicial organ. This article presents powers of prosecutors of international criminal tribunals during the pre-trial stage of proceedings. It focuses on such institutions as power to initiate of proceedings and its limitations, preliminary examination of a case, authorization of investigation, conditions of such authorization and powers of prosecutor to act on a territory of states. Many procedural issues concerning the role of prosecutor have been explained during the judicial activities of ad hoc tribunals. It can be expected that in the jurisprudence of the ICC problems concerning the role of prosecutor of international tribunal will be further developed.

Przegląd glos krytycznych do orzeczeń Izby Karnej SN z zakresu prawa wykroczeń, prawa międzynarodowego, oraz ustaw szczególnych opublikowanych w okresie od kwietnia 2005 roku do 2006 roku

Palestra 2007, nr 9/10, s. 339-353.

Współautorstwo: Błachnio-Parzych, Anna; Żółtek, Sławomir

Zasada ne bis in idem w polskim kodeksie karnym w aspekcie prawa międzynarodowego

Prokuratura i Prawo 2006, nr 3, s. 33-51.

Wybrane problemy przekazywania skazanych na tle orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego

Palestra 2006, nr 9/10, s. 47-67.

Problem kodeksu postępowania karnego dla Unii Europejskiej

Przegląd Prawa Europejskiego 2005, nr 3/4, s. 46-60.

Postępowanie przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym

Studia Iuridica 2004, nr 43, s. 53-83.

Europejski Nakaz Aresztowania

Europejski Przegląd Prawa 2004, nr 3, s. 81-94.

Execution of European Arrest Warrants in the Polish Judicial Practice After the Judgmentof the Constitutional Tribunal of 27 April 2005

Polish Yearbook of International Law 2004, t. XXVII, s. 199-204.