Search

Celem opracowania jest ustalenie znaczenia pojęcia „przestępstwo” na gruncie kodeksu postępowania cywilnego. Zagadnienie to nie było dotąd przedmiotem pogłębionych rozważań w polskiej doktrynie. Tymczasem termin ten, używany kilkukrotnie w przepisach wymienionego kodeksu, może być różnorako rozumiany przede wszystkim ze względu na wielość czynów zabronionych, których popełnienie skutkować może szeroko rozumianą odpowiedzialnością karną. W ocenie autorów uzasadnione jest wąskie rozumienie tego pojęcia w przepisach kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, odpowiadające zasadniczo znaczeniu nadanemu mu w oparciu o przepisy kodeksu karnego. Pojęcie przestępstwa używane w przepisach kodeksu postępowania cywilnego nie obejmuje zaś przestępstw skarbowych, wykroczeń skarbowych ani wykroczeń. The purpose of the study is to determine the meaning of the term ‘offence’ under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hitherto, this issue has not been the subject of comprehensive in-depth considerations in the Polish doctrine. Meanwhile, this term used several times in the provisions of the aforementioned code may be understood in various ways, primarily due to the multiplicity of prohibited acts the commission of which may result in widely understood criminal liability. According to the authors, a narrow understanding of this concept in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is justified what corresponds essentially to the meaning given to it under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Whereas, the term ‘offence’ in the Code of Civil Procedure does not include penal fiscal offences, fiscal petty offences or petty offences.

In general, the efficiency of civil proceedings in commercial cases has been improved by introducing the amendment of 4 July 2019 to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure: the subsidiarity of testimonial evidence in the commercial cases. Simultaneously, Article 458 10 of the code doesn’t allow to take an expert witness opinion after testimonial evidence which may, in a particular case, extend the duration of the proceedings. Therefore, this gap should be removed by amendment of this regulation. It should also be taken into account that testimonial evidence needs to be proceeded by hearing of parties due to both the reasons of conducting and the character of both means of proof.

Background: The subject of this research is the institution of evidence contracts introduced by the amendment of 4.07.2019 to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure in commercial cases proceedings. Research purpose: The first purpose of the paper is to examine the scope of applying the pro­visions of Article 4589 and admissible exclusions in the evidence contract. However, the paper also determines the effects of concluding an evidence contract and their potential pros and cons from the perspective of the purpose of the amendment (i.e. speed of proceedings) and certainty in business transactions. Methods: The formal dogmatic approach was used in the analysis. Conclusions: The conducted research leads to the conclusion that the introduction of evidence contracts may under certain conditions increase civil justice efficiency. However, this benefit may be illusory in situations requiring examination of the effectiveness and validity of an evidence contract. Furthermore, this institution may also result in abuse of economic power between large entrepreneurs and small enterprises.

This article is focused on the certification of family mediators. It presents Polish solutions in this matter, but refers also to foreign legal systems in order to compare various solutions in different countries. It discusses requirements (especially mediation training) set up for mediators when they apply for the certificate, and entities that grant the certificate. Finally it answers the question of whether all mediators should go through the certification process.

The main focus of this paper is the admissibility of confrontation between a witness and a party in civil proceedings. The article points out that such confrontations are possible according to Article 304 sentence 2 in conjunction with Article 272 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure and indicates the principles according to which they must be held. Premises entitling to carry out such a confrontation are: prior taking of testimony from both a witness and a party and their mutual (full or partial) contradiction. Furthermore, the optional character of this institution was also emphasized and both its advantages and the method of assessing the testimony of the confronted witness and the party were discussed.