波兰的辩护权。从欧洲视角看刑事诉讼法最新修订

M. Smarzewski
{"title":"波兰的辩护权。从欧洲视角看刑事诉讼法最新修订","authors":"M. Smarzewski","doi":"10.31743/recl.6127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the issue of standards of the right to defence and takes into account the recent amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The analysis is conducted against the background of minimum standards of the right to defence set out under European law. A reference introduced to the title of the Code includes the assertion that the legislator has implemented the provisions of Directive of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty as well as Directive of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. However, it seems that as a result of changes made in the discussed scope in the years 2016-2019, the legislator not only failed to fully implement the aforementioned Directives, but even introduced modifications that led to lowering the standards of the right to defence and guarantees of its implementation, both in material as well as formal terms.","PeriodicalId":20823,"journal":{"name":"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas","volume":"23 1","pages":"81-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to Defence in Poland. Remarks on the Latest Amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the European Perspective\",\"authors\":\"M. Smarzewski\",\"doi\":\"10.31743/recl.6127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article discusses the issue of standards of the right to defence and takes into account the recent amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The analysis is conducted against the background of minimum standards of the right to defence set out under European law. A reference introduced to the title of the Code includes the assertion that the legislator has implemented the provisions of Directive of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty as well as Directive of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. However, it seems that as a result of changes made in the discussed scope in the years 2016-2019, the legislator not only failed to fully implement the aforementioned Directives, but even introduced modifications that led to lowering the standards of the right to defence and guarantees of its implementation, both in material as well as formal terms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"81-107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.6127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.6127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文讨论了辩护权的标准问题,并考虑到最近对《刑事诉讼法》的修正。这项分析是在欧洲法律规定的最低辩护权标准的背景下进行的。在《法典》标题中提到,立法者已经执行了2013年10月22日关于在刑事诉讼和欧洲逮捕令程序中接触律师的权利的指令的规定。在被剥夺自由时让第三方知情的权利,以及在被剥夺自由期间与第三方和领事当局沟通的权利,以及2016年3月9日关于加强无罪推定的某些方面和在刑事诉讼中出庭的权利的指令。然而,似乎由于2016-2019年讨论范围的变化,立法者不仅未能充分实施上述指令,甚至还进行了修改,导致降低了辩护权的标准,并在物质和正式条款上保证其实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Right to Defence in Poland. Remarks on the Latest Amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the European Perspective
The article discusses the issue of standards of the right to defence and takes into account the recent amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The analysis is conducted against the background of minimum standards of the right to defence set out under European law. A reference introduced to the title of the Code includes the assertion that the legislator has implemented the provisions of Directive of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty as well as Directive of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. However, it seems that as a result of changes made in the discussed scope in the years 2016-2019, the legislator not only failed to fully implement the aforementioned Directives, but even introduced modifications that led to lowering the standards of the right to defence and guarantees of its implementation, both in material as well as formal terms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信