Szott-Medyńska

31.01.05, 09:46
Dowiedziałem sie niedawno, że Trybunał w Strasbourgu w dniu 9 października
2003 r. w sprawie ze skargi pani Szott-Medyńskiej przeciwko Polsce wydał
interesujące mnie (a może też wielu innych)orzeczenie w sprawie
nieskuteczności skargi konstytucyjnej jako środka odwoławczego. Nie udało mi
sie dotrzeć do treści tego orzeczenia. Czy ktoś je zna? Czy może wskazać
drogę dostępu albo udostępnic cały tekst orzeczenia po polsku. Będę
niezmiernie wdzięczny. Pozdrawiam. Oskar
    • krotki leniwy czy ....... 31.01.05, 14:44
      przeciez to prymitywnie proste znasz date to wystarczy - wchodzisz na strone
      www.echr.coe.int/
      dalej w wyszukiwarkę i mas kilkanascie wyrokow z tego dnia i etn
      cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=29&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=691943&skin=hudoc-en

      THIRD SECTION

      DECISION

      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

      Application no. 47414/99
      by Dorota SZOTT-MEDYŃSKA and others
      against Poland

      The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 October 2003
      as a Chamber composed of

      Mr G. Ress, President,
      Mr L. Caflisch,
      Mr P. Kūris,
      Mr R. Türmen,
      Mr J. Hedigan,
      Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
      Mr L. Garlicki, judges,
      and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,

      Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of
      Human Rights on 31 August 1998,

      Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which
      the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and
      the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

      Having deliberated, decides as follows:


      THE FACTS

      The first applicant, Ms Dorota Szott-Medyńska, is a Polish national, born in
      1954. She runs a family business together with the second and third applicants,
      Mr Maciej Medyński and Mr Krzysztof Medyński. They reside in Skierniewice. They
      are represented before the Court by Ms Mirosława Sztandera, a lawyer practising
      in Łódź. The respondent Government are represented by Mr K. Drzewicki, their
      Agent.

      A. The circumstances of the case

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
      follows.

      The applicants run a small family business. By decisions of 17 December 1997
      the Treasury Office found all three applicants guilty of a fiscal offence
      punishable under Article 98 of the Fiscal Criminal Act in that they had failed
      to pay a monthly income-tax advance on wages for their employees for April
      1997, in the amount of 284,90 Polish zlotys (“PLN”). The Treasury Office
      imposed on each of the applicants a pecuniary penalty of PLN 250, to be
      substituted by seventeen days of imprisonment in case of default of payment.
      The penalty was imposed under Article 41 of the same Act, stipulating sanctions
      for fiscal offences (cf. distinction between “fiscal crimes” and “fiscal
      offences” in the “Relevant domestic law” below).

      The applicants lodged an appeal against this decision with the Treasury
      Chamber, arguing that the first-instance authority had wrongly instituted the
      fiscal proceedings against them as no criminal offence had been committed and
      that, in any event, the legal classification of the offence should be changed
      to a more lenient one. They submitted that as soon as they had noticed their
      error they had informed the Treasury Office and, on 20 June 1997, had paid the
      income tax in arrears with the statutory interest due. Therefore, the State had
      not sustained any loss. In their submissions, their conviction was a result of
      an overly formalistic, impractical and unreasonable approach of the tax
      authorities to the business activities and the tax obligations resulting
      therefrom.

      On 16 March 1998 the Skierniewice Treasury Chamber dismissed their appeals
      and upheld the contested decisions. No further appeal lay in law against this
      decision.

      B. Relevant domestic law and practice

      1. Fiscal crimes and fiscal offences; applicable procedure

      The 1971 Fiscal Criminal Act (Ustawa Karna Skarbowa), applicable at the
      material time, distinguished between two types of wrongful acts in the area of
      fiscal law: “fiscal crimes” and “fiscal offences”; fiscal offences being a
      category of less serious acts.

      Article 1 of the Fiscal Criminal Act defined fiscal crimes as wrongful acts
      punishable by imprisonment, limitation of liberty or a fine between PLN 200 and
      PLN 5,000,000. By virtue of Article 13, additional sanctions could be imposed
      for fiscal crimes such as: deprivation of civil rights, prohibition to exercise
      certain activities, confiscation of an object, and publication of the court
      judgment by which the offender was convicted.

      Articles 35 and 41 of the Fiscal Criminal Act defined fiscal offences as
      wrongful acts punishable by a “pecuniary penalty” (as distinguished in
      terminology from “fine”) between PLN 20 to PLN 1,000. Under Article 43, the
      additional sanction of confiscation of an object could also be imposed for a
      fiscal offence where the Act expressly provided therefor.

      Under Article 36 of the Act, certain provisions of the Criminal Code of 1969,
      defining general notions of criminal responsibility, were applicable in
      proceedings concerning fiscal offences. The provisions in question concerned,
      inter alia, the definition of a punishable act, the prohibition of
      retroactivity, the definition of intentional and non-intentional offence, the
      age limit for liability, notions of attempted offence and aiding and abetting,
      the circumstances justifying exclusion of criminal liability, and the
      principles applicable to the determination of criminal sanctions.

