Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "Poland damages," wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
Tytuł:
Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza NRF w XXI wieku – Próba opisu
The compensation responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany in the 21st century - An attempt to describe
Autorzy:
Gruszczyński, Krzysztof Jerzy
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/485749.pdf
Data publikacji:
2017
Wydawca:
Instytut Studiów Międzynarodowych i Edukacji Humanum
Tematy:
War reparation,
Germany,
WWII,
Poland damages,
Law and Justice Party
Opis:
Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) is considering whether to seek further reparations from German Federal Republic for the massive losses inflicted during WWII. PiS head Kaczynski described the move as a “historical counteroffensive.” World War II (WW II), which began with the German invasion of Poland in 1939, killed nearly 6 million Polish citizens and inflicted huge material losses, including the destruction of cultural treasures, industry and entire cities. Those crimes carry not only a moral price, but a material one as well: In 2004, Warsaw’s then-mayor, Lech Kaczynski, calculated that the Deutsche Bundesrepublik was liable for reparation payments of some $45 billion dollars (38 billion dollars) for the destruction of Warsaw alone. If one were to extrapolate the amount to include the whole of Poland, one would certainly arrive at a figure 10 to 20 times higher. That would be a sum that could only be paid out over decades and across generations. When one considers that German Federal Republic’s (GFR) final reparation payments to France and Belgium for the First World War were not made until 2010, one gets an idea of the dimensions of such a demand. Shortly after the PiS regained power in 2916 its leader, Jarosław Kaczyński, announced that Poland and the GFR had outstanding accounts to settle from the WW II. He went on to say that the issue of war reparations between the neighboring countries had never been resolved. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, GFR’s foreign minister at the time, answered Kaczynski’s claims with a letter stating that Poland had no legal basis for demanding such damages. He reminded Kaczynski of Poland’s relinquishment of reparations in 1953. Poland’s government did indeed waive its right to war reparations from its western neighbor at the time – yet that neighbor was the German Democratic Republic (GDR). A few other interesting points. The GFR has paid billions of dollars over the years in compensation for III Reich crimes, primarily to polish survivors, and acknowledges the country’s responsibility for keeping alive the memory of III Reich atrocities. After WW II, both GFR and GDR were obliged to pay war reparations to the Allied governments, according to the Potsdam Conference. Other Axis nations were obliged to pay war reparations according to the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 an early plan for a post-war GFR was the Morgenthau plan with terms that would have essentially transformed the GFR to an agrarian society... This position was completely changed by the London Agreement on German External Debts, so called the London Debt Agreement. As a consequence of aggression by the III Reich much of Poland was subjected to enormous destruction of its industry (62% of which was destroyed), its infrastructure (84%) and loss of civilian life (16.7% of its citizens during the war- 10% of them Jews). It is estimated that damages incurred by Poland during WWII total $640 billion in 2004 exchange values. As of 2012, the GFR had paid a total of $89 billion in compensation to victims of the war, in Poland and beyond, and GFR officials continue to meet regularly to revise and expand the guidelines for compensation. All in all, after WW II 17 % of Polish citizens perished, 62 % of industry & 84 % of infrastructure was destroyed. The capital Warsaw was raised to the ground as a result of Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Poland could not benefit from US Marshall Plan as other countries (incl. the GFR) as the Soviets decided for Poland to renounce it. The GFR paying WWI reparations to France in 2010 (92 years after WWI). Polish estimates of the damage the country suffered are in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with a government figure from 1945-47 putting material losses at $850 billion, not including human losses. In 2004, Kaczynski’s late twin brother Lech, as mayor of Warsaw, put the damages to the capital city alone at $45.3 billion. Poland is the biggest net beneficiary of the bloc’s 140 billion-euro ($164 billion) annual budget, having been granted more than 250 billion dollars since entry. The monstrosity of III Reich crimes, not only against Polish Jews but also others, including the 150,000 civilians butchered during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, will forever remain a disgrace and an unforgettable injustice. It is all the more so given that hardly any of those Germans responsible for the deeds were ever brought to account. In 2004 a special commission estimated that damages incurred by the Polish capital alone during WW II amounted to more than $45 billion (38 billion dollars). The commission was convened by Lech Kaczynski, then Warsaw’s mayor. The topic has routinely strained German-Polish relations since the national-conservative party PiS returned to power in 2016. On 23 August 1953, the Communist People’s Republic of Poland under pressure from the Soviet Union announced it would unilaterally waive its right to war reparations from the German Democratic Republic on 1 January 1954, with