CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃ SKA* 1. INTRODUCTION The legislator envisaged a case of lesser significance in relation to some crimes classified in the Criminal Code (CC) but did not define this concept, which causes substantial difficulties not only with the assessment of such incidents but also with specification of their juridical nature. They result from the fact that, as it is noticed in jurisprudence, a case of lesser significance is a concept on the borderline between a type of crime and sentencing. 1 These are important issues because they can practically influence legal assessment of a prohibited act. 2 The Criminal Code stipulates that the following crimes can be treated as ones of lesser significance: conscription evasion (Article 144 2); accepting a bribe by a person performing a public function (Article 228 2); offering bribes (Article 229 2); active influence peddling (Article 230 2); passive influence peddling (Article 230a 2); vote buying (Article 250a 3); document forgery (Article 270 2a); certifying an untruth by a public official (Article 271 2); theft (Article 278 3); burglary, robbery, armed robbery and extortion (Article 283); appropriation (Article 284 3); fraud (Article 286 3); computer fraud (Article 287 2); property damage (Article 288 2); dealing in stolen goods (Article 291 2); corruption of managers (Article 296a 3); failing to document business activities (Article 303 3); counterfeiting currencies (Article 310 3); misleading a military authority (Article 342 2); unauthorised use of a military aircraft or vessel (Article 361 2); and unauthorised use of a military vehicle (Article 362 2). * PhD, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law and Administration of Łazarski University in Warsaw 1 T. Bojarski, Odmiany podstawowych typów przestępstw w polskim prawie karnym [Variations of basic types of crimes in the Polish criminal law], Warsaw 1982, p. 142. 2 K. Doroszewska, Znaczenie klauzuli wypadku mniejszej wagi w polskim prawie karnym [Meaning of the clause of a case of lesser significance in the Polish criminal law], p. 103; https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/14904/1/07-doroszewska.pdf [accessed on 13 December 2016].

50 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA 2. LEGAL NATURE OF A CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE The General Part of the Criminal Code does not regulate a case of lesser significance, although it is connected with some specified types of prohibited acts, which is treated in literature as the reflection of the legislator s limitation of its application to a few selected types of prohibited acts. 3 However, its nature is not clear. It is considered in jurisprudence that a case of lesser significance is: 1) a type treated more leniently, 4 established by adding a clause of a case of lesser significance to the provision for a standard type. A case of lesser significance 3 K. Doroszewska, Znaczenie klauzuli [Meaning of the clause ], p. 107. 4 W. Wolter, Uprzywilejowane typy przestępstw [Types of crimes treated more leniently], PiP No. 1 2, 1976, p. 110; I. Andrejew, Polskie prawo karne w zarysie [Outline of Polish criminal law], PWN, Warsaw 1989, p. 436; A. Gubiński, Zasady prawa karnego [Criminal law principles], Warsaw 1975, p. 183; idem, Podstawowe pojęcia nauki o przestępstwie [Basic concepts of the legal theory of crime], Warsaw 1988, p. 214; idem, [in:] I. Andrejew, W. Świda, W. Wolter, Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 1973, pp. 600 and 613; A. Zelga, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 19 March 1970, Rw. 179/70, OSP 1971, No. 4, item 67; idem, Wypadki przestępstw mniejszej wagi [Cases of lesser significance], Pal. No. 1, 1972, p. 62; W. Kubala, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance], WPP 1972, No. 3, p. 328; idem; Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 14 May 1980, V KRN 90/80, Pal. No. 4, 1982, p. 90; F. Tarnowski, Wypadek przestępstwa mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance], Zeszyty Naukowe IBPS No. 13, 1980, pp. 40 52; idem, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 14 May 1980, V KRN 90/80, NP 1981, No. 10 12, p. 246; I. Brulikowska [in:] J. Waszczyński (ed.), Prawo karne w zarysie. Część szczególna [Outline of the criminal law: Special Part], Łódź 1981, pp. 158 and 163; W. Świda, Prawo karne [Criminal law], Warsaw 1989, p. 479; M. Wąsek, Gloss on the judgement of the Appellate Court in Lublin of 8 August 1996, II AKa 91/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 1997, p. 65; M. Surkont, Łapownictwo [Bribery], Sopot 1999, pp. 64 and 68; P. Palka, M. Reut, Korupcja w nowym kodeksie karnym [Corruption in the new Criminal Code], Kraków 1999, pp. 48 49; J. Skorupka, Typy przestępstw korupcyjnych po noweli kodeksu karnego z 13.06.2003 r. [Types of corruption crimes after the amendments to the Criminal Code of 13 June 2003], [in:] L. Bogunia (ed.), Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego [New codification of criminal law], Vol. XV, Wrocław 2004, p. 145; R.A. Stefański, Przestępstwo czynnej płatnej protekcji (art. 230a k.k.) [Crime of influence peddling (Article 230a CC)], Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 2004, p. 15; idem, Przestępstwo korupcji gospodarczej (art. 296a KK) [Crime of economic corruption (Article 296a CC)], Prok. i Pr. No. 3, 2004, p. 50; M. Szwarczyk, [in:] T. Bojarski (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2006, pp. 561 and 571; O. Górniok, [in:] O. Górniok. S. Hoc, M. Kalitowski, S.M. Przyjemski, Z. Sienkiewicz, J. Szumski, L. Tyszkiewicz, A. Wąsek, Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Vol. II, Gdańsk 2005, pp. 388 and 400; R. Góral, Kodeks karny. Praktyczny komentarz [Criminal Code: Practical commentary], Warsaw 2007, p. 480; A. Marek, Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2010, pp. 592 and 604; B. Michalski, [in:] A. Wąsek, R. Zawłocki (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz do artykułów 222 316 [Criminal Code: Commentary on Articles 222 to 316], Vol. II, Warsaw 2010, p. 935; A. Artymiak, Kłopotliwe konsekwencje kazuistycznej ustawy karnej w aspekcie prawa do rozpoznania sprawy przez sąd właściwy zagadnienia wybrane [Troublesome consequences of casuist criminal statute in the light of a right to hearing before a competent court: selected issues], [in:] P. Kardas, T. Sroka, W. Wróbel (ed.), Państwo prawa i prawo karne. Księga jubileuszowa Prof. A. Zolla [State of law and criminal law. Professor A. Zoll jubilee book], Vol. II, Warsaw 2012, p. 1578; G. Łabuda, [in:] J. Giezek (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz [Criminal Code. Special Part: Commentary], Warsaw 2014, p. 1068; M. Gałązka, [in:] A. Grześkowiak, K. Wiak (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2014, p. 1022; P. Bogacki, Wypadek mniejszej wagi jako typ uprzywilejowany przestępstwa rozboju [Case of lesser significance as a type of the crime of robbery treated more leniently], Mon. Praw. No. 16, 2014, pp. 851 852; T. Oczkowski, [in:] R.A. Stefański (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2015, p. 1679; E. Pływaczewski, E. M. Guzik-Makaruk, [in:] M. Filar (ed.),

