Proposition.

skrót: uznając 4 stawki grzywny za wykonane

zdanie:

"zaliczenie rzeczywstego pozbawienia wolnosci uznajac 4 stawki grzywny za wykonanie"

Tłumaczenie:

"awards a credit for time actually served/a presentencing credit equalling 4/equivalent to 4 daily rates applied towards the fine."

Zdanie:

"zalicz. rzeczywistego pozb. wolnosci w sprawie IIK326/11 uzn.4st.grz.za wyk"

Tłumaczenie:

"Awards a pre-sentencing credit/a credit for time actually served, (in re) case no. IIK326/11, equalling 4/equivalent to 4 daily rates (applied) towards the fine"

PODSTAWA:

Rozdział IV
Kary
Art. 32. Karami są:
1) grzywna,
2) ograniczenie wolności,
3) pozbawienie wolności,
4) 25 lat pozbawienia wolności,
5) dożywotnie pozbawienie wolności.
Art. 33. § 1. Grzywnę wymierza się w stawkach dziennych, określając liczbę stawek oraz wysokość jednej stawki; jeżeli ustawa nie stanowi inaczej, najniższa liczba stawek wynosi 10, zaś najwyższa 540.
§ 2. Sąd może wymierzyć grzywnę także obok kary pozbawienia wolności wymienionej w art. 32 pkt 3, jeżeli sprawca dopuścił się czynu w celu osiągnięcia korzyści majątkowej lub gdy korzyść majątkową osiągnął.
§ 3. Ustalając stawkę dzienną, sąd bierze pod uwagę dochody sprawcy, jego warunki osobiste, rodzinne, stosunki majątkowe i możliwości zarobkowe; stawka dzienna nie może być niższa od 10 złotych, ani też przekraczać 2 000 złotych.

(...)

Art. 63. § 1. Na poczet orzeczonej kary zalicza się okres rzeczywistego pozbawienia wolności w sprawie, zaokrąglając do pełnego dnia, przy czym jeden dzień rzeczywistego pozbawienia wolności równa się jednemu dniowi kary pozbawienia wolności, dwóm dniom kary ograniczenia wolności lub dwóm dziennym stawkom grzywny.
§ 2. Na poczet orzeczonych środków karnych, o których mowa w art. 39 pkt 2–3, zalicza się okres rzeczywistego stosowania odpowiadających im rodzajowo środków zapobiegawczych, wymienionych w art. 275 lub 276 Kodeksu postępowania karnego.

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU19970880553&type=3

Chapter IV. Penalties
Article 32. The penalties are:
1) fine,
2) restriction of liberty
3) deprivation of liberty,
4) deprivation of liberty for 25 years,
5) deprivation of liberty for life.

Article 33. § 1. A fine shall be imposed in terms of daily rates defining the number of daily rates
to be levied and the amount of each rate; unless otherwise provided by law, the lowest number of daily
rates shall be 10, and the highest shall be 360.
§ 2. The court may also impose a fine also in addition to the penalty of deprivation of liberty as
specified in Article 32 subsection 3, if the perpetrator has committed the act in order to gain material
benefit or when he has gained such benefit.
§ 3. In setting the daily rate, the court shall consider the income of the perpetrator, his personal
situation, family situation, property relationships and his earning capacity; the daily rate may not be lower
than 10 Polish zlotys or higher than 2000 Polish zlotys.

(...)

Article 63. §1. The period of an actual deprivation of liberty in a given case, rounded to a full
number of days, shall be credited to the penalty of deprivation of liberty, with one day of actual deprivation
of liberty equalling one day of the penalty of deprivation of liberty, or two days of the penalty of restriction
of liberty, or two daily rates of a fine.
§ 2. The actual period of preventive measures of the corresponding kinds, as specified in Article
276 of the Code of criminal procedure, shall be credited against the imposed measures specified in Article 39 sections 2 and 3 of this Code.

https://www.imolin.org/doc/amlid/Poland_Penal_Code1.pdf

On 16 May 2000 the applicant was charged with using a forged power of attorney authorising him to represent Mr and Mrs C. On 16 June 2005 the Tarnobrzeg District Court found him guilty on this charge and sentenced him to a fine of 2,280 Polish zlotys (PLN), calculated as 228 daily rates, each equivalent to PLN 10. At the same time the court decided, under Article 63 § 1 of the Criminal Code, to credit the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 20 September 1994 to 11 January 1995 towards the fine. Since, according to the Criminal Code, one day of deprivation of liberty equalled two daily rates of a fine, the period of the applicant’s detention of 114 days was credited in its entirety towards the fine.
(...)
11. However, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for compensation, reiterating that on 16 June 2005 he had been convicted
WŁOCH v. POLAND (No. 2) JUDGMENT 3
of forgery, for which he had been fined PLN 2,280 (approximately EUR 550). In accordance with Article 63 § 1 of the Criminal Code, the total period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been credited towards the fine in such a way that one day of pre-trial detention had equalled two daily rates of PLN 10.
(...)
The applicant appealed against the judgment, relying, inter alia, on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. He argued that the crediting of a period of deprivation of liberty towards a fine should not be automatic and that the courts should assess the actual damage sustained by a detainee.
(...)
17. On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law following the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned decision. The court considered that there were no provisions of Polish law that would allow for supplementary compensation in cases where the period of detention had been credited towards another penalty.
(...)
20. Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Code deals with the crediting of a period of actual deprivation of liberty towards other penalties ordered in the same set of proceedings.
(...)
No consideration was given to the issue of whether crediting his pre-trial detention towards the EUR 580 fine compensated fairly for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage actually sustained by the applicant.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/001-104722

in re

prep. short for "in regard to" or concerning. "Re" is a further abbreviation. Often "in re" is found near the top of lawyers' letters to identify the subject matter, as "In re Matheson v. Roth," or "In re Estate of Ruth Bentley." It is also used in naming legal actions in which there is only one party, the petitioning party, as in "In re Adoption of Marcus McGillicuddy."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In re




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day16 hrs (2015-01-14 13:39:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The taxpayer is obliged to submit the information on a designated form (ORD-U). The
information should be submitted to the tax office together with the annual tax return
(i.e. by the end of the third month after the fiscal year-end). Failure to submit the
notification is subject to a fine of up to 120 daily rates (the level of daily rate is decided
by the court for each case), while submission of false information is subject to a fine of
up to 240 daily rates.

http://www.pwc.pl/pl/publikacje/itp_poland.pdf