Evaluation and assessment of the constitutionality of penitentiary decisions, in the light of the introduction of the penitentiary credit system.

Aim: Criteria for the evaluation by the Constitutional Court of decisions on the execution of sentences. Methodology: Descriptive, documentary and content analysis. Findings: According to the Section 27 (1) of the Act on the Constitutional Court, the decision on the merits, i.e. the decision on the substance of the charge and the decision on criminal responsibility, or the decision on the guilt and the acquittal, can be the subject of a constitutional complaint. The final decisions -- the order not to proceed to trial and the order terminating the proceedings -- cannot be considered as decisions on the merits within the meaning of the Constitutional Court Act. However, these decisions can be examined in the context of a constitutional complaint, because they correspond to the Section 27 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, the other decision ending the court proceedings. Value: So far, no academic article has been published that analyses which decisions of the penitentiary judges can be challenged by a constitutional complaint following the latest amendments to Act CCXL of 2013 (Act XCVII of 2023). The study gives an overview of the investigative criteria applied by the Constitutional Court in the reception and assessment of decisions on the execution of sentences. It also records the tests that the Constitutional Court has applied over the years. It presents the Constitutional Court's practice in prison cases, some of which it decided before and some after the entry into force of the Fundamental Law. An analysis of the decisions taken under the credit system introduced in the framework of the penitentiary system, from the point of view of whether these decisions can be challenged by means of a constitutional complaint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]