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 51 is a specific feature of classification of more lenient treatment, 5 that is a set of various elements of subjective and objective in nature. 6 It is emphasised that the same circumstances which decide about including other modifying features in the features of the type, i.e. circumstances having impact on the negative content of a given act, are of decisive importance for the classification of a particular act as a case of lesser significance. 7 2) a directive on sentencing in relation to some types of prohibited acts because the type treated more leniently should have the features of a standard type and an additional feature considerably modifying the nature of a committed act, while a case of lesser significance includes the identical set of features to the standard type of a crime. 8 It is emphasised that another penal sanction for a case of lesser Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2016, p. 1514; J. Lachowski, [in:] V. Konarska-Wrzosek (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2016, p. 1198; J. Potulski, Typ uprzywilejowany korupcji urzędniczej wypadek mniejszej wagi [Type of clerical staff corruption as a case of lesser significance], Gd. Stud. Praw. No. 24, 2010, pp. 383 384; J. Brzezińska, Kilka uwag o wypadku mniejszej wagi [Some comments on a case of lesser significance ], [in:] T. Kalisz (ed.), Nowa kodyfikacja prawa karnego [New criminal law codification], Vol. XXXI, Wrocław 2014, p. 50; M. Kulik, [in:] M. Mozgawa (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Warsaw 2015, pp. 746 and 259; P. Bachmat, Pełnienie funkcji publicznej w państwie obcym lub organizacji międzynarodowej jako przesłanka odpowiedzialności za przestępstwa sprzedajności i przekupstwa (art. 228 6 k.k. i art. 229 5 k.k.) [Holding a public post in a foreign state or international organisation as a premise of liability for the crime of accepting and offering bribes (Article 228 6 CC and Article 229 5 CC)], Prawo w Działaniu No. 23, 2015, pp. 124, 131, 137; Supreme Court judgement of 14 August 1975, Rw 898/75, OSNKW 1975, No. 12, item 169; Supreme Court judgement of 21 September 1988, V KRN 186/88, OSNPG 1989, No. 3, item 42; Supreme Court judgement of 15 October 1996, IV KKN 247/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 4 supplement 1997; Supreme Court decision of 13 June 2002, V KKN, OSNKW 2002, No. 9 10, item 73; judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 2 August 2001, II AKa 284/01, OSN Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 2002, item 9; judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 5 June 2002, II AKa 128/02, KZS 2002, No. 6, item 16. 5 R.A. Stefański, Okoliczności uzasadniające przyjęcie wypadku mniejszej wagi [Circumstances justifying application of a case of lesser significance ], Prok. i Pr. No. 12, 1996, p. 125; M. Wąsek, Gloss on..., p. 65; E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi kilka uwag na temat charakteru instytucji [Case of lesser significance: a few comments on its nature], CzPKiNP No. 1, 2011, p. 85. 6 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany czynu zabronionego [Type of prohibited acts treated more leniently], Prok. i Pr. No. 9, 2013, p. 48. 7 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 85 8 K. Buchała, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, PiP No. 9, 1997, p. 112; J. Bafia, [in:] J. Bafia, K. Mioduski, M. Siewierski, Kodeks karny. Komentarz [Criminal Code: Commentary], Vol. II, Warsaw 1987, p. 238; Z. Ćwiąkalski, [in:] A. Zoll (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz [Criminal Code. Special Part: Commentary], Vol. II, Warsaw 2013, p. 228; K. Banasik, Wypadek mniejszej wagi w prawie karnym [Case of lesser significance in the criminal law], Prok. i Pr. No. 3, 2008, pp. 54 55; P. Lewczyk, Wypadek mniejszej wagi w polskim kodeksie karnym (uwagi de lege lata i postulaty de lege ferenda) [Case of lesser significance in the Polish Criminal Code (comments de lege lata and proposals de lege ferenda)], Prok. i Pr. No. 7 8, 2008, pp. 30 and 32; idem, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 26 November 2008, II KK 79/08, OSP 2010, No. 3, p. 34; A. Zoll, [in:] A. Zoll (ed.), Kodeks karny. Komentarz. Część szczególna [Criminal Code: Commentary. Special Part], Vol. II, Kraków 1999, pp. 758 759; M. Dąbrowska- Kardas, P. Kardas, [in:] A. Zoll (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz [Criminal Code. Special Part: Commentary], Vol. III, Warsaw 2008, p. 189; Supreme Court judgement of 16 April 1984, Rw 167/84, OSNKW 1984, No. 11 12, item 120; Supreme Court decision of 18 June 2002, V KKN 544/00, 0SNKW 2002, No. 9 10, item 73; Supreme Court judgement of 24 April 2002, II KKN 193/00 Prok. i Pr. No. 5 supplement, 2003, item 12; judgement of the Appellate Court

