Month: July 2015

The amendments extend the catalogue of building objects whose construction does not require a building permit. Among those buildings, there are detached, single-family houses which entirely fit a building lot and detached utility buildings. Construction of those objects only requires a building notification.

The new regulations do not impose on investors a requirement to obtain a final decision on the permission to build in order to initiate construction work. “The term ‘final’ was deleted from the text. This can significantly influence the speed of building investments,” writes legal advisor Artur Sidor.

The new regulations also provide that an appropriate body can, within 30 days, submit an objection if the construction work violates the provisions of the local special development plan or the decision on construction conditions. “It must be noted that in particular cases an appropriate body can impose on the investor a duty to obtain a permit to construct a particular building object or perform construction work,” legal advisor Artur Sidor adds.

The Construction Law has been amended multiple times in recent years. It is unlikely that the current amendments put an end to those changes. A draft Construction Code was submitted for public and interdepartmental consultations in May. It foresees, among others, the extension of the catalogue of building objects encompassed by the simplified notification procedure. “The scope of the draft Code allows one to hope that it will positively influence the development of the building sector,” legal advisor Artur Sidor further notes.

The article „A change before a revolution” by legal advisor Artur Sidor and advocate trainee Paweł Murawski is available here.

In the light of the amended law, a judge will not take part in conducting evidence, but – apart from few exceptions – will decide on the basis of evidence and information presented by the parties. Until now, with no engagement on the part of the prosecutor, the court had to find evidence to the benefit of the accusation.

“This is why, from the perspective of the accused, it seemed like the defence counsel was defending, the prosecutor was doing nothing, and the court was looking for evidence to his disadvantage,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak. “I think that after the reform it will be easier to ensure the procedural safeguards which the accused is entitled to on the basis of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether it is easier to sentence or acquit will depend on the evidence,” he adds.

The amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure widen access to a lawyer, which will be common and on demand. However, the new provisions do not raise lawyers’ fees. “The fees were left at the same level as 12 years ago. Lawyers conduct court-appointed cases led by their sense of duty and mission. They conduct them thoroughly and reliably, but also with some bitterness,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

New provisions also introduce a prohibition on the use of illegally obtained evidence. According to advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak, this is a revolutionary change, but it can cause numerous complications in the future. “The provision is formulated in such a way that evidence advantageous for the accused, but obtained as a result of a crime, can be inadmissible,” he explains.

Finally, the amended legislation also strengthens the position of the victim in the proceedings. “The victim gains a very strong position against the accused. A possibility was introduced of a compensatory discontinuation of proceedings, so a type of discontinuation in not very serious crimes, on condition that the damage was mitigated,” says advocate Mikołaj Pietrzak.

The whole interview „Enough of inquisition” [Piotr Szymaniak, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, 26 June 2015] is available only in Polish here.