<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The paper discusses with the crime of rehabilitation of Nazism contained in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It presents the rationale for its introduction into the legislation, the scope of the legal regulation, and its evaluation in terms of its content and edition. For the purpose of the publication, research questions were posed, the answers to which demonstrated the political and populist nature of the regulation and its imprecise casuistic approach, which brings few benefits to Russia’s criminal policy.
</abstract>

Rehabilitation of Nazism as a Crime in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The purpose of the article is to analyse possible grounds, within the criminal sphere, for legalisation of behaviour involving damage to someone else’s property motivated by the desire to save a child or an animal left in a locked warming car. It is quite common to treat this type of event as one matching the features of the state of superior necessity. However, such an approach may raise some doubts of a dogmatic nature. From the point of view of the statutory shape of the existing countertypes, one can look for the possibility of assuming in such cases (when the owner of the damaged property and the perpetrator of leaving a living creature in such conditions is the same person) the occurrence of an assault justifying, after meeting all the required conditions in the form of directness, lawlessness and reality, taking steps within the right to necessary defence. The adoption of such a concept has its own tangible practical significance, as it makes it unnecessary to refer to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, which guarantees broader protection from criminal liability for those who damage other people’s property in order to take out a living creature left in a locked car in a situation of danger to its life or health.
</abstract>

Breaking a Car Window to Rescue a Child or Animal Locked Inside: A Dogmatic Analysis of the Legal Grounds for Excluding Criminal Liability

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The subject of the article are the regulations concerning the escape of a person legally deprived of liberty, that are in force in countries with a Germanic legal tradition. The analysis of German, Swiss, Austrian and the Principality of Liechtenstein’s law is conducted against a background of Polish solutions. The aim of the study is to present similarities and differences between the solutions adopted in particular German-speaking countries, as well as between these solutions and the regulations contained in the Polish Penal code.
</abstract>

Criminal Liability for (Self)-Liberation of a Person Legally Deprived of Liberty Under German, Swiss, Austrian and the Principality of Liechtenstein’s Law

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The Act on supporting households in bearing the costs related to the change of the digital terrestrial television broadcasting standard was passed by the government on February 24, 2022, and a month later, on March 23, 2022, it was amended, because it became necessary to clarify the issue of the circle of people entitled to receive state support, which is absolutely fundamental from the point of view of this act. The content of the article will therefore be to determine the content of the normative set by interpreting the regulations of the aforementioned Act, so it takes into account all functional relationships of the standards under study and is based on all available sources of information. At the same time, when analysing statutory regulations, the author will reflect on their compliance with the principle of specificity of law, interpreted by the Constitutional Tribunal from the constitutional principle of a democratic state ruled by law.
</abstract>

Support for Households Due to the Change in the Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting Standard – An Attempt to Evaluate the Adopted Normative Solutions

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The article deals with the issue of administrative authorities’ justification of a failure to meet deadlines for handling cases in general administrative proceedings, tax proceedings and simplified complaint proceedings. To that end, the author uses the dogmatic-legal method, performs a critical analysis of the literature on the subject matter and interprets the relevant judgments of administrative courts. The aim of the article is to draw attention to the importance of correct, exhaustive and true justification of the reasons why administrative bodies procrastinate and set new deadlines for handling administrative cases.
The research area has been divided into two main parts, i.e. the analysis of the correct indication of the reasons for a delay and the diagnosis of incorrect justifications for failures to handle cases on time. The author emphasises that the reasons for a failure to deal with an administrative case on time should reflect the facts concerning the case as accurately as possible, especially when a given reason is an element of an evidence-based proceeding. Criticism was levelled at reasons not related to the course of proceedings, such as staffing problems of the authority and the multitude of cases, as well as reasons stated in too general terms, such as the complicated nature of a matter. In conclusion, the author proves that precise indication of reasons for failures to handle a case within the time limits sticks to the principle of striving for objective truth and influences the general assessment of administrative bodies.
</abstract>

Reasons for Failing to Handle Administrative Cases on Time

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The article deals with the potential infringement of human dignity through the choice of priority criteria for the provision of medical assistance in an emergency situation, when the treatment can only be provided for one person. The lack of sufficient equipment during the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic is a key example, but examples of acute shortage of medical personnel and various types of equipment are also analysed. The assumption made in the article is that selection guidelines need to be established for medical personnel.
The text presents the concept of violation of human dignity and the issue of inability to provide assistance to an adequate number of patients. Then, with the use of the dogmatic-legal method, the proposed patient selection criteria such as age, social position, physical condition, and occurrence of comorbidities are analysed.
As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that, due to the protection of human dignity, it is unacceptable to take away the assistance already provided for a patient (disconnection from the apparatus) in order to save the health of another patient. The criterion of assessing the patient’s health condition is unquestionable, whereas the choice of other decisive factors, such as a person’s social standing, may lead to unjustified discrimination and inequality.
</abstract>