the exception of reparations for III Reich oppression and atrocities. The GDR in turn had to accept the Oder-Neisse border, which gave around 1/4 of GDR’s historic territory to Poland and the USSR. Poland’s former communist government, agreed in 1953 to not to make any further claims on GDR. Poland’s former Communist government waived its right to German post-war compensation back in 1953, as part of its commitment to “contribute to solving the GDR question in the spirit of democracy and peace.” However, many argue that the agreement was unlawful since the government at the time was under pressure from the Soviet Union, and following the reunification of the GFR in the 1990s the matter has faced new scrutiny. As to the GFR the federal government has claimed that its duty to compensate Poland was denounced in the 1950s but insists that it continues to stand by its moral and financial duties to the victims of the war. The GFR hadn’t paid reparations to non-Jewish recipients for the damage inflicted in Poland. The agreement signed by Mr. Gierek and Mr. Schmidt in 1975 in Warsaw, stipulated that 1.3 billion DM will be paid to Poles who, during Nazi occupation, had paid into GFR’s social security system without receiving pension. After German reunification, Poland demanded reparations again, as a reaction to claims made by German refugee organizations demanding compensation for property and land repossessed by the new Polish state that they were forcibly deported from as a stipulation of the Potsdam Agreement and the mentioned Oder-Neisse border. In 1992, the Foundation for Polish-German Reconciliation was founded by the Polish and GFR governments, and as a result GFR paid Polish sufferers ca. 4.7 billion PLN. There is still an ongoing debate among international law experts if Poland still has the right to demand war reparations, with some arguing that the 1954 declaration wasn’t legal. According to a statement made by the German government in 2017, the reparations issue was resolved in 1953 as Poland declined receiving any payments from the GFR. However, it’s worth remembering that in 2004, the Polish government reaffirmed that decision when, in return, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised that the GFR’s government would not support demands for damages lodged by expellees against the Polish government. The decision came about dueto the fact that the GFR had relinquished former eastern territories to Poland as compensation for III Reich war crimes. Poland’s ruling officials are stepping up calls to demand compensation from the GFR for damages caused in WW II, potentially deepening a divide between the European Union’s largest eastern member and the bloc’s biggest economy. Between the collapse of communism in 1989 and 2004 when Poland joined the EU, subsequent governments declared the issue of war reparations from the GFR closed, based on a declaration of the 1953 communist administration in Warsaw and treaties from 1970 and 1990 with the GFR. Presently the Polish parliament’s research office is preparing an analysis of whether Poland can legally make the claim and will have it ready by Aug. 11, 2017 according to Deputy Arkadiusz Mularczyk, a lawmaker with the ruling Law and Justice party who requested the report. One of the reasons that the government is reopening the question may be to demonstrate it isn’t intimidated by the EU’s criticism for democratic backsliding. The bloc has opened an unprecedented probe into Poland over the rule-of-law that’s centered on a government push to strip the judiciary of its independence by giving politicians greater control over the courts. In response to the Poland’s new demand Ulrike Demmer, deputy spokeswoman for the GFR government, said that, while the GFR assumed political, moral and financial responsibility for the WW, the question of restitution was closed. The deputy spokeswoman added, that the GFR has made significant reparations for general war damage, including to Poland, and is still paying significant compensation for III Reich wrongdoing. Further it is stated that the federal government has paid billions over the years in compensation, namely to Polish survivors, for war crimes committed during WW II. The country has also acknowledged its responsibility for keeping alive the memory of atrocities committed by the III Reich. As far as German lawyers and scholars are concerned, the issue was resolved years ago and are not afraid of any possible lawsuit in the International Court of Justice. In 2004, Jochen Frowein, an expert on international law and the former director of the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, along with a Polish historian, came to the conclusion that no such demand by Poland had any chance of being upheld in a court of law – and that remains the case today. In his opinion the question has been “legally resolved and definitively settled.” He also points to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to the GFR, known also as the Two plus Four Agreement. The agreement, signed in 1990, paved the way for German reunification and also made clear that the GFR would not be responsible to pay any further reparations stemming from WW II. Frowein refutes Polish Defense Minister Senor Antoni Macierewicz’s claim that Poland’s 1953 waiver is invalid because communist Poland was not a sovereign state. “Poland’s 1953 renunciation of reparations claims against the GFR remains valid even today. The fact that the constitutional situation in Poland has changed and that it is no longer a communist state does nothing to change the validity of that declaration. Many other treaties that Poland signed at the time have also remained in effect.