52 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA significance cannot constitute grounds for classifying it as a type treated more leniently because, in fact, the standard type and a more leniently treated one would differ only in the level of their social harmfulness. Moreover, the principle of legal certainty in criminal law is an argument for that as a case of lesser significance raises too many doubts about circumstances of a prohibited act. 9 The Supreme Court expressed an opinion that The essence of that norm does not consist in modification of the feature (features) resulting in the creation of a type different from the standard one. It maintains an unchanged set of features of the type on which it depends because it matches them all and has no features that go beyond. It does not constitute a variation of a standard type but a set of acts separated from that type and generalised in a different provision due to their (lesser) gravity. 10 It is rightly indicated in the literature that if it were to constitute a directive on sentencing, it would have been included in the General Part of the Criminal Code. 11 3) a form of a prohibited act treated more leniently because a case of lesser significance may be established only in concreto and the features of this type of a crime cannot be indicated in abstracto. 12 4) an act for which the degree of social harmfulness, because of all or some circumstances laid down in Article 115 2 CC, matches the statutory specification of a case of lesser significance, 13 i.e. its gravity is low. 14 Obviously, each of these conceptions is based on some important grounds, but there is the strongest axiological justification for the first one. Moreover, apart from the arguments mentioned, there is one indicating that cases of lesser significance are specified in separate provisions envisaging separate sanctions with the exception of Article 310 3 CC, which stipulates a possibility of applying extraordinary mitigation of a penalty in case of lesser significance. The types treated more leniently are characterised by the fact that, apart from standard features, they have additional features and are carrying a separate, independent, more lenient sanction. It is rightly emphasised in jurisprudence that we can speak about the type treated more leniently when a legal act lays down a special in Katowice of 12 August 2004, II AKa 234/04, Prok. i Pr. No. 7 8, supplement, 2005, item 30; judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 25 January 2001, II AKa 8/01, OSA 2001, No. 5, item 27. 9 P. Lewczyk, Wypadek mniejszej wagi... [Case of lesser significance ], p. 31. 10 Supreme Court judgement of 14 November 1997, V KKN 4/97, OSNKW 1998, No. 3 4, item 17 with a gloss of approval by S. Zabłocki, OSP 1998, No. 9, item 152 and idem, such comments, Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego Izba Karna [Review of judicial decisions of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber], Pal. No. 3 4, 1998 p. 175. 11 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany [Type of ], p. 48; E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], pp. 81 98. 12 A. Barczak-Oplustil, [in:] A. Zoll (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz [Criminal Code. Special Part: Commentary], Vol. II, Warsaw 2013, p. 1174; E. Plebanek, Materialne określenie przestępstwa [Substantive definition of an offence], Warsaw 2009, p. 146. 13 L. Wilk, [in:] M. Królikowski, R. Zawłocki, (ed.), Kodeks karny. Część szczególna. Komentarz. Art. 222 316 [Criminal Code. Special Part: Commentary on Articles 222 316], Vol. II, Warsaw 2013, p. 543. 14 L. Wilk, [in:] T. Dukiet-Nagórska (ed.), Prawo karne. Część szczególna i wojskowa [Criminal law: Special Part and Military Part], Warsaw 2014, p. 416.

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 53 provision concerning a type of a crime and a separate penalty for it. 15 However, the lack of an independent sanction in Article 310 3 CC does not constitute an obstacle to apply the discussed solution because it is rightly assumed in literature that a crime treated more leniently is one carrying a separate penalty or one for which extraordinary mitigation of penalty may be applied. 16 Measures concerning sentencing are specified in the General Part of the Criminal Code and some exceptionally in the Special Part, e.g. admissibility of extraordinary mitigation of a penalty or renouncement of a penalty in exceptional circumstances (Article 150 2 CC and Article 264a 2 CC 17 ). It is rightly noticed in jurisprudence that descriptions of prohibited behaviour are laid down in the provisions of the Special Part of the Criminal Code and, as a rule, the provisions of the General Part, because of their nature, do not qualify to be treated as modifying circumstances. 18 In literature, it is rightly stated that we cannot speak about a type treated leniently in a situation where it concerns a circumstance covered by a general provision included in the General Part of the Criminal Code resulting in extraordinary mitigation of a penalty. 19 A different approach to cases of lesser significance in particular provisions does not undermine this conception. The legislator, constituting liability for a case of lesser significance, adds a phrase in case of lesser significance to the provision specifying the standard type (Article 144 2, Article 228 1, Article 229 2, Article 230 2, Article 230a 2, Article 250a 3, Article 270 2a, Article 271 2, Article 278 1, Article 284 3, Article 286 3, Article 287 2, Article 288 2, Article 291 2, Article 296a 3, Article 303 3, Article 342 3, Article 361 2, Article 362 2 CC) or in a separate provision (Article 281 CC), but not to repeat or refer to the features of a standard type and envisaging a more lenient penalty. The exceptions are Article 250a 3 CC and Article 303 3 CC, in which a reference is made to adequate paragraphs of the provisions specifying a standard type. A case of lesser significance is functionally connected with a standard type in which there are descriptive elements of the type. 20 It is rightly emphasised in literature that all features of a crime treated more leniently do not have to be described in the provision envisaging this type and they are supplemented by reference made to a paragraph specifying a standard type; the normative content coded in it must be read in connection with the preceding paragraph. In accordance with the adopted legislative technique, most articles included in the Special Part of the Criminal Code refer to a certain type of a crime and its description starts with standard features in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, modifying features are described in successive paragraphs. 21 It is rightly pointed out in jurisprudence that a case 15 W. Wolter, Uprzywilejowane typy [Types of ], p. 110, T. Bojarski, Odmiany [Variations ], p. 154. 16 S. Śliwiński, Polskie prawo karne [Polish criminal law], Warsaw 1946, p. 82; T. Bojarski, Odmiany [Variations ], p. 154. 17 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany [Type of ], pp. 47 48. 18 T. Bojarski, Odmiany [Variations ], p. 154. 19 S. Śliwiński, Polskie prawo karne [Polish criminal law ], p. 83. 20 P. Bachmat, Pełnienie funkcji publicznej [Holding a public post ], p. 131. 21 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany [Type of ], p. 49.