      As provided by Article 42 of the Act, when pecuniary penalty exceeding PLN 50
      is imposed, it may be substituted by up to 30 days’ imprisonment in default of
      payment.

      Pursuant to Article 122, the courts were competent to examine cases
      concerning fiscal crimes punishable by imprisonment or limitation of liberty.
      Under Article 123 of the Act, cases concerning fiscal crimes in which only
      fines could be imposed, and cases concerning fiscal offences, were examined by
      fiscal administrative boards.

      Article 206 of the Act stated that decisions given in proceedings concerning
      fiscal crimes and offences could be appealed against if the law so provided.
      The remedies were the following: an appeal, a request that the case be examined
      by a court, and an appeal against interlocutory decisions.

      Under Article 208 § 1 of the Act, in cases concerning fiscal crimes, a party
      to the proceedings could choose between an appeal to a higher administrative
      authority or a request that the case be examined by a court. An option to use
      one remedy barred the use of the other. In proceedings concerning fiscal
      offences, however, only an appeal to a higher administrative authority could be
      lodged.

      On 3 July 1998 a legislative amendment to the Fiscal Criminal Act was adopted
      to the effect that the demand that the case be examined by the court became
      available also with respect to fiscal offences. It entered into force on 1
      September 1998.

      Subsequently, with effect as of 17 October 1999, the new Fiscal Criminal Code
      replaced the 1971 Fiscal Criminal Act. According to the new law, the courts are
      competent to examine all cases concerning fiscal crimes and fiscal offences.

      2. Provisions relating to the constitutional complaint

      On 17 October 1997, the new Constitution entered into force in Poland.
      Article 79 § 1 of the Constitution provides as follows:

      “In accordance with principles specified by statute, everyone whose
      constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed, shall have the right to
      appeal to the Constitutional Court for a judgment on the conformity with the
      Constitution of a statute or another normative act on the basis of which a
      court or an administrative authority has issued a final decision on his
      freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in the Constitution.”

      At
      • oskar58 Re: leniwy czy ....... 31.01.05, 17:49
        Krótki, jesteś niezastąpiony, dziekuję, znajdź mi jeszcze tłumaczenie tego
        wyroku na polski albo jego omówienie po polsku, a ozłocę Cię. Główną tezę
        wyroku znam z pisma Fundacji Helsinskiej, ale na ile to może być pomocne mnie
        lub właścicielom dowiem sie jak poznam szczegóły. Oskar
        • krotki na to nie wpadłem 31.01.05, 21:23
          oskar58 napisał:

          > Krótki, jesteś niezastąpiony, dziekuję, znajdź mi jeszcze tłumaczenie tego
          > wyroku na polski albo jego omówienie po polsku, a ozłocę Cię


          nie wpałdem na to że absolwentowi prawa jagielonki stwarza jakikolwiek problem
          to, że tekst jest nie po polsku. Niewiarygodne . Mnie osobiście obojetne jest
          czy to po polsku czy angielsku czy niemiecku, fakt po francusku, włosku czy
          hiszpańsku tylko czytam ( o rosyjskim nie wspominam bo to w naszym pokoleniu
          oczywistośc - musiałem najpierw podreczkini cztać w tym jezyku a później
          wygłaszać co nieco) nie mam czasu Ci tłumaczyć tak - jak elemantarza prawa-
          wybacz - ale wspominalem gramy w róznych ligach - Twoja minąlem w podstawóce
          Pozdrawiam
          • oskar58 Re: na to nie wpadłem 01.02.05, 08:53
            Krótki, nie wysilaj się na złośliwości. Wyroku nie musisz tłumaczyć. Potrzebne
            mi jest oficjalne źródło informacji, na które można się powołać. Ostatecznie
            może to być artykuł któregoś z prominentnych prawników. W skardze do
            Strasbourga powołałem się na ten wyrok bez wdawania się w szczegóły. W sądzie
            rejonowym to nie przejdzie. Oskar
            • krotki nie żartuj 01.02.05, 08:57
              co moż byc bardziej "oficjalnym źródlem informacji" niz sam wyrok - jakis
              artykulik jakiegos dziennikarza ?? żartownis z Ciebie
              Pozdrawiam
              PS a to że sędowie nie znają jezyków -to fakt !!
              • oskar58 Re: nie żartuj 01.02.05, 10:10
                Napisałem o "prominentnych prawnikach", wiesz dobrze jak odnoszą się do tego
                sędziowie. Wolą się podepszeć czyjąś, nawet wątpliwej jakości opinią, niż
                wysilić swoje szare komórki. Trzeba im takie gotowe teksty podsuwać. Znasz
                takie opracowanie, może jest w LEX polonica, może pisała o tym Rzepa, albo
                Wyborcza? Oskar żartowniś
Pełna wersja