Month: December 2014

In the application to the Constitutional Tribunal, the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland questioned those provisions of the Law on Protection of Animals which prohibited ritual slaughter required by religious prescriptions and provided for criminal liability for its performance. In the applicants’ opinion,  these provisions violated freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution and the Convention.

According to the application, the prohibition of ritual slaughter limits the freedom of Jews  to publically practice their religion and preserve customs and traditions. “In European societies, including Poland, it is precisely the Judeo-Christian tradition, so crucial in determining the bases for limiting freedom of religion, which constitutes the proper point of reference in examining the admissibility of this freedom’s limitation,” states the application.

„Hunting for the purpose of entertainment is a less humanitarian way of killing animals, and the law allows it,” argued advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak during the trial before the Constitutional Tribunal. “Why shouldn’t we then, in the name of religious freedom, allow ritual slaughter?” he asked.

In the rationale of its decision, the Tribunal asserted that the greatest respect for freedom of religion is compliant with moral norms shared by the overwhelming majority of Polish society. The Tribunal ruled that instituting prohibition of ritual slaughter is not necessary in light of any interest indicated in Article 31 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, in particular morality or public health. Thus, such a limitation does not fulfil the requirements of the constitution and is disproportional.

Upon publication of the judgment in the Journal of Laws, ritual slaughter performed in a licensed slaughterhouse in accordance with special methods required by religious prescriptions will be allowed. As a result of the judgment, the binding standard in Poland will be the one set forth in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (Official Journal of the European Union of 18 November 2009).

Doughty Street Chambers is one of the best and biggest legal practices in the world, dealing with cases concerning human rights and international law, as well as civil, criminal and administrative law (see more in ‘International Cooperation’).

Congratulations, Mikołaj!

According to the EU Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings, the police and prosecution are obliged to inform the suspects about their rights. “It is, however, often the case that information is presented in such a way that it is hard to understand for the suspect, or the suspect is not given enough time to acquaint oneself with it,” said advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak. “Whereas adequate provision of information to the suspect on his or her rights, including the right to obtain advice from a lawyer, has crucial importance in safeguarding the right to defence,” adds advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

The second Directive regulates matters connected to the right of access to a lawyer, including confidentiality of communication between the suspect or accused and the lawyer. Member states have time until 2016 to align national regulations with the requirements of this Directive. “We need a coherent system which would regulate access to legal aid, especially in cases where the European Arrest Warrant was issued,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

The practical application of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) itself raises numerous controversies (see also: An Advocate’s Perspective on the European Arrest Warrant). Not only does the application of EAW entail technical problems, such as the lack of fast information flow between institutions applying EAW, but it also strengthens a dangerous practice of overusing pre-trial detention.

It is possible that the Court of Justice of the European Union will provide answers to at least some of the questions raised in Polish cases while applying the Directives and the Framework decision on EAW. Since 1st December 2014, Polish courts can refer questions for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings concerning the application of provisions of the Framework Decision on EAW.

“In order to effectively provide legal aid in the broad sense of this term, that is not only as a legal counsel, an advocate has to be covered by LPP,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak in an interview he gave to Jacek Dąbrowski.

However, it does happen that the authorities of the justice system interpret LPP very narrowly.

“I have personally been called twice to appear in court where, as it turned out, I was supposed to, upon a motion of one of the parties, testify as to the circumstances covered by LPP,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak. “When I realised what the actual purpose for summoning me was, I did what any advocate should do and refused to answer any questions which would concern information covered by LPP. Apart from that, I informed the District Bar Council  about this situation,” adds advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

In the interview, advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak also referred to the recent announcements on conducting inspections in law firms which were made by the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO). “I am sure that these announcements will not, in the least bit, lead to violations of data protected by LPP […] If, however, a GIODO inspector came to my law firm and wanted to conduct an inspection, it would be a huge problem from a practical point of view. An advocate should not allow any monitoring activities which could, even potentially, pose a danger to LPP,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

The full text of the interview was published in the December issue of Edukacja Prawnicza. The whole interview is available (only in Polish) here.