54 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA of lesser significance is an unidentified type treated more leniently, i.e. one for which a more lenient sanction may depend on various features of an act, which the legislator does not define but leaves for a court s assessment in a particular case. 22 It does not matter either whether a crime treated more leniently is specified in a separate provision or in a separate part of a provision defining the standard type. 23 It cannot be deemed unimportant that, in accordance with the Criminal Code of 1932, a court s decision to treat a crime as a case of lesser significance resulted in a possibility of applying extraordinary mitigation of a penalty and adopting it in sentencing. 24 Therefore, the Supreme Court rightly assumed that a case of lesser significance ( ) shall not be only assessed from the point of view of objective effects of a crime but also in relation to a person and a criminal intent of a perpetrator posing a lesser of greater danger to the legal order, however, obviously, his state of health may exert influence over this assessment. 25 The Criminal Code of 1997 stipulates a separate sanction in cases of lesser significance, with the exception of Article 310 3 CC, as it has already been mentioned. Moreover, cases of lesser significance were treated in the same way in the Criminal Code of 1969. The justification for it indicated directly that: The Bill treats a case of lesser significance as a type of a crime treated more leniently but not as grounds for extraordinary mitigation of a penalty laid down in the General Part. 26 It is not possible to agree with an opinion that regarding a case of lesser significance as a type treated more leniently is in conflict with the nullum crimen sine lege principle because it is determined by many factors that cannot be called the features of an act, 27 due to the fact that: firstly, the measure does not always act for the benefit of a perpetrator; 28 secondly, the assessment of a case of lesser significance consists of many circumstances that cannot be defined in abstracto, although they occur in concreto. It is a justified standpoint that a case of lesser significance is an expression of features to be treated more leniently in a condensed form, the content of which is known but, depending on a specific situation, its composition may vary in proportion and is the resultant of circumstances laid down in Article 115 2 CC and not included in the set of features of a standard type. 29 22 I. Andrejew, Podstawowe pojęcia nauki o przestępstwie [Basic concepts of the legal theory of crime], Warsaw 1988, p. 214; idem, Polskie prawo karne [Polish criminal law ], p. 121. 23 S. Śliwiński, Polskie prawo karne [Polish criminal law ], pp. 82 83. 24 J. Makarewicz, Kodeks karny z komentarzem [Criminal Code with a commentary], Lwów 1938, p. 446; S. Glaser, A. Mogilnicki, Kodeks karny z komentarzem [Criminal Code with a commentary], Kraków 1934, p. 883; P. Bachmat, Pełnienie funkcji publicznej [Holding a public post ], p. 130; E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 81; P. Lewczyk, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 28; Supreme Court judgement of 17 February 1937, 2 K 1227/36, Zb. O. 1937, No. 8, item 231. 25 Supreme Court judgement of 26 March 1935, III K 159/35, OSN(K) 1935, No. 11, item 472. 26 Projekt kodeksu karnego oraz przepisów wprowadzających kodeks karny [Bill on the Criminal Code and provisions implementing thereof], Warsaw 1968, p. 147. 27 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany [Type of ], p. 54; P. Lewczyk, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 31. 28 W. Wolter, Uprzywilejowane typy [Types of ], p. 110; E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 84. 29 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], pp. 88 89.

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 55 Approving of the conception that a case of lesser significance is a measure of sentencing would make it necessary to treat the sanctions laid down in the provisions stipulating them as non-existent, which would be a fiction since cases of lesser significance, in fact, carry a more lenient penalty. It would render the conditional discontinuation of proceedings in relation to such crimes impossible 30 because most of them carry a penalty of deprivation of liberty exceeding five years, which excludes the possibility of the conditional discontinuation of proceedings (argument from Article 66 2 CC). It is necessary to approve of an opinion that treating a case of lesser significance as a sentencing measure makes it possible to achieve an effect similar to the result obtained through extraordinary mitigation of a penalty; circumstances justifying the treatment of a given act as a case of lesser significance are to a large extent the circumstances at the same time qualifying a particularly justified case (Article 60 2 CC). The effect that causes a case of lesser significance may be achieved by applying extraordinary mitigation of a penalty. 31 3. CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING A CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE There is no agreement in jurisprudence and judicial decisions on what circumstances have an impact on the assessment whether a case of lesser significance takes place. It is assumed that: 1) A case of lesser significance depends on the entirety of circumstances of a crime, both subjective and objective (the theory of subjective-objective aspects of a crime). This theory is a prevailing one. 32 It concerns almost all elements that 30 K. Banasik, Typ uprzywilejowany [Type of ], p. 49 50. 31 Ibid., pp. 50 51. 32 W. Wolter, Uprzywilejowane typy [Types of ], p. 109, A. Zelga, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 19 March 1970, Rw 179/70, p. 155; idem, Wypadki mniejszej wagi [Cases of lesser significance ], p. 67; W. Kubala, Wypadki mniejszej wagi [Cases of lesser significance ], p. 323; T. Bojarski, Odmiany [Variations ], p. 145; K. Buchała, Prawo karne materialne [Substantive criminal law], Warsaw 1989, p. 656; K. Buchała, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, p. 112; J. Brzezińska, Kilka uwag [Some comments ], p. 50; R.A. Stefański, Okoliczności [Circumstances ], p. 125; T. Hajduk, Wypadki przestępstw mniejszej wagi [Cases of lesser significance], Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 2002, p. 57 ff; idem, Gloss on the Supreme Court decision of 13 June 2002, V KKN 544/00, PS 2005, No. 3, p. 100; D. Mucha, Przestępstwo paserstwa jako wypadek mniejszej wagi [Crime of dealing in stolen goods as a case of lesser significance], Ius Novum No. 4, 2009, pp. 78 79; E. Plebanek, Materialne określenie [Substantive definition ], p. 146; E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 81; O. Górniok, [in:] O. Górniok. S. Hoc, M. Kalitowski, S.M. Przyjemski, Z. Sienkiewicz, J. Szumski, L. Tyszkiewicz, A. Wąsek, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 288; R. Góral, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], pp. 480 481; M. Dąbrowska-Kardas, P. Kardas, [in:] Kodeks karny... [Criminal Code ], p. 192; P. Bogacki, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 853; A. Artymiak, Kłopotliwe konsekwencje [Troublesome consequences ], pp. 1578 1579; Supreme Court resolution of 22 December 1978, VII KZP 23/77, OSNKW 1979, No. 1 2, item 1; resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 15 July 1971, VI KZP 42/70, OSNKW 1971, No. 11, item 163 with a gloss by A. Zelga, NP 1972, No. 1, p. 138 ff; Supreme Court resolution of 22 December 1978, OSNKW 1979, No. 1 2, item 1; Supreme Court judgement of 18 February 1981, V KRN 333/80, OSNPG 1982, No. 1, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, OSNKW 1998, No. 1 2, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 4 April 1997, V KKN 6/97, Prok.

