Browsing by Author "Knoppek, Krzysztof"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item
    PROBLEM DOPUSZCZANIA PRZEZ SĄD DOWODÓW Z URZĘDU W POSTĘPOWANIU CYWILNYM
    (Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2007) Knoppek, Krzysztof
    The paper is focused on the still controversial issue of the courts of the first and second instance admitting or deciding not to admit ex officio evidence. This issue has become even more problematic after the amendments o f the code o f civil proceedings commenced in 1996. The judicial decisions of the last years have demonstrated an opinion that it is in the courts discretion to decide whether ex-officio evidence should be admitted, and such a decision should be made such evidence has been deemed necessary in a given case. In my opinion this position is wrong and contrary to the current legal order. The admissibility of ex officio evidence by the court should be indeed exceptional and reserved to those very rare situations in which the legally protected goods play a role, or where the courts’ decision is prompted by a relevant special regulation. Generally, however, admitting ex officio evidence may infringe the principle of the equal treatment of the parties, and the principle o f independence and impartiality of the courts adjudicating in civil matters.
  • Item
    Problem związania sądu polubownego przepisami prawa materialnego
    (Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2014) Knoppek, Krzysztof
    W doktrynie procesu cywilnego pojawiły się opinie, że sądy polubowne (arbitrażowe) muszą przestrzegać wszystkich przepisów prawa cywilnego (prawa materialnego) na takiej samej zasadzie, jak czynią to sądy państwowe. Pogląd ten jest błędny, gdyż nie można go wyprowadzić ani z przepisów części piątej Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, ani też z postanowień Regulaminu arbitrażowego UNCITRAL z 2010 r. Poza tym sama idea sądów arbitrażowych polega na tym, że orzekają one na podstawie postanowień umowy, ogólnych zasad prawa, zasad słuszności i ustalonych zwyczajów. Nie są natomiast związane prawem materialnym, muszą jedynie respektować podstawowe zasady porządku prawnego (klauzula porządku publicznego). Strony, którym to nie odpowiada, nie powinny zapisywać swoich spraw cywilnych sądom polubownym.
  • Item
    PRZESŁUCHANIE PREZYDENTA RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ JAKO ŚWIADKA W POSTĘPOWANIU SĄDOWYM
    (Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2002) Knoppek, Krzysztof
    The Author attempts to analyse the previous and current legal regulations concerning the hearing of the incumbent President, beginning with the pre-war Code of Civil Procedure from 1932, which allowed for such a possibility in article 287. It is up to the President to determine the time and venue of the hearing. This provision has never been repealed and the current Constitution does not put a ban on it either: testifying in court does not violate the separation of powers or balance of power, and submission to the power of a judge does not deprive the President of the honours of the highest representative of the Republic of Poland. The course o f hearing a President by a judge is also discussed with reference to the potentially applicable stipulations of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Author also considers the hypothetical possibility of punishing the President by a judge for default of appearance, disturbance of order, as well as the possibility of refusal to testify on matters bound by the state secret, etc.
  • Item
    Rozgraniczenie dowodu z zeznań świadków i dowodu z opinii biegłego w postępowaniu cywilnym
    (Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 1984) Knoppek, Krzysztof
    Theory of civil procedure has for a long time attempted at delimiting a. role of witness and expert. Various criteria of delimitation of these two roles in procceedings were taken into account. Yet, these proved to be illusive and unable to draw a clear-cut-line between a person to submit his testimony as a witness and a person who ought to stand before court as an expert. It can be easily seen in case of the so-called experts-witnesses. In the author's opinion, the basic difference between a witness and an expert nas a formai character and is related to the will of court examining knowledge of a given person in the form of determined evidence There are substantial differences between a witness who was called by court and an expert who was appointed by court and accepted his duties.
  • Item
    Świadkowie czynności egzekucyjnych
    (Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 1991) Knoppek, Krzysztof
    The article presents legal character of the institution of witnesses for acts in executory proceedings. The author proves that such witnesses should be included into the category of witnesses appointed to legal transactions. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on evidence by witness do not apply to witnesses for acts in executory proceedings, even though one of the functions of witnesses for acts in executory proceedings in securing the evidence for judicial proceedings which may be started in connection with the executory acts performed. The participation of witnesses in executory acts does not take place "ad solemnitatem", but is of great significance from the point of view of correctness and openness of acts carried out by a court executive officer. The article also contains considerations on practical aspects of the participation of witnesses in executory acts.