Źródło:
Humanum. Międzynarodowe Studia Społeczno-Humanistyczne; 2017, 4(27); 81-115
1898-8431
Pojawia się w:
Humanum. Międzynarodowe Studia Społeczno-Humanistyczne
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚĆ III RP ZA SZKODY WYRZĄDZONE PRZEZ WŁADZE PUBLICZNE W LATACH 1944-1989
LIABILITY OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC OF POLAND FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED IN THE PERIOD 1944-1989
Autorzy:
Łączkowski, Wojciech
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/693253.pdf
Data publikacji:
2012
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Tematy:
Polish People's Republic
Third Republic of Poland
claim for damages
principles of ethic
PRL
prawo do odszkodowania
III RP
przesłanki etyczne
Opis:
Pursuant to the principle that the perpetrator or his legal successor is liable for the damage caused, The Third Republic of Poland shall not be held liable for the damage resulting from the actions taken by public authorities that functioned in the territory of Poland in the political regime of 1944-1989. Those authorities, in all fundamental matters, did not act independently, but merely implemented the decisions, also the damaging ones, that had been made by the Soviet Union. And yet, it is highly unlikely that the Russian Federation (the legal successor of the USSR) will ever recognise any claims for damages or compensation for the damage caused. Consequently, other possibilities must be considered. What seems possible and recommended is assistance offered to the harmed citizens, although such assistance is not provided by the law but is rooted in the principles of ethic and depends on the financial capability of the State involved. Solutions similar to those provided in the Civil Code should be resorted to only in situations where the state of unjust enrichment continues to be enjoyed by today’s public authorities, or individuals who acquired unlawful gains in bad faith, at the cost of others. The deliberations presented in the paper apply to the internal situation in the state only since the fact that in the analysed period Poland was not a sovereign state will not, any longer, have any practical consequences for international relations. Further, the subject matter of this paper does not concern compensation due to the Church and religious denominations, which is part of a much more broadly understood area pertaining to the financing of Churches.