56 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA are characteristic of a given type of a crime. 33 Smaller or bigger complication of circumstances of a crime, smaller or bigger significance of its results and the level of ill will are taken into consideration. 34 It is emphasised in jurisprudence that circumstances concerning the subjective and objective aspects of an act that fully characterise the content of an act allow appropriate quantification of the rate of social harmfulness posed by such act and its recognition as a case of lesser significance. 35 It is unanimously assumed that circumstances concerning the subjective and objective aspects of an act that fully characterise the content of an act allow appropriate quantification of the rate of social harmfulness posed by such act and its recognition as a case of lesser significance. 36 Objective elements concern mainly the type of interest that a crime infringes, the character and amount of damage caused or threat to a protected interest as well as the mode of a perpetrator s action, time and place of committed crime, e.g. at the time of a natural disaster. Subjective elements mainly include intent and its forms, e.g. premeditated intent (dolus praemeditatus), and involuntariness and its forms, e.g. recklessness or negligence, impulses, motives and objectives of a perpetrator. The Supreme Court indicated that: A case of lesser significance is specified by premises concerning both objective and subjective aspects of an act. An act constituting a case of lesser significance is a type treated more leniently in comparison with a crime laid down in a provision for a standard type. Thus, in order to establish whether a case of lesser significance occurs, circumstances connected with the specification of the type i Pr. No. 10 supplement, 1997, item 7; Supreme Court judgement of 8 October 1997, V KKN 226/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 4 supplement 1998, item 3; Supreme Court judgement of 13 June 2002, V KKN 544/2000, OSNKW 2002, No. 9 10, item 73; Supreme Court decision of 21 August 2008, V KK 257/08, LEX No. 449083; Supreme Court decision of 22 December 2010, II KK 279/10, OSNwSK 2010, No. 1, item 2550; judgment of the Appellate Court in Lublin of 8 August 1996, II AKa 91/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 5 supplement 1997, item 65 with a gloss of approval by M. Wąsek, Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 1997, pp. 65 71; judgement of the Appellate Court in Białystok of 22 February 1996, II AKa 17/96, KZS 1996, No. 5 6, item 94; judgement of the Appellate Court in Białystok of 16 November 2000, II AKa 161/00, OSA 2001, No. 7 8, item 42; judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 2 August 2001, II AKa 284/01, OSN Prok. i Pr. No. 5, 2002, item 9; judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 30 November 2001, II AKa 260/01, OSA 2002, No. 9, item 70; judgement of the Appellate Court in Gdańsk of 11 December 2002, II AKa 428/02, Apelacja Gdańska 2003, No. 2, p. 137; judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 12 June 2006 II AKa 95/06, KZS 2006, No. 7 8, item 102; judgement of the Appellate Court in Lublin of 17 April 2007, II Aka/2007, LEX No. 314605; judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 4 October 2007, II AKa 344/07, OSN Prok. i Pr. No. 6, 2008, item 35; judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 6 November 2008, II AKa 163/08, KZS 2008, No. 12, item 35; judgement of the Appellate Court in Wrocław of 29 September 2010, II AKa 270/10, LEX No. 621279; judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 11 May 2011, II Aka 88/11, KZS 2011, No. 9, item 41, OSN Prok. i Pr. No. 2 supplement, 2012, item 23; judgement of the Appellate Court in Gdańsk of 5 November 2015, II AKa 344/15, LEX No. 2031178. 33 Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, OSNKW 1997, No. 3 4, item 27; Supreme Court judgement of 4 April1997, V KKN 6/97, Prok. i Pr. No. 10 supplement, 1997, item 7. 34 S. Glaser, A. Mogilnicki, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], pp. 883 884. 35 R.A. Stefański, Okoliczności [Circumstances ], p. 129. 36 Ibid., p. 128.

