Problemy administracyjnego wykonania karnoprocesowego zabezpieczenia majątkowego na tle orzecznictwa sądów administracyjnych

Proces karny w dobie przemian : zagadnienia ogólne / pod redakcją Sławomira Steinborna i Krzysztofa Woźniewskiego. Gdańsk : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2018, s. 576-591.

Between the medium and the minimum options to regulate mutual recognition of confiscation orders

New Journal of European Criminal Law 2018, t. 9, nr 4, s. 432-445.

The proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders is aimed at solving the problems of criminal asset recovery in cross-border cases. The policy option adopted is in fact an alternative to a deeper harmonization of national confiscation systems, accordingly the Member States may view it as an attempt to impact their internal legal systems by the so-called side door, with the mutual recognition principle and the idea of combatting terrorism being, respectively, the key and password to unlock It. If this strategy is successful, it can be anticipated that it will become in the future a model for regulation of non-confiscation issues at the European Union level for which deeper harmonization has proved too difficult. Among the four regulatory options discussed in the legislative process, there are good reasons in support of an evolutionary approach, which is reflected in the option referred to as the ‘minimum’, based on the use of the legal form of a directive.

Postępowanie karne, prawo do tłumaczenia, braki formalne aktu oskarżenia, adresat obowiązku uzyskania tłumaczenia aktu oskarżenia : glosa do postanowienia z dnia 24 sierpnia 2016 r., V KK 67/16

Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 2018, nr 2, s. 82-93.

In the commented decision, the Supreme Court has determined the entity obliged to procure a translati on of the indictment, which is not the prosecutor, but the court having jurisdiction to hear the case. In additi on, the Supreme Court correctly pointed out the moment when the obligation to procure a translation of the indictment arises at the same time as the obligation to serve a copy of the indictment on the accused, but only after a positive result of the formal control of the indictment conducted by the court president or the court referendary (Art. 337(1) and Art. 338(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The view expressed by the Supreme Court in the commented decision does not change the scope of the accused’s right to receive a free translation of the indictment, but at the same time supports the parties’ procedural position by allowing the case to be transferred to the court more quickly and fosters the economy of criminal proceedings.

Retroactivity of extended confiscation and the EU minimum standard

Arts and Humanities Open Access Journal 2018, t. 2, nr 3, s. 150.