Perhaps some readers (a and the same author) happened to trip public transportation without a valid ticket. Up to now, if it was determined to stow, to avoid penalties, accordance with the law he was not much can be done. Although inspectors vested right to identity documents of persons refusing to pay fine, however, did not have any means of, to its right to enforce. They could also stop that person until the arrival of police. Recipe art. 33to ust. 4 Item 2 transport law provided only, that in case of refusal to pay claims and to establish the identity of the traveler, controller to ask the police officers and other law enforcement bodies authorized to determine the identity of persons to take steps to establish the identity of the traveler. Of course, the arrival of the police usually have to wait.
So what could make the controller, if the stowaway decided he had to move away from the scene? Unfortunately - in most cases could not do absolutely nothing. He had not even the benefit of the institution called. approach involving the civil, that under art. 243 § 1 Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction. of art. 45 § 2 Code of Conduct in misdemeanor cases everyone has the right to arrest the person in the act or misconduct in the pursuit taken immediately after the commission of the offense, if there is a fear of hiding this person or you can not determine its identity. The problem is that, that according to Article. 121 Code for a misdemeanor offense can be considered only the case, when someone is traveling without a valid ticket for the third time within one year (after double punishment by a fine). Rare and include situations, when someone is caught driving without a ticket three times in one year. So when riding without a ticket, as a rule was not an offense, the offender could only recognize the Police. Civil Law spokesman confirmed, moreover, clearly, in practice that the controller has no power to free riders, and cases of detention of the passenger by the auditors could therefore be treated as unlawful deprivation of liberty.
On 1 mark 2011 r. situation has changed – on this day came into force introducing traffic rights to the Act m.in. art. 33to ust. 7 Item 2. It is, that in case of failure to pay debts and produce the document that would enable the identity of the passenger without a ticket, controller has the right to recognize travel and return it immediately to the police or other authorities having the right to order the traveler to stop and take steps to establish his identity. The passenger has in this case, the obligation to remain in place checks or other indicated by the controller.
Moreover, the Act added two criminal provisions - art. 87a i 87b. The first provides for a fine for traveling without a ticket for refusing to pay claims and present an identity that would enable. The second provides also a fine for moving away from a designated place until the arrival of the police officer or other competent services.
The changes proved to be so controversial, that Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights on 04.03.2011 r. asked the Minister of Infrastructure of the serious allegations against the current regulation, indicating m.in. the vagueness of the term "shot" and stating, that approach has so far been possible only in matters of crime or heavier species. With all my respect for the Helsinki Foundation I, that this time their position contains a serious error. As pointed out above,, Civil recognition is possible not only for offenses but also offenses. Even up to now there was more opportunity to approach a person in flagrante delicto, that such. stolen from the store merchandise with a value below 250 zł even roll with a value of tens of cents (Such theft is an offense). It is difficult to recognize, that civil liberties as a result of the revision of traffic rights are affected to a greater extent than previously.
It should be noted, that when added to the traffic rights of those criminal provisions were unnecessary even to type the right controller to include a passenger who refuses to pay the penalty and show an identity document. Since the refusal to pay and the production of the document is now an offense to, controller - as indeed any other citizen - has a right to such passenger in the act as the offender, to concerns about the impossibility of identifying.
In this situation, there is therefore nothing else than to travel with a valid ticket.
Ticketing system is completely redundant. 90 % aggression on public transport is associated with the ticketing system. Ticketing system itself adds little to public transport, in terms of its financing, because it is allegedly 30%, but if one takes into account the distribution system to maintain the same ticket, infrastructure related to the, that is, canary, etc.. Erasers and gateways, This turns out to be, that this system just eats itself. Hanging on like a burr transport! It should be removed, because it generates more losses than it may seem at first glance. Samo to, that significantly reduce congestion, largely eliminate the losses associated with traffic congestion, which are counted in billions zł. Apart from such value-added and not measurable as the fresher air in the cities. Summing up the elimination of ticketing system you can expect more benefits than losses. Please think about it gentlemen politicians! Paka!
