Does the law of grace work before the judgement is finalized? The Constitution of the Republic of Poland dated 2 April 1997 in Art. 139. says:
The president of the Republic applies the law of grace. The right of grace shall not apply to persons convicted by the Court of State.
In law, its knowing and interpretation, it is that if something is not accurately written, prohibited or ordered, everything else is allowed. Although the word pardon straight refers to a court sentence, nothing in the Constitution states that the president can only pardon after a final judgement and that abolition is not prohibited here.
The President's website reads:
It is possible to apply the law of grace straight on the basis of Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, including before the judgement in the form of alleged individual abolition is finalised, as confirmed by the case law of the Constitutional Court.
Judge Piotr Mirek says:
- I'm sorry. The right of grace may be exercised only against persons found guilty by a final judgement of the court.
Meanwhile, the ultimate Court resolution of 31 May 2017 states that the president cannot apply the law of grace before the conviction is finalized:
I. The right of grace, as the power of the president of the Republic of Poland as defined in the first conviction of Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, may be exercised only against persons who are found guilty by a final judgement of the court (the sentenced persons). Only in this regard, there is no breach of the principles set out in Article 10 in Articles 7, 42(3), 45(1), 175(1) and 177 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
Source: Ref. Act I KZP 4/17 REPEALS the composition of 7 ultimate Court judges on 31 May 2017.
On the another hand, the Constitutional Court states that:
The Constitutional Tribunal stated that the right of grace referred to in Article 139 of the Constitution is simply a presidential prerogative resulting from Article 144(3)(18) of the Constitution. He stressed that 2 concepts should be distinguished: a more pronounced "law of grace" and a narrower "grace". The second concept refers only to persons who are legally convicted, and in the first one, in addition to the full or partial remission of the punishment (including the relaxation of the penalty), there is besides an act of individual abolition which prohibits the initiation of proceedings against a peculiar individual or the suspension and remission of proceedings already initiated. The wording of Article 139 of the Constitution clearly indicates that the president may exercise the right of grace, including an act of individual abolition. There is no "presumption of competence" here. The president in the area of the application of individual abolition, due to the fact that it is straight due to the usage by the bodymaker of the most general possible formula.
...
The constitutional order excludes only the anticipation of applying the law of grace to persons convicted by the Court of State
]]>Source: ]]>
In conclusion, the Constitution is very general here and gives the anticipation of the law of grace, as the president of Poland deems it appropriate.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court found that:
The Court did not share the view that individual abolition violates the rule of tripartition of authorities and the rule of the right to court. The president does not exercise justice, he does not find truth, guilt or punishment. The exercise of the right of grace does not constitute interference with judicial authority.
Individual abolition works in the Czech Republic, for example
The Constitution of the Czech Republic in Article 62 says that the president of the Republic:
(g) forgives or mitigates the penalties imposed by the court, decides not to initiate criminal proceedings, and if it has been initiated, to interrupt it and to cover the sentence,
Furthermore, as stated in the judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, US 4/13 of 5 March 2013 ‘Amnesty of the president of the Republic of Poland’:
As in the case of individual pardons in accordance with Article 62(g) of the Constitution [cf. Resolution No. II. ÚS 137/2000 of 16 May 2000 (U 16/18 SbNU 421)], the announcement of amnesty in accordance with Article 63(1)(k) of the same Constitution is simply a prerogative, a privilege of the president of the Republic, which is addressed to the domain of judicial power. These constitutional prerogatives (sometimes referred to as "favorable", conceptually derived from monarchist ideology, let "heads of the state to grant to those who (amnesty, leniency), possibly accused (abortion), but for the statutory or court-appointed effects of a prohibited act.’ They remove the consequences or consequences of completed or ongoing criminal proceedings, but not in the form of an act of legislative authority, but in the form of a decision of the head of state. Under the Czech constitutional order, amnesty may be materially defined as the constitutional prerogative of the president of the Republic, by which penalties (or their consequences) imposed on a certain scope of perpetrators of criminal acts are given or tempered in the block, or to order the non-indentation or non-enforcement of criminal prosecution of specified perpetrators; It is clear from the very nature of amnesty that it may contain elements of abolition (abortion. (see footnote R.K.) capital punishment, conversion and rehabilitation [cf. Article 62(g), Article 63(1)(j) and Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution].
In another words, in connection with the imprecise article 139 appearing in the Polish Constitution, the president of Poland had the right to pardon Mr.Wójcik, Kamiński and 2 another CBA officers in 2015.
And by peasant reason, this pardon is inactive valid today. Why? Even if the conviction of 3 years of ruthless prison of 2015 were to be passed, Andrzej Duda would inactive pardon them. There is nothing in the Constitution about the necessity of a final judgment. And the conviction was pronounced, and it happened.
In June, the ultimate Court lifted the dismissal of the case of erstwhile CBA chiefs by the territory Court in Warsaw in 2016.
The problem is that according to the Constitution, the president of the Republic applies the law of grace alternatively than abolition.
But Wąsik and Kamiński were convicted in 2015, but so what if the conviction was not final. After all, the Constitution is simply a fundamental law, the highest, and it is the president of Poland – the highest executive authority, in contrast to the courts, besides the ultimate Court, whose judgments may be waived.
And they will.
***
Curiosity is that present nobody tells why Kamiński, Wąsik and another CBA bosses are in trouble.
It's about illegal renaissance of land in the Ministry of Agriculture. In order to detect the case, a provocation was set up during which the CBA's chiefs were to illegally produce papers specified as notarial files or authoritative writings, thereby exceeding their powers.
The 2010 diary of the Legal Gazette states:
In June 2007, Mrągowo's mayor Jerzy Krasiński notified the local prosecutor of a suspicion of a crime - falsification of municipal documents, seals and signatures. Officials of the Marshal's Office in Olsztyn besides notified the prosecutor of the forgery of papers allegedly to be created in their office.
]]>Source:]]>
The question is: since erstwhile can't peculiar services produce documents? There are no rules in the media coverage of the ground issue that are meant to break.
The full thing looks like a signal to the peculiar services so they can't be besides inquisitive and work besides well in the times of the fresh government. After all, the agricultural scandal damaged the government of PiS-Samoobron-LPR and led to earlier elections in 2007.
It can be considered that the action of the Court which sentenced the chiefs of the CBA is political, and the case returned to the jury erstwhile it was known that the United Right would not have a majority in the Sejm. In addition, the conviction was announced after 13 December, the appointment of a fresh government. Therefore, I think so because:
Information on the date of transportation of the ruling to the media was given on 12 December by attorneys of auxiliary prosecutors in this case - attorneys Wojciech Wiza and Jacek Dubois. The anticipation is that the court will keep the conviction of the territory Court in force," said the Visa.
]]>Source:]]>
The question is:
- I'm sorry. Did the territory Court in Warsaw have the right to resume the trial of erstwhile CBA heads? Well, it looks like he did not recognise the 2015 pardon of president Duda and the 2018 Constitutional Court ruling.
Recognising that the pardon was legal, the action of the territory Court in Warsaw was a breach of competence. The same annulment of the fines by Marshal Holovnia was a hasty and illegal action.
