Przegląd uchwał Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego, prawa karnego skarbowego i prawa wykroczeń za 2021 rok
Review of The Resolutions of The Supreme Court Criminal Chamber Concerning Substantive Criminal Law, Penal Fiscal Law and Law on Misdemeanours Passed in 2021

Summary/Abstract: This scientific research-based article aims to analyse resolutions and rulings of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber concerning substantive criminal law, penal fiscal law and law on misdemeanours passed in 2021 as the response to the so-called legal questions. They concerned the concept of a violent crime (Article 41a § 1 CC), liability for making false testimony for fear of penal liability (Article 233 § 1a CC), randomness-based nature of a game of chance (Article 2 par. 3 and 5 of Act of 19 November 2009 on games of chance), the change of a valid sentence passed for the commission of a crime in case the criminal classification changes and it becomes a misdemeanour instead of a crime (Article 2a § 1 Misdemeanour Code), and the concept of ‘predominant business activity’ laid down in Article 6 par. 2 of Act of 10 January 2018 establishing a ban on trading on Sundays and public holidays. The main scientific objective is to assess grounds for the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the provisions regulating the issues addressed in the questions to the organ. The main scientific theses indicate that the so-called legal questions to the Supreme Court play an important role in ensuring uniformity of common and military courts’ judgements because the justification provided by the Supreme Court is deepened. The research findings are original in character because they creatively extend the interpretation included in the analysed resolutions. The research is mainly of national relevance. The article is of considerable importance for jurisprudence: it contains a deepened dogmatic analysis and a big load of theoretical thought, as well as is useful for legal practice enriching the Supreme Court’s arguments and providing circumstances supporting different opinions.

• Details
• Contents