Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny wkracza w przyszłość: dowody elektroniczne i sztuczna inteligencja

Przegląd Sądowy 2026, nr 1, s. 5-18.

Both the nature of international crimes and the scale of investigations conducted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) require specialized methodology and require the use of digital tools. The technological complexity of the digital data being assessed and its volume mean that algorithmic data management has to become an essential element of conducting investigations into international crimes. The ICC makes extensive use of open-source evidence (OSINT) and has adopted an innovative approach to the collection and analysis of such evidence. This article presents new digital tools for the investigative operations of the Office of the ICC Prosecutor (OTP) and the approach of the ICC Trial Chamber to evidence obtained from open sources and digital databases. It also discusses the OTP’s use of artificial intelligence for data analysis during investigations, which forces an analysis of the effects, and primarily the potential threats of this new tool.

Postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Karna z dnia 23 października 2025 r., I KK 404/24 : glosa

Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 2026, nr 3, s. 50-77.

Prawomocnym orzeczeniem powodującym powagę rzeczy osądzonej w ramach Unii Europejskiej (art. 54 Konwencji wykonawczej do układu z Schengen z 14.06.1985 r., art. 50 Karty praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej) jest także orzeczenie o umorzeniu postępowania przygotowawczego wydane w pierwszym państwie członkowskim, gdy orzeczenie to zostało wydane przez prokuraturę bez wymierzenia kary i bez udziału sądu, a zostało uzasadnione stwierdzeniem braku dowodów mogących wykazać, że podejrzany rzeczywiście popełnił zarzucane mu przestępstwo – nawet gdy pomimo prawomocnego charakteru takiego orzeczenia uniewinniającego prokuratura może kontynuować postępowanie w ściśle określonych warunkach (pojawienie się nowych faktów lub dowodów).

In this decision, the Supreme Court once again faced the need to assess the effects in Poland of a final decision issued by a prosecutor in another EU Member State. In this case, it had to decide whether a specific decision to discontinue proceedings issued by a German prosecutor constituted the final decision in the case in the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, and therefore whether it should constitute the basis for a prohibition against further prosecution in the same case in Poland. It relied on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union when emphasizing that, although repeat prosecution is admissible in a situation where the decision of the prosecutor in another Member State does not resolve the case as to its merits, this possibility must be treated as an exception which cannot be reduced to a reassessment of the same evidence, and is only allowed under strictly defined conditions, such as the emergence of significant new facts or evidence. Thus, it ordered the Polish courts to apply the EU standard of finality of decisions primarily in accordance with the principle of mutual trust and confidence in the quality of law enforcement activities in other Member States.