Miara prawnokarnej ingerencji w konstytucyjne wolności i prawa jednostki w zakresie działalności gospodarczej na przykładzie odpowiedzialności karnej za niezgłoszenie wniosku o upadłość spółki handlowej (art. 586 k.s.h.)
Measure of criminal interference in constitutional freedoms and rights of an individual to conduct economic activity on the example of criminal liability for failing to file a bankruptcy request for a commercial company (Article 586 Code of Commerci)

Summary/Abstract: As demonstrated by Gustav Radbruch, criminal law serves not only as the source, but also as the limit of punishment. Legal theory has long held the view that penal repression should be applied only if social harm cannot be prevented in a less invasive manner. By developing appropriate regulations, lawmakers influence the conduct of individuals, who decide whether or not to breach a given legal norm by weighing the benefits and losses of each alternative course of action. In this context, it is advisable to look at the most fundamental issues, consider the ways in which punishment is understood, identify the reason and rationale behind penal sanctions, and ask whether the same outcomes could be reached by means of administrative liability. Lawmakers enjoy a certain degree of leeway in choosing the applicable type of legal liability. After all, it is the lawmaker who decides to subsume a given violation (event, act, conduct) under a specific rubric; they also select the kind and intensity of relevant sanctions what might be an interesting example is article 586 Code of Commercial Companies.

• Details
• Contents