A gloss to the Supreme Court Judgment of 5 March 2019, IV KK 484/17
Abstract
This gloss discusses the issue of the prosecutor’s supervision over preparatory proceedings carried out by a financial authority of preparatory proceedings and the procedural consequences of the prosecutor undertaking supervision of such proceedings. The author is of the opinion that a procedural act performed by the prosecutor consisting in extending the period of enquiry carried out by the financial authority of preparatory proceedings for more than 6 months, does not constitute a decision which is accidental in nature and may not be deemed to be a technical act. Such an act is supervisory in nature. Consequently, if it is assumed that the prosecutor’s decision on the extension under Article 153 § 1 sentence 3 of the Penal and Fiscal Code for the period of more than 6 months of the enquiry concerning a fiscal offence, conducted by a financial authority of preparatory proceedings, means that the said prosecutor undertakes supervision over the said enquiry, then Article 155 § 1 and 2 of the Penal and Fiscal Code must be applied for the purpose of preparing and filing an indictment with the court. In accordance with the law applicable as of 1 July 2015, the financial authority of preparatory proceedings which conducted the investigation as well as the enquiry under the prosecutor’s supervision must prepare an indictment taking into consideration its formal requirements as set out in Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Article 113 § 1 of the Penal and Fiscal Code, and it must subsequently transfer it to the prosecutor, who approves it and files it with the court. The act of filing an indictment with the court by the Customs Office, where the enquiry was under the prosecutor’s supervision, and where such indictment was filed without the prosecutor’s approval, must be deemed to have been undertaken by an unauthorized body, which constitutes a negative procedural premise which is the absence of indictment by an authorised prosecuting organ (Article 17 § 1 point 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Keywords:
the prosecutor’s supervision of preparatory proceedings, carried out by financial authorities of preparatory proceedings, formal defects of an indictment, absence of complaint by an authorized prosecuting organReferences
Postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 17 stycznia 2018 r., V KK 144/17, LEX nr 2428822
Google Scholar
Postanowienie Sądu Apelacyjnego w Katowicach z dnia 27 listopada 2013 r., II AKz 717/13, LEX nr 1488978
Google Scholar
Razowski T., in: P. Kardas, G. Łabuda, T. Razowski, Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2017
Google Scholar
Stefański R.A., Metodyka pracy prokuratora w sprawach karnych, Warszawa 2017.
Google Scholar
Uchwała Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 28 stycznia 2016 r., I KZP 13/15, OSNKW 2016, nr 3, poz. 17
Google Scholar
Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks postępowania karnego (Dz.U. z 2018 r., poz. 1987 ze zm.)
Google Scholar
Ustawa z dnia 27 września 2013 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Dz.U. z 2013 r., poz. 1247)
Google Scholar
Ustawa z dnia z dnia 28 stycznia 2016 r. – Prawo o prokuraturze (tj. z dnia 23 kwietnia 2019 r., Dz.U. z 2019 r., poz. 740 ze zm.).
Google Scholar
Ustawa z dnia 16 listopada 2016 r. – Przepisy wprowadzające ustawę o Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej (Dz. U z 2016 r., poz. 1948)
Google Scholar
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 marca 2019 r., IV KK 484/17, LEX nr 2629809
Google Scholar
Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 9 marca 2018 r., II AKa 385/17, LEX nr 2472465
Google Scholar
Zagrodnik J., Glosa do uchwały składu 7 sędziów Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Karna z dnia 28 stycznia 2016 r., I KZP 13/15, OSP 2017, z. 7/8
Google Scholar
Zagrodnik J., in: L. Wilk, J. Zagrodnik, Kodeks karny skarbowy. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016
Google Scholar
Statistics
Downloads
License
Author’s economic rights to published works are held by Opole University (collective works) and individual Authors (individual parts of the collective work, ones that form a separate entity).
The journal Opole Studies in Administration and Law accepts for publication only works which have not been in circulation before.
On the basis of the Regulation (2016/679) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (referred to as General Data Protection Regulation or RODO) Opole University, based at 11a Plac Kopernika, 45-040 Opole, is the personal data controller for all the authors publishing their works in the Opole Studies in Administration and Law.
The articles published in Opole Studies in Administration and Law are available under a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
For aricles till 2017 your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation – see:
Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych
Read more about the license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
View Legal Code:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Marta Kubica, A person living in actual co-habitation in the doctrine and judicature in substantive and procedural penal law , The Opole Studies in Administration and Law: Vol. 15 No. 3 (2017)
