Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
V KB 173/25 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses late appeal request as filed after statutory deadline expired. The court held that appointing a defense lawyer did not extend the filing period. The request was rejected because it was submitted after the deadline. The court ruled that procedural deadlines are strict and cannot be extended by internal actions. The decision emphasizes the finality of procedural time limits in criminal appeals. The court concluded that the request was inadmissible due to untimeliness. The ruling clarifies that defense representation does not reset filing deadlines. The case establishes that procedural strictness prevails over equitable considerations. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory timeframes. The court's decision ensures legal certainty in criminal procedure matters.

Numero d'incarto V KB 173/25
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Polonia (PL)
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the request for a ruling on the inadmissibility of the appeal, which was filed on August 14, 2025. The appellant argued that the appointment of a defense lawyer should have extended the deadline for submitting the request. The court determined that such an appointment did not obligate the court to send a notice to the defendant or extend the original filing period. Consequently, the request was rejected as it was submitted after the statutory deadline had expired.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 400 § 1 k.p.k.; Art. 400 § 2 k.p.k.: The appointment of a defense lawyer does not extend the statutory deadline for filing a request for a ruling on inadmissibility, and requests submitted after such expiration are inadmissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
procedural deadline defense lawyer appointment inadmissibility ruling statutory time limit criminal procedure law filing period extension supreme court decision

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 400 § 1 k.p.k.
Art. 400 § 2 k.p.k.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

V KB 173/25 ZARZĄDZENIE Dnia 9 października 2025 r. Wniosek adw. J. S. odrzucić jako wniesiony po upływie terminu do złożenia wniosku, który w tej sprawie 14 sierpnia 2025 r. (k. 42). Wyznaczenie skazanemu obrońcy w celu sporządzenia i podpisania wniosku o wznowienie postępowania albo opinii o braku podstaw do jego sporządzenia już po dokonaniu czynności zawiadomienia o składzie nie obligowało Sądu Najwyższego do wysłania zawiadomienia o składzie obrońcy i nie wydłużało pierwotnego terminu skazanemu. O zarządzeniu zawiadomić skazanego i jego obrońcę. Sprawę zakreślić jako zakończoną w inny sposób. Prezes Sądu Najwyższego SSN Zbigniew Kapiński Na niniejsze zarządzenie zażalenie nie przysługuje. [J.J.] [a.ł]