Dear Mr. Paul wrong interpretation of Article 121
To be considered as committing an offense to ride on “stowaways” 3 time and had not to pay so-called. penalties, surcharges, ie the carrier (no unless the carrier has no table of fees increased) .
So going to “stowaways” but by paying the carrier does not commit an offense.
A person committing the offense we are always recognized if the 2 if (3 time) go to stowaways ( and do not pay) or 4 or 5 ride on “stowaways” It is an offense not only 6 …. (itd…)
And as for the retention of “free riders” The new controller further has no right to stop people (no legal basis), these transportation law is not a code (Rather, it wishes Code), enough, we can not (conclude) given on the basis of the powers to stop people. (which the controller is a policeman) ????
All in all, even the municipal police has no such right to the end… (ale to inna historia)
Similarly, the retention of documents.
So it's a terrible piece of junk, legal, that any better (even a weak ba) lawyer settle in trymiga.
So you can identify free-riders in the transport ? It is easy to under the law in a clear and transparent ? You can ? So ? Ale to inna historia …. and not on this topic.
Helsinki Foundation has a number of reasons, is invented by some bored urzędasa bubelus which is something you typed his rhyme went so it is OK.
I agree, that the offense of art. 121 k.w. it is necessary that additional fees are not paid – if it is not clear from the article, I can only explain the use of a mental shortcut, but for the sake of clarity, I corrected the entry itself 🙂 I do not agree with the interpretation of the provisions on detention. Currently, the law that results directly from the transport law, which, like the code is the Law, So in terms of its effect is no different from the code. Too – as pointed out in article – each person can recognize another person committing the offense, and driving without a valid ticket and failure to present an identity document is now an offense except that covered by Article. 87and transport law and not by the Code of misconduct. Also I do not agree with the statement, better that every lawyer can handle the issue of recognition on the basis of transport law. Submission of an effective constitutional complaint is an art, and in this case did not consider, to incompatibility with the Constitution was clear.
And I allow myself to agree with the possibilities nei shots…
The Lord refers to the Code violations of Article 52 Code of Conduct in misdemeanor cases in which we read:
Art. 45.
§ 1. Police have the power to stop a person listed in the act of committing an offense
or immediately thereafter, if:
1) there are grounds to apply to the expedited procedure;
2) not possible to determine its identity.
§ 2. Art. 243 Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis
a 243 The Criminal Code says:
Art. 243.
§ 1. Everyone has the right to arrest the person in flagrante delicto, or in pursuit
taken immediately after the commission of the offense, If there is concern
hide this person or you can not determine its identity.
§ 2. A person should be immediately recognized himself in the hands of Police.
Clearly we are talking about this is that the police have the right to arrest the person for a misdemeanor and each has the right to recognize someone caught in the crime..
These are radically different in concept…
The word art 45 “respectively” does not refer to that granted the same powers as to the offense.. but rather is paying attention to the difference between these concepts…
Unfortunately, I agree that Code is Law (standing the fact that a little bit higher in the hierarchy and the Act should be specific to them (a pre-Code to the Constitution) adjusted.. but this is Poland.. nothing surprising here 😛
But will remain in his own mind. Discussing the importance of return “shall apply mutatis mutandis” This is one of the basic elements of science interpretation of the law in law school. This phrase means, that in the case, apply a different rule with an appropriate modification. For example, if the Code of Civil Procedure are the rules of appeal and complaint, and the latter is written, that in matters not regulated by a complaint to the complaint, the provisions for appeal, this means, that the rules on appeals are applicable to this modification, że np. provisions relating to judgments (which may be appealed) will in this case relate to the provisions of (which may be appealed).
The same is true in this case – return of art. 243 Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply accordingly to be understood in this way, it applies also to offenses of this modification, that used in Article. 243 words relating to the offense should be replaced with words relating to the offense. Another interpretation would not make any sense – since Article. 243 would still apply only to offenses, Why write about him in the Code of Conduct in misdemeanor cases, since it is already regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code?
