In modern times the subject of penal fiscal law, similarly as that of penal military law, holds a special status within the broadly understood branch of penal law. The beginnings of penal fiscal law are associated with the history of penal administrative law. The institution of the police in Europe took over the majority of the tasks concerning security and public order. The same system was also introduced in Prussia in the 18th century. The Prussian police dealt with the so called “police offences”, to which there also belonged fiscal offences, often referred to as “contraventions”. They were defined in the Prussian Landrecht (general code of law), as well as in specific provisions. Altogether, they made up a system of penal and administrative offences. Besides the French (judicial) and Austrian (judicial-administrative) model, there also arose a Prussian penal-administrative system which had an intermediary character; in the latter system, the above types of offences were handed over to the competence of administration with the option of vindicating one’s rights in a suitable court of law. In the 18th c. Prussia, the penal-fiscal offences belonged to the competence of Kammerjustiz which applied a court procedure. The Warsaw Duchy had standardized the penal fiscal law by adopting the Prussian model – penal and fiscal offences were left to the competence of administrative institutions, with the option of making an appeal in court. At the same time, substantive law, based on Prussian legislation, was applied. On the territory of the Kingdom of Poland, administration had been reorganized, leaving the penal fiscal cases in the hands of the administration. However, in everyday practice the right to vindicate one’s rights in a court of law had been retained. The system had been altered in 1824 in consequence of which court proceedings in courts of second instance had been done away with and some cases had been referred to the so called administrative penal courts. This model operated until 1867, though it was modified a number of times, for instance in connection with the abolition of customs borders with Russia in 1850. Substantive law was based on the legislative system of the Warsaw Duchy of 1809; the latter had been supplemented by special provisions. The defeat of the January uprising had led to the introduction of Russian regulations on the territory of the Kingdom of Poland

The university career of Józef Reinhold had not been particularly long, as it lasted merely ten years (1918–1928). Due to his premature death at the age of 44, he occupies a rather peripheral place among the luminaries of Polish penal law, remaining in the shadow of such famous professors as: Edmund Krzymuski, Juliusz Makarewicz or Józef Rosenblatt. Yet the academic achievements of Józef Reinhold, and particularly his paper entitled Preventive Measures Against Criminal Offenders published in 1913, puts him among the ranks of the precursors of a sociological approach to the Polish penal law in the 20th century. He was also the first propagator of criminal policy on Polish territories which he regarded as a separate discipline of law. Thanks to the academic research conducted by Józef Reinhold, the sociological approach to criminal law had been more widely recognized on Polish territories which found its most tangible reflection in chapter XII (“Preventive measures”) of the Polish Penal Code of 1932. However, the merits of Józef Reinhold in propagating the principles of the sociological approach to criminal law had been overshadowed by the academic achievement of Julisz Makarewicz, the author of the Polish penal code. A considerable part of Józef Reinhold’s professional career was associated with the Krakow jurisdiction (1910–1921). Contrary to his colleagues, fellow professors and masters, Józef Reinhold was not “a boisterous character and was always characterized by moderation”. This trait of his character may be one of the reasons why in the history of the Polish science of law and in the history of Polish Jews, professor Reinhold did not find a deserving place which was definitely due to him, taking into consideration his original and creative academic output, and the attitude of a “good, talented Jew as well as a staunch defender” of Judaism.

The Sodality movement has been initiated in the 16th c. and it was around then that the first sodality organizations were created in Poland. The Sodality of Our Lady for Women Students and Female Participants of Higher Courses in Krakow was founded in 1906; it co-created the Krakow sodality movement in the interwar period together with the Sodality Movement of the Academicians at the Jagiellonian University, the Sodality Movement of the Academicians of the Academy of Mining and the Sodality Movement of the Students of the Higher Commercial College in Krakow. In 1925 the Sodality of Our Lady for Women Students and Female Participants of Higher Courses in Krakow became transformed into the Sodality of Our Lady for Women Academicians and when the ruling concerning academic associations was introduced in 1933, the organization had changed its name into: Sodality of Our Lady for Women Students of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. The latter organization had laid special emphasis on religious instruction and spiritual formation of its female members, which is a characteristic feature of all sodality movements. But apart from the activity which was focused on the spiritual sphere, the Sodality movement also provided assistance in the strictly material sphere both to sodality members and persons from outside the organization – among others, to children, those in need of material aid or the sick who were undergoing treatment in St. Lazarus or St. Ludwig Hospitals in Krakow.

Among those who claimed a divorce the years 1918–1945 in the District Court in Krakow, were mainly those for whom it was the first marriage that they wished to dissolve. The number of other cases, that is spouses for whom it was the second or else a successive marriage, amounted to around 13%. Generally, we can talk of five (or maybe six) cases of divorce proceedings between spouses whose previous marriages ceased to exist in the effect of a divorce. Taking into consideration the sex of the spouses claiming for divorce, one should observe that in three cases it was women whose previous marriages had ceased in the effect of a divorce, who were now asking for divorce (Cg I 687/21, I Cg 259/30 and I C 301/43), in two cases it was men (I C 1163/35, I C 114/40) and in one case, both spouses had already been divorced before (I C 442/39). It turns out that five out of six cases had ended in a divorce judgment (I Cg 259/30, I C 1163/35, I C 442/39, I C 301/43 and I C 114/40), and one case ended in a withdrawal of the petition for divorce and a discontinuance of legal proceedings (Cg I 687/21).

