Browsing by Author "Zoll, Andrzej"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item PROJEKT ZMIANY KONSTYTUCJI RP PRZYGOTOWANY PRZEZ RADĘ PROGRAMOWĄ KONWERSATORIUM „DOŚWIADCZENIE I PRZYSZŁOŚĆ"(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2009) Zoll, AndrzejThe proposal of amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland presented in the paper was initiated by former Presidents Chairmen) of Poland’s Constitutinal Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) and subsequently drafted by the Programme Council Seminar „Doświadczenie i Przyszłość”. The proposal is a wholly civic project. It aims to eliminate the tension between two organs holding executive power: president and government. It postulates an amendment to the Constitution that would define presidential office as the highest representative of the Republic and one with guaranteed continuity. At the same the drafters of the amendments propose that the executive power should be exclusively held by the government. Further, they propose to limit presidential veto and consider a possibility of the Seym obliging president to ratify or denounce international treaties. Another variant considers departure from presidential elections.Item SPRAWSTWO BEZ WYKONANIA CZYNU ZABRONIONEGO(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2009) Zoll, AndrzejThe conception of the participation form o f a crime proposed by J. Makarewicz does not answer many fundamental questions. The general stance of the Polish contemporary doctrine of criminal law is that neither incitement nor aiding and abetting is a participation form of a crime, but only a separate and independent type o f a prohibited act, the description o f which (apart from the characteristics typical of incitement or aiding and abetting) also includes the description o f the act to which the inciter has induced, or in which the aider and abettor offered assistance. The conception proposed by J. Makarewicz may be fully applied to the participation forms leading to either the actual commitment o f a crime (committed personally or in conjunction with another) and in a non-executed form (leading, supervising or ordering a crime). What still remains to be solved is a question what charges should be formulated in respect of a person who has supervised a prohibited act that was ordered, i f the “to-be” perpetrator, or performer of the act only realises the characteristics of the object, without realising (or showing) any characteristics of the subject part. In my opinion, one should never claim that the person supervising a crime has actually managed or supervised the realisation or performance of a prohibited act whose attributes always characterise the subject as well. Under the currently applicable laws, in such cases we could determine the instance of co-perpetration. This solution, however, is not free from imperfections. It is therefore suggested that the scope of article 18 para. 1 of the penal code should be extended on indirect perpetration as well.Item ZNACZENIE KONSTYTUCYJNEJ ZASADY PODZIAŁU WŁADZY DLA PRAWA KARNEGO MATERIALNEGO(Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM, 2006) Zoll, AndrzejLegal issues in criminal law from the point o f view of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers could only be given in outline here. Four main issues have been discussed. Firstly, whether the legislator is entitled, and if he can, to what extent, to invest into the executive power with the task of determining the grounds (constituting) criminal responsibility, and more precisely, the interpretation of the nullum crimen sine lege principle in the context of article 31 clause 3 and article 42 clause 1 of the Constitution. Secondly, whether in Poland's constitutional system (order) exist instruments which a legislator could use to check the scope of criminalisation. Here, the dispute concerning the right of criminal courts to disregard, at their own discretion, the norm arising from an Act or ordinance, if such a norm is found to be in conflict with the Constitution. Thirdly, an attempt has been made to determine the level of judicial competence that may be vested in the criminal court to establish the attributes of a prohibited act. And fourthly, the level to which the legislator is authorised to propose absolutely determined punishment has been analysed, followed with a question whether such punishments are in line with the separation of power-based jurisdiction of courts appointed to administer justice.