How many lawyers as many sentences,
although Mr. reasoning is quite logical that it is Poland..
I for example, despite the statutory requirement to be successful in court and the Court administaracyjnym belonging to me right …
not vain to want to because every case is different, But I think that the same “approach” is already contrary to the good of another person, either you or commits an offense.. from a moral point of course, well.. from the legal point of not really…
I think that if someone just does not reagowałby on “call” the production of the document and at the exit would ask whether it is a stop (and there are no grounds for this after all) I think it could use the defense needed to leave the vehicle.
It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it can be defended in court 🙂
No coz, hopefully, that you will not have the opportunity to test your theory 🙂 I would insist, that such an approach is consistent with the law and any attempt to actively resist such an approach can be treated as a criminal offense – defense it is only necessary to repel an unlawful attack, and this is not
Problem resounded with the constitution.. who has what rights and to whom any, can be given..
And the fact that virtually every law we have as many holes as a colander or Swiss cheese is everyone who even upholstered for the right – as.
In fact, at least half the set is at some point is not consistent with the Constitution or other (often) international agreements .
But what.. We live in such a country 🙂
And I say, it's all part of the oppressive system and taking into account the time of arrival “kawalarii” be discouraged as far as possible “kanalów” to oppress the old man, widows and orphans (students), which najbidniejszymi and most benefiting from public, often indebted for generations, means of transport. How social is social. But I, korporacjoniści that they do not bite the hands of nursing.
Hi I have a question for something completely different, namely Polish citizenship but have lived in Denmark and Danish have an ID card, in Poland do not have a permanent or even a temporary check-in. And now the situation is traveling MPK canary grabs me without a valid ticket and asked to produce a document of identity, in this case shows evidence of Danish because finally we are at uni and I in the August uni and use the controller now has the right to stop me to say, the last stop ( petla ) and call the police to indetyfikacji if it show evidence for only the Danish have + Polish passport, but you do not have with you ?
Today she met me has just ended in such a situation that the police waited for the arrival of 20 minutes for the bus loop, Police confirmed only the data from the Danish and found proof that he can not do anything more because the evidence and left it show that in this case the action was niepodstawne controllers and podprowadza the abduction because surely took me proof deported to loops and even told to wait for the police.
In my view, the controller does not have the right to make the stop. Danish national identity card is a document of identity, so the controller should write data from it and refrain from further action. I also, that it would be hard to put the controller imprisonment charge. We are dealing with an apparent incompetence, but it is rather difficult to establish, controller that someone would deliberately make life difficult, even though he knew, that there is no right to it.
Hello,
I became interested in this topic, hit me recently as the situation, which according to me is unacceptable.
A group of children rode the bus, some of them, unfortunately, part of the ticket had not had time to buy, or forgotten – irrelevant. They had. Controller control started at time, when I had to get off to school. Do not let them get off, blocked output. Children, of course, meekly showed ID cards, however, asking and telling, they have to get off at the bus stop to go to school. As a result, they were exported 20 km outside the place of destination stop.
I want to write a complaint, do not really know to whom or to transport, whether the police. Do not know what the rules and arguments used here. I ask for directions. I would add, that the children had more than 13 years, and were “included”all, regardless of whether the ticket have, or not.
@ Children abducted by the controller
Also, I, that this situation was unacceptable. The controller should have to get off the children at the bus stop and there unsubscribe mandate. As for the children already have a ticket to total lawlessness. Recognition was also unacceptable fact in relation to children without a ticket, since proved legitimacy. So I would keep the carrier's complaint and informed the police about the crime in prison. Such behavior should be vigorously condemned.
Thank you for your answer. Yesterday I sent a complaint. The police have already prepared a notice- actually, the prosecutor's office. If anyone is interested in it willingly share what they look like progress on this issue :). But according to me it's hopeless. I predict remission;)
Please tell us about your feelings and results of operation in this matter!
Hello,
I received an evasive answer. That kind of kontrolerka with the children at the bus stop, so that they can return back by bus and it was all under the law.
Unfortunately, I did not have time then, correspond to continue.