The article concerns penal – administrative procedure used by administrative organs in the Second Republic of Poland, from which derives the current transgression procedure. Before the unification in 1928 there were four legal systems regulating transgression procedures. In the 1918–1928 period additional complications of legal system emerged because of lack of consistency in penal – administrative legislation. The article presents sources of law on transgression procedure before and after 1928, outlines the course of administrative procedure in penal cases and describes the possibilities of judicial control over administrative jurisdiction of both common and administrative courts. The article presents also the problems connected with interpretation of penal – administrative regulations in the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

On the political-legal plane, the direct consequence of the May coup organized by Józef Piłsudski in 1926 was an amendment of the March constitution of 1921. The above amendment was commonly referred to as the August amendment from the name of the month in which the two laws changing the constitution had been passed (2 August 1926). The core of the August amendment consisted in a strengthening of the position of the executive organs of the state at the expense of the Diet and the senate. The president obtained the right to dissolve parliament before the end of its term, following the motion of the ministers’ council. Moreover, the president obtained the prerogatives to pass resolutions with the power of parliamentary laws and obtained new budgetary prerogatives. Parliament, on the other hand, became restricted as regards its powers to pass a no confidence vote towards the Ministers’ Council or any individual minister. The political conceptions implemented by the interwar government aimed at doing away with the principle of a tri-partite division of state power in favor of a concentration of power in the hands of the state’s president. The above conception had been fully realized in the new constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1935.

Today, the nature and consequences of the so-called elimination of the Kulak class and collectivization of peasantry in the 20s and 30s in the USSR are already known. Less known is the fact that another mass repression of the so-called Kulaks followed in 1937. On July of 1937, the Politburo of the communist party ordered to “arrest immediately all Kulaks […] and after an administrative examination of their cases by a troika, execute by firing squad the most hostile,” those less reluctant were to be locked up in forced-labour camps. The genocidal repressions were included in central planning – a quota for each region was established. On the basis of the above-mentioned Politburo order, the then People’s Commissar (NKVD), Nikolai Yezhov, gave order no. 00447 On repression of former kulaks, criminals, and other anti-Soviet elements, on the 30th July 1937. It was planned that 268 950 people were to be arrested, including 75 950 to be executed, but this list was incomplete and was later on supplemented; avid regions applied for increasing the quota and considerably surpassed the number of planned arrests, executions and deportations to labour camps.

The Promethean movement in the policy of II Republic of Poland consisted in offering support to the independence movements and strivings of the peoples making up the then Soviet Union. With active participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (henceforth referred to as: MFA), II Branch of the General (Main) Command – intelligence services and a number of research institutes, close contacts had been maintained with the émigré governments and politicians representing various nations of the Soviet Union. In recent years, the pressure of current policy has led to a renewed interest in issues relating to Prometheism, which brought about a crop of a number of valuable papers devoted to the interwar period. A lot has already been written about the Promethean movement following the end of the Second World War. Yet relatively little has been written about the war-time history of the movement. The documents presented below are associated with the war period, following the Soviet invasion of Finland. Among the circles of the French and British staff officers there even appeared a conception of bombing the oil fields in the Caucasus – naturally taking advantage of the Turkish airspace and the French military bases on the territory of Syria. It was thought that the subjugated nations in the Caucasus would then rise up against their oppressor. It was in such an atmosphere that a meeting between the representatives of the Caucasian nations and W. Bąkiewicz, which constitutes the subject-matter of analysis contained in the first of the published documents, took place in Istanbul. The second document is a translation of the treaty of the Caucasian Confederacy whereas the third document dates back to the autumn of 1940 and constitutes a commentary to the memorial concerning Promethean issues submitted by a reporter and Promeathean activist W. Pelc; the commentary had been written by Prof. Olgierd Górka, an expert of the Polish government in exile specializing in ethic issues. The above documents are associated with a rather peculiar and paradoxical situation which arose after the fall of the Polish state when for a brief period a time, thanks to propitious political circumstances, Prometheism had a chance to succeed. The conception was to have been realized in cooperation with the allies – France and Great Britain; the pact between Poland and the Allies was to have been directed against the totalitarian Soviet system and indirectly against the Nazi system. However a change of the international situation had quickly made the realization of these plans impossible.