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 57 of a crime that can influence sentencing, e.g. a perpetrator s personality, former convictions and high incidence of crime commission, are not important. 37 When assessing whether a case of lesser significance takes place, it is necessary to take into consideration subjective and objective features of a crime and focus on those elements that are characteristic of a given type of crime. A case of lesser significance is a more leniently treated type of an act having the features of a standard type but characterised by the majority of mitigating subjective- -objective elements. 38 2) Circumstances of an act and a perpetrator s personality, especially his/her features and personal conditions as well as their situation impacting their motives (complex, entirety theory) do not play a decisive role in the recognition of a case of lesser significance. 39 It is pointed out that when assessing what constitutes a case of lesser significance, the same circumstances should be taken into consideration which are analysed by judges when they issue a sentence, i.e. impulses, the level of intellectual development, a perpetrator s character, former lifestyle and behaviour after the commission of a crime. 40 It is also believed that a case of lesser significance 37 Resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 15 July 1972, VI KZP 42/70, OSNKW 1971, No. 11, item 163; resolution of joined Criminal and Military Chambers of the Supreme Court of 22 December 1978, VIIKZP 23/77, OSNKW 1979, No. 1 2, item 1. 38 Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, OSNKW 1997, No. 3 4, item 27 with a gloss by K. Buchała, PiP No. 9, 1997, pp. 111 114; Supreme Court resolution of 15 July 1971, VI KZP 42/70, OSNKW 1971, No. 11, item 63; Supreme Court resolution of 22 December 1978, VI KZP 23/77, OSNKW 1979, No. 1 2, item 1; Supreme Court judgement of 18 February 1981, V KRN 333/80, OSNPG 1982, No. 1, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 9 October 1996, V KKN 79/96, OSP 1997, No. 10, item 7; Supreme Court judgement of 15 October 1996, IV KK 247/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 4 supplement, 1997, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 4 April 1996, V KKN 79/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 10 supplement, 1997, item 7. 39 W. Świda, Prawo karne [Criminal law ], p. 478; O. Chybiński, [in:] O. Chybiński, W. Gutenkunst, W. Świda, Prawo karne. Część szczególna [Criminal law: Special Part], Wrocław Warsaw 1971, pp. 289 and 368; I. Andrejew, [in:] I. Andrejew, W. Świda, W. Wolter, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 613; idem, Kodeks karny. Krótki komentarz [Criminal Code: Short commentary], Warsaw 1986, p. 174; idem, Polskie prawo karne [Polish criminal law ], p. 436; A. Gubiński, Zasady prawa karnego [Criminal law principles ], p. 183; J. Bafia, [in:] J. Bafia, K. Mioduski, M. Siewierski, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], pp. 238 and 256; G. Łabuda, [in:] J. Giezek (ed.), Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 1069; Supreme Court judgement of 19 March 1970, Rw 179/70, OSPiKA No. 4, item 67 with a gloss of criticism by A. Zelga, ibid., resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 29 July 1970, VI KZP 33/70, OSNKW 1970, No. 10, item 117; Supreme Court judgement of 11 May 1971, V KRN 147/71, LEX No. 21403; Supreme Court judgement of 6 February 1973, V KRN 516/72, OSNKW 1973, No. 9, item 112; Supreme Court judgement of 14 August 1975, Rw 398/75, OSNKW No. 12, item 169; Supreme Court judgement of 20 August 1984, Rw 478/84, OSNKW 1984, No. 3 4, item 21; Supreme Court decision of 3 August 1988, V KRN 146/88, OSNKW 1998, No. 1 2, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 7 October 1997, II KKN 266/96 OSNPG 1989, No. 2, item 23; Supreme Court decision of 22 December 2010, II KK 279/10, Prok. i Pr. No. 5 supplement, 2011, item 6; judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 18 December 2014, II AKa 439/14, OSN Prok. i Pr. No. 6, 2015, item 36. 40 J. Makarewicz, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 587; M. Siewierski, Kodeks karny i Prawo o wykroczeniach. Komentarz [Criminal Code and Misdemeanour law: Commentary], Warsaw 1965, p. 349; W. Gutekunst, [in:] O. Chybiński, W. Świda, Prawo karne [Criminal law ], p. 289; T. Majewski, Przestępstwa przeciwko mieniu w nowym kodeksie karnym [Crimes

58 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA takes place when subjective circumstances of an act as well as subjective aspects concerning a perpetrator are mitigating in nature, resulting in the fact that an act does not take a typical form but one that can be punished more leniently. Therefore, to assess what is a case of lesser significance, the same circumstances that are taken into consideration in sentencing are important (Article 53 1 CC). 41 It is emphasised that if the legislator had meant elements connected with an act as such, he would have used a formula referring to the level of social harmfulness or the amount of damage. 42 It is at a court s discretion to recognise a case of lesser significance after taking into consideration circumstances concerning sentencing. 43 The Supreme Court stated that: The value of stolen property is only one but not the most important element that can influence a court s recognition of a case of lesser significance because circumstances concerning a perpetrator s mentality and mental condition as well as his/her motives, level of intellectual development, character, former lifestyle, behaviour after a crime commission, etc., may be of greater importance. 44 A perpetrator s motives, level of intellectual development and character, i.e. circumstances that influence sentencing, are very important, and the value of stolen property should not be a decisive element. 45 Taking into consideration all the circumstances influencing sentencing when assessing a case of lesser significance might lead to considering the same circumstances twice: once, as those allowing the recognition of a case of lesser significance, and next when issuing a sentence. 46 A statement that a perpetrator s earlier convictions should be important is not convincing because this factor is taken into account by a court in case of conditional discontinuation of proceedings (argument from Article 66 CC). 47 3) What plays a decisive role in the recognition of a case of lesser significance is only the amount of damage caused by a crime and circumstances of its commission with the exception of circumstances concerning a perpetrator and his/her relation against property in the new Criminal Code], PiP No. 8 9, 1969, p. 348; J. Śliwowski, Prawo karne [Criminal law], Warsaw 1975, p. 457; E. Pływaczewski, [in:] A. Marek (ed.), Prawo karne. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki [Criminal law: Theoretical and practical issues], Warsaw 1986, p. 394; D. Pleńska, [in:] I. Andrejew, L. Kubicki, J. Waszczyński (ed.), System prawa karnego [Criminal law system], Vol. IV, Part 2, Wrocław Warsaw Kraków Gdańsk Łódź 1989, p. 403. 41 W. Świda, Prawo karne [Criminal law ], p. 478. 42 G. Łabuda, [in:] J. Giezek (ed.), Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 1069. 43 M. Siewierski, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 349. 44 Judgement of 26 June 1933, No. 2 K. 414/33, [in:] Prawo karne w świetle orzecznictwa [Criminal law in the light of judicial decisions], prepared by S. Czerwiński, M. Przyjemski, Warsaw 1933, p. 56; Supreme Court judgement of 19 March 1970, Rw 179/70, OSNKW 1970, No. 7 8, item 83; Supreme Court judgement of 11 May 1971, V KRN 147/71, Biul. Inf. SN 1971, No. 7, item 162; Supreme Court judgement of 6 February 1973, V KRN 516172, OSNKW 1973, No. 9, item 112; Supreme Court judgement of 20 August 1984, Rw 478/84, OSNKW 1985, No. 3 4, item 21. 45 L. Peiper, Komentarz do kodeksu karnego [Commentary on the Criminal Code], Kraków 1933, pp. 46 47. 46 T. Bojarski, Odmiany [Variations ], p. 144; R.A. Stefański, Okoliczności [Circumstances ], p. 128. 47 D. Mucha, Przestępstwo paserstwa [Crime of dealing ], p. 80.

