Description of the facts
The case afraid K. F., accused of a series of burglary in the basement W. in February 2021. The burglar's choice fell, among others, a butcher, workshop tools and accordion. At the proceeding in June 2021, SR in W. He found the man guilty, and assuming that the acts were insignificant accidents, he sentenced him to 1 year in prison for 3 years.
Since no 1 came forward on the transportation of the judgment, the president decided on the basis of Article 100(1a) of the NCP to waive the notification of the judgement and to declare it announced.
Despite the deficiency of public reading of the operative part, the case continued – the prosecutor made an appeal, and SO in Poznań changed the sentence, tightening the conviction and repealing conditional suspension of its execution.
Cassation and position of the ultimate Court
The judgement of the Court of Appeal was brought against the appellant by the lawyer General, who appealed the judgement in its entirety, accusing him of gross and having a material effect on the content of the judgement of a breach of the procedural law — Article 430(1) of the NCP in accordance with Article 429(1) of the NCP, consisting of an unjustified examination of the appeal brought by the DPO, where that appeal was made against a judgement which was not declared in accordance with Article 418(1) of the NCP in accordance with Article 100(1) of the NCP, and thus did not be in a legal sense, which made the appeal inadmissible.
The ultimate Court found the cassation to be “obviously legitimate”. He pointed out that in the case of the main proceedings, the oral transportation of the judgement is compulsory, even if there is not a single individual in the courtroom from the audience or parties to the trial. The absence of that act makes the paper drawn up simply a draft alternatively than a binding ruling. The NS has strictly assessed the action of the Court of Appeal, which has recognised the appeal from a ‘non-existent substrate of the appeal’.
Consequently, the judgement of the Court of First Instance was abrogated and the case must return to the phase in which there was a serious infringement.
Comment
The ultimate Court recalled that the transparency of announcing judgments was the foundation of the judiciary, anchored in the Constitution of Poland. The criminal trial must not take place in the "rest of the cabinets" – public reading of the judgement is the minute erstwhile the State officially communicates its decision.
In this peculiar case, the mistake of the justice of the Court of First Instance led to procedural paralysis: the suspect was convicted by the appeal court on the basis of a ruling that was never legally issued. This case is simply a clear signal to the judges: even in an empty room, the law requires an oral judgment.
Judgment of the SN of 23.10.2025, I KK 140/25, Legalis