The Slovak aggression on Poland in September 1939 had led to an incorporation of 14 villages situated in Upper Spiš, the so called Zamagurie, into the Slovak state. The parishes which were situated on this territory (functioning as the Spiš Deanery in the Polish Church administration) had passed to the jurisdiction of the Spiš bishop, having previously been excluded from subordination to the Krakow archbishop. Six Polish priests had remained on their posts until April 1940. The priestly services performed by them caused numerous legal problems. An example of such problems may be the provisions of the personal marriage law which remained in  force in Slovakia, particularly as regards the civil-legal effectiveness of the marriages contracted before Polish priests; in view of these provisions, such marriages were considered invalid, unless the priest had taken an oath of allegiance to the Slovak state. The situation of the Polish priests had led to arguments between the bishop metropolitan of Krakow Adam Sapieha and the Slovak church hierarchs or else the Slovak lay authorities. Contrary to the widespread opinion to be found in Polish research as well as in the popular opinion, the Polish priests who had been deprived of their parishes were not at all mistreated. They returned to the General   Gouvernement or else were also placed in Slovak monasteries. Repressions directed against Polish priests concerned above all their negative attitude towards the Slovak state and the local population. In the years 1940–1945, it was the Slovak priests who were in charge of the Spiš parishes. After Upper Spiš had been taken over by the Polish army, the Slovaks, including the priests, were subjected to repressions. The example of priest Franciszek Móš who, following a few months spent in custody, was subsequently expelled from Poland, is not an isolated case. By the end of 1945, the Slovak priests had left the territories which were taken over by Poland. After taking over the recovered parishes, the Polish priests discriminated against Slovak parishioners, among other by making it difficult for them to perform the religious rites in the Slovak language. Such conduct was the cause of the complaint lodged by the Consul General of Czechoslovakia with the Polish authorities. The attitude of the Polish priests was on the whole accepted by the Polish church hierarchy, including the bishop metropolitan Adam Sapieha.

Professor Dr. Michał Patkaniowski (1907–1972), a distinguished professor at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Jagiellonian University, had deserved his right to fame as an outstanding scholar and efficient organizer of academic life. His silhouette has been presented in numerous biographical notes, including the Polish Biographical Dictionary. Yet what seems particularly worthy of recalling here are his efforts to expand the library collection of the historical and legal chairs. Thanks to his efforts, the collection became enlarged by over 3000 books which had been withdrawn from the libraries of Krakow courts as well as from the libraries of other courts in Krakow’s surroundings.

The Civic Court in London was brought into existence on the strength of a Presidential decree of 8 September 1950 concerning Civic Courts in Exile. It consisted of a General and a Civic Department. Its main objective was to adjudicate on matters relating to acts that were reprehensible from the point of view of the Polish political exiles, but at the same time indifferent in the light of the British law. The most active period in the operation of the Polish Civic Court in London occurred in the years 1951–1954, that is at a time when it was headed by Stanisław Krause. After the rupture within the Polish émigré circles, the London court remained a presidential organ, although a considerable number  of its judges moved to the faction grouped around the Polish Council of Three. This had led to the organizational decline of the court and ultimately to is practical liquidation in the first half of the sixties.

The “culture war” is a term which refers to a fundamental dispute over the identity of western civilization. In the United States it was revealed in the contention concerning anti-communism. Norman Podhoretz and his monthly “Commentary” had played a significant role in it. The above journal, published by the American Jewish Committee was “an offensive outpost” of neoconservatism which was just being created in the USA. The publications related, above all, to topics associated with culture, religion, as well as international politics. The intellectuals associated with the “Commentary” fought against anti-Americanism, leftist-liberal counter-culture and communism. They were criticized by thinkers representing the American radical liberal left who drew on the policy of F.D. Roosevelt, H. Truman and J.F. Kennedy. The neoconservatives criticized the policy of concessions towards the Soviet Union, paving the way for the views and activities of R. Reagan several years later. Relying more on empiricism and “commonsensical” thinking than on a theoretical approach to natural law, Podhoretz and his adherents criticized the conduct of the liberals. As a literary critic and columnist, Podhoretz was known for his rather boisterous and open style of writing. Regarded as a great threat by the progressive left, he undermined the very principles of historical determinism and exclusive legitimization of leftist political views. Although by no means an exception, through his activities he was able to exert an effective influence on the American society. He led to the emergence of phenomena which did not exist in Europe dominated by the so called generation ‘68. The anti-communist rhetoric propagated by Podhoretz had clearly helped R. Reagan in his race to the presidential office. The sources of Podhoretz’ views can be seen in his relationship to literature and art which constitute a reflection of the truth about the humankind. He was opposed to treating them exclusively as a tool, but also rejected their complete autonomy. He valued the moral values rooted in the Judaic religious system and negated the so called “superiority complex” of numerous leftist intellectuals. Such a system of values had exerted a strong impact on his subsequent views, which were strongly publicized in the “Commentary”.

The article discusses the problem of evolution and the premises used in applying the English concept known as promissory estoppel. The birth of this legal concept has been discussed on the example of the most important court cases, the so called leading cases, such as, among others, that of High Trees (1947) and Combe v. Combe (1951), in which it was lord Denning who adjudicated. In the article, the author also analyzes the general principles of invoking promissory estoppel. He indicates that in the course of a court trial it is necessary to prove the existence of a promise, on the basis of which the person who was promised something, while acting in accordance with the common sense, decided to withdraw and by undertaking certain definite steps ultimately suffered a loss, whereas withdrawal on the part of the person making a promise would be unjustified. The author of the paper made an effort to try to answer the question whether the abuse of right clause mentioned in Art. 5 of the Civil Code may be regarded as the Polish equivalent of promissory estoppel.