Zgodnie z zasadą, że za szkodę odpowiada jej sprawca lub następca prawny, III RP nie powinna ponosić odpowiedzialności za krzywdy wyrządzone z powodów ustrojowo-politycznych przez władze publiczne funkcjonujące na obszarze Polski w latach 1944-1989. Władze te w zasadniczych sprawach były niesamodzielne, będąc jedynie wykonawcami decyzji kierownictwa ZSRR – dotyczy to również szkód, o których mowa w artykule. Skoro jednak jest mało prawdopodobne, aby Federacja Rosyjska (następca prawny ZSRR) uznała jakiekolwiek roszczenia odszkodowawcze, należy poszukiwać innych rozwiązań. Możliwa, a nawet wskazana, jest pomoc poszkodowanym, ale nie na gruncie prawa do odszkodowania, lecz w oparciu o przesłanki etyczne i z uwzględnieniem możliwości finansowych Państwa. Jedynie w sytuacjach utrzymujących stan bezpodstawnego wzbogacenia dzisiejszych władz publicznych lub osób, które wzbogaciły się w złej wierze kosztem pokrzywdzonych, należałoby uwzględniać roszczenia prawowitych właścicieli, korzystając z rozwiązań podobnych do tych, które określone są w Kodeksie cywilnym. Rozważania zawarte w artykule odnoszą się jedynie do stosunków wewnętrznych, w stosunkach międzynarodowych bowiem brak suwerenności Polski w tamtym okresie nie może już wywoływać żadnych skutków praktycznych. Ponadto artykuł nie dotyczy odszkodowań należnych Kościołom i związkom wyznaniowym. Jest to problematyka, którą należy połączyć z szerszą sprawą finansowania Kościołów.
Źródło:
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny; 2012, 74, 3; 105-110
0035-9629
2543-9170
Pojawia się w:
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza państwa za bezprawne działania jego organów według ABGB w świetle wykładni Sądu Najwyższego (1918–1939). Przyczynek do dziejów austriackiej tradycji prawnej w Polsce
The liability for damage caused on occasion of excercising public power. The discussion of the problem through prism of interpretation of the ABGB provisions as made by the Supreme Court (1918–1939). Some remarks on the history of Austrian legal tradition in Poland
Autorzy:
Dziadzio, Andrzej
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/923460.pdf
Data publikacji:
2012
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
Tematy:
damages
liability
judiciary in the interwar Poland
Austrian law
Polish law
legal tradition
odszkodowanie
odpowiedzialność
sądownictwo międzywojenne w Polsce
prawo austriackie
prawo polskie
tradycja prawna
Opis:
The paper analyses the fundamentals of civil law liability of the State for the harm resulting from the excercising of public power in both the Austrian constitutional monarchy(1867-1918) as well as in the Second Republic of Poland (1918-1939). The paper is designed to demonstrate the extent to which decisions of the Austrian Supreme Tribunal in the area of compensatory liability - were reflected in the decisions of the Polish Supreme Court of the inter-war time. The possibility of survival, in this area, of the Austrian legal thought in the independent Poland was justified both by the binding force of the same Civil Code (which was the ABGB still in force until 1946 in the area of former Austrian partition) as well as by similar constitutional regulations. Both the Austrian Constitution of December 1867 as well as the Polish Constitution of March 1921 accepted the liability of State for harm done to an individual by the agencies of State power, the harm resulting from the activities of the officials who operated contrary to law. Yet the regulations of both Constitutions were deprived of executory provisions. Similiar (and partly even identic) legal state was, to a large extent, decisive of the adopting by the Polish courts of the adjudicating line characteristic of the Austrian courts. The analysis of both the Austrian as well as the Polish court decisions disclosed that in numerous cases in which compensatory claims were raised the courts tended toward the weakening of the principle of the absence of liability of the State for the harm done by its agencies as due to the shortage of the detailed provisions. The first attempt to remedy this absence was made by the Supreme Tribunal (Ober-Gerichtshof) as well as by the Tribunal of State (Reichsgericht) in the monarchical Austria. The arguments resorted to by the two Tribunals facilitated the recognition in 1931 by the Polish Supreme Court of the principle of limited liability of State Treasury for the harm done to somebody as a result of excercising the public power by the State agencies.