Priority Criteria for the Provision of Medical Assistance Versus Protection of Human Dignity

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The article is a review of the issues concerning the concept of “the best interest of the child” as a negative condition for granting a divorce in the light of a diagnosis made in the Opiniodawcze Zespoły Specjalistów Sądowych (OZSS) on family courts’ request. It presents legal and psychological views on the best interest of the child in the context of a divorce treated as a crisis in the family. Comments are also presented on the scope of examination conducted by the OZSS experts on the impact of a divorce on the best interest of the child and selected problems related to their specificity. Based on the selected literature on the subject matter, case law and the work practice of the OZSS experts in the field of psychology, subjective views on the methodology of examining the impact of a divorce on the best interests of children are also presented. The main thesis of the article is the opinion that commissioning the OZSS experts by family courts to examine negative conditions for granting a divorce is controversial.
</abstract>

Divorce Versus the Best Interest of the Child as a Subject of Examination Conducted in Ozss: A Legal and Psychological Perspective

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

The glossed ruling covers two key issues concerning the application of the autonomous and comprehensive rules of the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data applied by organisational units of the Catholic Church in the territory of the Republic of Poland. The first issue concerns the possibility of further application of these autonomous, comprehensive rules after the GDPR came into force. The second issue concerns the ability to designate and grant a legal status to an independent separate supervisory authority: the Ecclesiastical Data Protection Officer. Approving the stance presented in the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, the gloss presents arguments confirming the fact that when the GDPR came into force, a regulation concerning the processing of personal data existed in the Catholic Church (it was primarily contained in the standards of the Code of Canon Law of 1983), which the Catholic Church, by the time specified in Article 91(1) GDPR, harmonised with the provisions of that legal act. Moreover, the mode of operation, the manner of designating or dismissing the Ecclesiastical Data Protection Officer does not have to be derived from the universally binding law. It may arise from the internal law of the Catholic Church, provided that the requirements laid down in Chapter VI GDPR, i.e. independence, fulfilment of general conditions concerning data protection supervisory authorities, secrecy, performance of tasks and exercise of the powers laid down in the GDPR (relevant competences), are met. This argument originates from the principle of autonomy and independence of churches and other religious organisations, guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The reasoning is also confirmed in recital 165 of the GDPR preamble, which states that “This Regulation respects and does not prejudice the status under the constitutional law of churches and associations or religious communities in the Member States, as recognised in Article 17 TFEU”.
</abstract>

Gloss on the Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 May 2022, Case Reference Number III OSK 2273/21

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 18 (2024): Issue 1 (March 2024)

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)

Ius Novum

Ius Novum is an all-Poland scientific journal that presents analytical articles on the science of law, with focus on Central and Eastern European countries. The journal covers a range of basic areas of law, including constitutional law, civil law and procedure, criminal law and procedure, administrative law and procedure, financial law, business law, and international law.　  The journal aims to create a modern forum for the exchange and debate of opinions among scholars of jurisprudence by popularising research results at both domestic and international levels. It takes into account the significance of the impact of legal studies on the social and economic environment of Central and Eastern Europe.  The journal publishes original scientific papers of considerable cognitive value for all representatives of legal science and practice. These papers can be of interest not only to domestic, but also, or even primarily, to international scientific circles. The journal presents innovative dogmatic analyses of current legal solutions, forecasts for the direction of development in various areas of law, legal evaluations of new social phenomena, assessments of the quality of law enactment and application, signals of the efficiency of adopted legal regulations, and discussions on problems concerning legal certainty. Additionally, the journal features empiric research findings of great social importance.   The journal is open not only to the scientific and teaching staff of Lazarski University, but also to representatives of jurisprudence from other academic centres within the international scientific community. We welcome independent scholars with recognised achievements, as well as young scientists who wish to contribute their interesting and innovative ideas to the discourse on law.   The quarterly publishes original articles using research apparatus, and exceptionally, glosses that concern and resolve especially significant scientific issues.　  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 