Ius Novum 4/2020
REVIEW OF RESOLUTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CHAMBER CONCERNING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW FOR 2018 RY S Z A R D A . S T E FA Ń S K I * DOI: 10.26399/iusnovum.v14.4.2020.40/r.a.stefanski
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1. OBVIOUS EDITORIAL ERROR (ARTICLE 105 § 1 CPC) In accordance with Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), obvious editorial and calculation errors, and dates determined wrongly by mistake in a judgment or order or in justifications of those acts may be corrected at any time. As far as this provision is concerned, the Supreme Court judgments showed differences concerning the interpretation whether the discrepancy between a number determining a penalty or another measure which is transcribed in digits and in words is an obvious editorial error. It was assumed that including two different amounts of a penalty (transcribed in digits and in words) in a sentence in fact causes that it is not possible to determine in what amount the penalty was actually imposed, which means that this way of specifying a penalty is not only in conflict with the content of Article 413 § 2(2) CPC, which stipulates that a judgment must be formulated in an understandable and unambiguous way, but also causes an internal contradiction in the sentence that prevents its execution, and this constitutes absolute grounds for an appeal in accordance with Article 439 § 1(7) CPC.1 The Supreme Court recognised that pursuant * Professor, PhD hab., Head of the Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law and Administration of Lazarski University in Warsaw; e-mail: ryszard.stefanski@lazarski.pl; ORCID: 0000-0003-0995-9499 1 The Supreme Court judgments: of 21 October 2008, IV KK 316/08, LEX No. 469190; of 18 March 2010, III KK 25/10, OSNwSK 2010, item 569; of 11 April 2013, II KK 217/12, LEX No. 1298096; of 3 June 2015, III KK 79/15, OSNKW 2015, No. 10, item 87; of 22 October 2015, III KK 235/15, LEX No. 1820401; of 27 January 2016, V KK 413/15, LEX No. 1963397; of 19 January 2016, V KK 389/15, LEX No. 1959501; of 23 May 2017, III KK 186/17, LEX No. 2298279;