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 59 to an act (objective conception). 48 The Supreme Court directly stated that: when assessing the feature of a case of lesser significance, first of all circumstances connected with the object of protection and an objective aspect of an act, i.e. the amount of damage to social property caused and circumstances of a crime commission, play a decisive role. 49 While approving of the opinion that subjective and objective aspects of circumstances play a decisive role in the assessment of an act as a case of lesser significance, it is necessary to mention these circumstances because they are strictly connected with a particular case, especially the type of a crime. They may be presented in a general way. Undoubtedly, they are similar to those that characterise the level of social harmfulness of an act (Article 115 2 CC) yet they also include other factors. The Supreme Court indicated that within the objective features of a robbery, it is especially important to assess the method adopted by a perpetrator, means used, the type of interest infringed, the nature and intention of damage caused to or endangering a victim, time, place as well as other circumstances of robbery commission, etc. 50 In particular cases, judicial decisions stipulated that: A robbery perpetrator s action is targeted not only against a victim s property but also against a victim as a person. In the light of the court s examination of facts during the trial, the object of theft was money worth at least a few groszes, and the robbery perpetrators, what the victim emphasises, after one of them hit him in the face, gave him his cell-phone and a school ID back, and one of them shook his hand. The above-mentioned act obviously matches the features of a robbery, nevertheless it is justified in this situation to consider classifying it as a case of lesser significance in accordance with Article 283 CC. 51 A case of lesser significance, in accordance with Article 210 11 CC, takes place when a perpetrator s act matches the features of a robbery laid down in Article 210 1 CC, and the assessment of objective aspects of circumstances (the amount of damage caused or endangering a victim s health or property, taking into consideration the hierarchy of the interests, the character and mode of a perpetrator s action, etc.) and subjective aspects (motives and impulses, the form of 48 J. Bafia, K. Kukawka, L. Lernell, Problematyka części szczególnej kodeksu karnego [Issues of the Special Part of the Criminal Code], [in:] Problemy nowego prawa karnego [Issues in the new criminal law], Wrocław Warsaw Kraków Gdańsk 1973, p. 82; J. Bafia, Przestępstwa gospodarcze (Wybrane zagadnienia) [Economic crimes (Selected issues)], Warsaw 1970, p. 63; J. Bafia, [in:] J. Bafia, K. Mioduski, M. Siewierski, Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 230 231; K. Mioduski, Przegląd orzecznictwa Izby Wojskowej Sądu Najwyższego w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego [Review of judicial decisions of the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court concerning substantive criminal law], WPP No. 1, 1971, p. 250; M. Szwarczyk, [in:] Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 562; Supreme Court judgement of 3 December 1980, V KRN 338/80 OSNPG 1981, No. 5, item 50. 49 Supreme Court judgement of 29 August 1978, VI KRN 207/78, OSNKW 1978, No. 12, item 142. 50 Supreme Court judgement of 4 April 1997, V KKN 6/97, Prok. i Pr. No. 10 supplement, 1997, item 7. 51 Supreme Court judgement of 26 November 2008, II KK 79/08, OSN, Prok. i Pr. No. 4, 2009, item 9 with a gloss of approval by P. Lewczyk, OSP 2010, No. 3, pp. 232 235.

60 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA intention, the level of ill will, etc.) leads to a conclusion that this act does not take the form of standard robbery but is a crime of lesser negative social impact. 52 It cannot be assumed that the examined case is of lesser significance in accordance with Article 283 CC. The act is connected with the intrusion into an apartment and the infringement of a victim s home privacy. There were five perpetrators. One of them used a mock pistol and put it against the victim s head. Thus, the victim could be convinced it was a real gun. Therefore, we deal with a typical robbery. 53 Classification of a robbery as a case of lesser significance is applied by the Appellate Court in case of recognition of a low level of guilt, randomness of a perpetrator s action, small damage, when it is committed among persons drinking alcohol and quarrelling about who should pay for the next round of drinks, and in case of acts connected with persistent begging for money, when they are accompanied by a threat, etc. 54 Criminal record, relapse into crime or other circumstances having impact on sentencing are not important for the possibility of recognising a case of lesser significance. 55 In case of crimes against property, for the recognition of a case of lesser significance, the value of property that is the object of crime is critical. 56 Relapse into crime laid down in Article 64 CC is not an obstacle to recognise a case of lesser significance. 57 A case of lesser significance occurs when the level of social harmfulness of an act is higher than scant because it concerns an act that constitutes a crime. It is not applicable, however, when an act is to a considerable extent socially harmful. Then, such a level of social harmfulness is best described as a standard type. There is a right opinion that acts classified as a standard type, in a situation when there is a case of lesser significance treated more leniently, cannot be recognised as socially harmful at a scant level. 58 The Supreme Court rightly noticed that: It is inadmissible to consider a prohibited act to be a case of lesser significance and an act of scant harmfulness at the same time. 59 A case of lesser significance takes place when the features of a crime, mainly the objective ones, are characterised by not high level of 52 Judgement of the Appellate Court in Lublin of 8 August 1996, II AKa 91/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 5 supplement, 1997, item 65. 53 Judgement of the Appellate Court in Katowice of 14 September 2000, II AKa 223/00, Biul. SA w Katowicach 2000, No. 4, item 10. 54 Judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 20 November 2003, II AKa 276/03, KZS 2004, No. 1, item 30. 55 Judgement of the Appellate Court in Lublin of 8 August 1996, II AKa 91/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 5 supplement 1997, item 65. 56 L.K. Paprzycki, Gloss on the Supreme Court judgement of 13 October 1995, II KRN 125/95, OSP 1996, No. 7 8, pp. 384 385. 57 Resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 15 July 1971, VI KZP 42/70, OSNKW 1971, No. 11, item 163; resolution of the joined Criminal and Military Chambers of the Supreme Court of 22 December 1978, VII KZP 23/77, OSNKW 1979, No. 1 2, item 1; Supreme Court judgement of 3 December 1980, V KRN 338/80, OSNPG 1981, No. 5, item 50; Supreme Court judgement of 18 February 1981, V KRN 333/80, OSNPG 1982, No. 1, item 5; Supreme Court judgement of 16 September 1981, V KRN 197/81, OSNPG 1982, No. 1, item 5. 58 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 97. 59 Supreme Court decision of 3 April 2008, WZ 16/08, OSNKW 2008, No. 8, item 62.

CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE IN THE POLISH CRIMINAL CODE 61 social harmfulness and a perpetrator is not so dangerous for the community that a standard penalty for the crime must be imposed on him. It is rightly emphasised in literature that the concept of a case of lesser significance covers a broader scope of designation than the concept of a prohibited act the social harmfulness of which is not considerable.60 Undoubtedly, acts constituting cases of lesser significance are ones that are less socially harmful than acts of a standard type, which is reflected in penalties they carry. 61 What is decisive for recognising a prohibited act to be a case of lesser significance, as the Supreme Court rightly notes, is the assessment of its social harmfulness to be decreased to the level justifying sentencing in accordance with the statutory penalty range laid down in a provision distinguishing a case of lesser significance within the category of crimes of a specific type. 62 Judicial decisions indicate that: a case of a crime of lesser significance occurs when the features of a crime, mainly objective ones, are characterised by not high social harmfulness and a perpetrator is not so dangerous for the society that a standard penalty for a crime committed should be imposed on him. 63 In spite of what is stated in literature, a scant level of guilt, e.g. resulting from a perpetrator s low level of mental development, does not affect the assessment of a case of lesser significance. 64 It is rightly argued in literature that an abnormal motivational situation or a perpetrator s maturity should not have impact on the assessment of whether a given act matches the features of a case of lesser significance but they are important for determining the level of guilt and, as a result, sentencing. 65 4. A CASE OF LESSER SIGNIFICANCE VERSUS EXTRAORDINARY MITIGATION OF A PENALTY Approval of the conception that a case of lesser significance constitutes a type of crime treated more leniently and that objective and subjective circumstances are decisive for its recognition raises a question of the possibility of applying extraordinary mitigation of a penalty towards a perpetrator of such a crime. At first glance, the answer is that it is possible because: firstly, a penalty is imposed within the limits laid down in a provision specifying a crime; secondly, circumstances concerning a perpetrator that are taken into consideration for sentencing are not important for the classification of an act as a case of lesser significance. 60 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 92. 61 R. Zawłocki, Pojęcie i funkcje społecznej szkodliwości czynu w prawie karnym [Concept and functions of social harmfulness of an act in the criminal law], Warsaw 2007, p. 314. 62 Supreme Court judgement of 13 June 2002, V KKN 544/00, OSNKW 2002, No. 9 10, item 73 with a partly critical gloss by T. Hajduk, PS 2005, No. 3, pp. 99 104 and comments of approval by S. Zabłocki, Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego Izba Karna [Review of judicial decisions of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber], Pal. No. 9 10, 2002, p. 182. 63 Judgement of the Appellate Court in Kraków of 6 November 2008, II AKa 163/08, KZS 2008, No. 12, item 33. 64 T. Hajduk, Gloss on the Supreme Court decision of 13 June 2002, V KKN 544/00, p. 100. 65 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], pp. 94 95.

62 BLANKA JULITA STEFAŃSKA The Supreme Court expressed a justified opinion that a court is entitled to classify a given act as a case of lesser significance and then apply extraordinary mitigation of a penalty, because distinguishing a standard type from a crime treated more leniently due to its lesser significance does not depend on a perpetrator s personality, reputation, criminal record, behaviour before and after the commission of a crime and high incidence of such acts or other circumstances having impact on sentencing, however, existing beyond that act. 66 5. CONCLUSIONS The considerations presented indicate that a case of lesser significance raises serious interpretative difficulties concerning its legal nature as well as elements influencing its recognition. This does not mean, as it is suggested in literature, that it is necessary to define its character in the Criminal Code and include a catalogue of circumstances having impact on its recognition 67 as well as additional grounds for extraordinary mitigation of a penalty. 68 It would be: firstly, extremely difficult; secondly, the legislator would have to approve of one of the conceptions mentioned earlier, which would not be a desired solution. The proposal to repeal a separate sanction in case of lesser significance and adopt a former solution laid down in the Criminal Code of 1932, where it constituted grounds for extraordinary mitigation of a penalty, is also unjustified. 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Artymiak A., Kłopotliwe konsekwencje kazuistycznej ustawy karnej w aspekcie prawa do rozpoznania sprawy przez sąd właściwy zagadnienia wybrane [Troublesome consequences of casuist criminal statute in the light of a right to hearing before a competent court: selected issues], [in:] P. Kardas, T. Sroka, W. Wróbel (ed.), Państwo prawa i prawo karne. Księga jubileuszowa Prof. A. Zolla [State of law and criminal law. Professor A. Zoll jubilee book], Vol. II, Warsaw 2012. Andrejew I., Kodeks karny. Krótki komentarz [Criminal Code: Short commentary], Warsaw 1986. Andrejew I., Podstawowe pojęcia nauki o przestępstwie [Basic concepts of the legal theory of crime], Warsaw 1988. Andrejew I., Polskie prawo karne w zarysie [Outline of the Polish criminal law], PWN, Warsaw 1989. 66 Supreme Court judgement of 5 February 1997, V KKN 161/96, Prok. i Pr. No. 3 supplement, 1998, item 5. 67 E. Plebanek, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 98; G. Łabuda, [in:] J. Giezek (ed.), Kodeks karny [Criminal Code ], p. 1069. 68 R. Zawłocki, Wypadek mniejszej wagi osobliwość wagi ciężkiej [Case of lesser significance specificity of high gravity], [in:] A. Michalska-Warias, I. Nowikowski, J. Piórkowska-Flieger (ed.), Teoretyczne i praktyczne problemy współczesnego prawa karnego. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Prof. T. Bojarskiemu [Theoretical and practical problems of contemporary criminal law. Professor T. Bojarski jubilee book], Lublin 2011, p. 362. 69 P. Lewczyk, Wypadek mniejszej wagi [Case of lesser significance ], p. 38.