Źródło:
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa; 2012, 5, 4; 295-305
2084-4115
2084-4131
Pojawia się w:
Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
From the Lump-sum Damages to the Mitigation – Compensatory Nature of the Contractual Penalty in the Polish Law on the Background of Solutions Adopted by the 19th-Century Civil Law
Autorzy:
Fermus-Bobowiec, Anna
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/618777.pdf
Data publikacji:
2016
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
Tematy:
contractual penalty
damages
fulfillment of the contract
Napoleonic Code
civil law in force during the partitions of Poland
obligations code
civil code
kara umowna
odszkodowanie
wykonanie umowy
Kodeks Napoleona
prawo cywilne obowiązujące na ziemiach polskich pod zaborami
kodeks zobowiązań
kodeks cywilny
Opis:
The present paper addresses the institution of the contractual penalty and its normative reflection in the Polish 20th-century civil law, presented on its 19th-century background. Within the scope of presented institution, the considerations included civil law which was in force during the partitions of Poland (Napoleonic Code, ABGB, BGB, Code of Laws of the Russian Empire – volume 10) and then obligations code and current civil code. It has enabled to show that the juridical construction of the contractual penalty in the contemporary civil law is based on the 19th-century normative solutions.
Podjęta w artykule problematyka dotyczy instytucji kary umownej i jej normatywnego odzwierciedlenia w polskim prawie cywilnym XX w., ukazanego na tle dorobku dziewiętnastowiecznej cywilistyki. W zakresie prezentowanej instytucji rozważania objęły prawo cywilne obowiązujące na ziemiach polskich pod zaborami (Kodeks Napoleona, ABGB, BGB, tom X Zwodu Praw Cesarstwa Rosyjskiego), a następnie kodeks zobowiązań i obecnie obowiązujący kodeks cywilny. Pozwoliło to pokazać, iż konstrukcja jurydyczna kary umownej we współczesnym prawie cywilnym została oparta na dziewiętnastowiecznych rozwiązaniach normatywnych.
Źródło:
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia; 2016, 25, 3
1731-6375
Pojawia się w:
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Stosunki między mieszkańcami miasta Knyszyna a żołnierzami wojsk koronnych w latach 1650–1651 w świetle ksiąg wójtowskich
Relationships between the residents of Knyszyn and the army of the Kingdom of Poland in the light of court records from 1650–51
Autorzy:
Gołaszewski, Łukasz
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/533100.pdf
Data publikacji:
2016
Wydawca:
Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
Tematy:
army in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
military discipline
foreign style troops in the 17th and 18th centuries
damages caused by soldiers
municipal courts under the Law of Magdeburg in Poland
relationships between soldiers and civilians
wojsko w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów
dyscyplina wojskowa
autorament cudzoziemski XVII–XVIII w.
szkody żołnierskie
sądownictwo miejskie prawa magdeburskiego
stosunki między wojskiem a ludnością cywilną
Opis:
The article discusses the relationships between the residents of the town Knyszyn in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the soldiers of the state army quartered in the town in 1650–51. The surviving excerpts from the records of the municipal court contain a wide array of cases (albeit always making use of physical violence) against the townspeople, who made use of soldiers in conflicts with their neighbours. On the other hand, the presence of soldiers let the townspeople trade with soldiers and their servants, and also level certain moral charges against the neighbours. Due to legal complexities, these were not the soldiers who were summoned to the municipal courts but rather the neighbours who supposedly inspired violent soldier behaviours.
Szkic omawia stosunki między mieszkańcami miasta Knyszyna a stacjonującymi tam w latach 1650–1651 żołnierzami na podstawie zachowanych fragmentów ksiąg wójtowskich. Księgi te zawierają szereg spraw przeciwko mieszczanom, którzy w różnorodny sposób (zawsze związany jednak z przemocą fizyczną) posiłkowali się żołnierzami w sporach z sąsiadami. Ponadto obecność wojska pozwalała na nawiązywanie przez mieszczan relacji handlowych z żołnierzami i ich pachołkami, a także wysuwanie przeciwko sąsiadkom zarzutów natury obyczajowej. Z uwagi na trudności natury prawnej do sądów miejskich pozywano nie samych żołnierzy, ale sąsiadów, którzy ich przemoc mieli inspirować.
Źródło:
Studia z Dziejów Państwa i Prawa Polskiego; 2016, 19; 81-93
1733-0335
Pojawia się w:
Studia z Dziejów Państwa i Prawa Polskiego
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies