❗️EXPLANATION In connection with the politicians' spin regarding the prosecutor's opposition to the issuance of the ironclad letter, which allegedly prevented the District Court from issuing such a letter, I present statements from court rulings indicating that this is an ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT understanding of the provision of Article 281 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 👉🏻As noted by the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in its ruling of March 29, 2022, case file II AKz 222/22: “The understanding of the provision of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such a way that the prosecutor's opposition would be binding on the district court would lead to systemic inconsistency and would at the same time be an expression of the prosecutor's privilege over the suspect, while reducing the district court to the role of a subordinate entity to the prosecutor's decision. Such a solution would be extremely ineffective and contradict the requirements of procedural economy, which speaks against involving in a specific proceeding as a procedural body an entity that does not have full powers to resolve the issue at stake in that proceeding. If the legislator intended to grant the prosecutor a decisive voice regarding the issuance of an ironclad letter, considering that they should be equipped with that competence as the body conducting the preparatory proceedings and responsible for its effects, they should have done so explicitly by modifying the provisions on functional competence for issuing an ironclad letter in preparatory proceedings. Since this has not been done, leaving this decision in the hands of the district court, the current regulatory provisions - given their lack of clarity and their systemic inconsistency - should be interpreted on the assumption that primacy should be given to the interpretation taking into account systemic assumptions, including rules resulting from the principles of adversariality and equality of the parties. In summary, the systemic and functional interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leads to the conclusion that the district court considering the suspect's application for the issuance of an ironclad letter in pre-trial proceedings is not bound by the prosecutor's opposition.” 👉🏻Also, the Court of Appeal in Krakow in the case with case file II AKz 523/22 in the justification of the ruling of February 7, 2023: “Analyzing the linguistic interpretation of the aforementioned provision, it is necessary to refer to the designation of the word opposition, which is 'disagreement, protest' (according to SJP PWN - internet service), 'resisting in any form' (...). Also, in the systemic context of the criminal procedure act, 'opposition' means a lack of consent to a specific decision or procedural action and entails a negatory or cassatory effect. This is also how this institution is perceived by W. Hermeliński and B. Nita-Światłowska, indicating that after the amendment the prosecutor was supposed (allegedly) to have the possibility of 'blocking the court with their statement of disagreement on the issuance of an ironclad letter' (...). Therefore, it cannot be acknowledged that the legislator in the amendment to the procedural law on April 20, 2021, established a separate form of 'opposition' and granted the prosecutor shaping powers, i.e., the ability to bind the court with conditions under which the court would consider the suspect's application, especially in the context of applying and shaping the financial guarantee indicated in Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is also supported by the purposive and logical interpretation of the mentioned regulation. The institution of opposition contained in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an extraordinary nature and was intended by the legislator to limit the judicial independence of the court. Adopting the concept of the possibility of conditioning the opposition on exonerating conditions would lead to a further limitation of the judicial independence of the court than in the case of a literal reading of the provision. (...) In summary - the prosecutor's opposition indicated in Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has a purely negatory character and cannot be burdened with any reservations. This does not take away from the prosecutor's ability to formulate a specific procedural position regarding the conditions for the issuance of an ironclad letter - nevertheless, the court ruling on the subject of the ironclad letter is not bound by them.” #prawo #polityka #sprawiedliwość (translated)
