V Ogólnopolski Moot Court z Prawa i Postępowania Karnego

Substantive criminal law defines what conduct constitutes a crime, the conditions of criminal liability, and the catalogue of penalties and penal measures. In Poland, the modern framework is anchored in the Criminal Code of 6 June 1997 (Kodeks karny), which replaced the 1969 communist-era code and was built around principles drawn from continental legal tradition: nullum crimen sine lege, individual culpability, proportionality of punishment, and the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1997 Constitution. The Code organises offences by protected legal interest — life and health, liberty, property, public order, the administration of justice, economic turnover — and distinguishes felonies (zbrodnie) from misdemeanours (występki), with separate regimes for intentional and unintentional conduct. Since its enactment the Code has been amended dozens of times, reflecting shifting penal policy between rehabilitative and punitive paradigms. Major waves of reform include the 2015 amendments expanding non-custodial sanctions and restorative measures, and the controversial 2022 reform (entering into force in 2023) which raised the maximum term of imprisonment to 30 years, eliminated the separate category of 25-year imprisonment, toughened penalties for sexual offences and serious violent crime, and recalibrated rules on conditional release. Poland's substantive criminal law is also shaped by EU framework decisions and directives (on terrorism, trafficking, cybercrime, victims' rights) and by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting the European Convention. Contemporary doctrinal debates focus on the constitutional limits of harsh penalties, the boundaries of self-defence (after the 2018 expansion of art. 25 k.k.), the criminalisation of speech offences, corporate and economic criminal liability, and the proper treatment of juveniles following the 2022 Act on the Support and Resocialisation of Minors. Moot court problems in this area typically require delegates to qualify conduct under specific provisions of the Criminal Code, analyse forms of perpetration and participation, address concurrence of offences, and argue mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Polish criminal procedure is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 6 June 1997 (Kodeks postępowania karnego), which sets out the rules for investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating criminal cases. The Code rests on foundational principles including the presumption of innocence, the right to defence, the objective truth principle, the legality (mandatory prosecution) principle, and judicial independence — all reinforced by Articles 42–45 of the Polish Constitution and by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Proceedings are divided into a preparatory stage led by the prosecutor or police, a judicial stage before the courts, and execution proceedings, with appeal lying to courts of second instance and cassation to the Supreme Court. The procedural code has oscillated between inquisitorial and adversarial models. The 2013 reform (in force July 2015) sought to strengthen party-driven adversarial trial, limiting the court's evidentiary initiative and expanding plea-style consensual mechanisms (arts. 335, 387 k.p.k.). That reform was largely reversed in 2016, restoring the court's active role and broadening the admissibility of evidence — including evidence obtained unlawfully, through the controversial 'fruits of the poisoned tree' provision in art. 168a k.p.k. Subsequent amendments have addressed the status of the prosecution service (subordinated to the Minister of Justice / Prosecutor General since 2016), pre-trial detention, in absentia trials, and the use of electronic communication and remote hearings, accelerated during the COVID-19 period. Current controversies relevant to moot court argumentation include the lawfulness and proportionality of pre-trial detention (repeatedly criticised by the ECtHR and the CPT), the independence and proper composition of adjudicating panels in light of judicial-reform litigation before the CJEU and ECtHR, the standards for admitting operational and covertly obtained evidence, victims' procedural rights under EU Directive 2012/29, and the boundaries of the right to silence and effective defence from the first interrogation. Procedural moot problems typically demand identification of procedural defects, formulation of motions and appeals, and balancing of competing principles such as efficiency, truth-finding, and fair-trial guarantees.