The purpose of this article was to assess the legitimacy of introducing Article 244c into the Criminal Code. It provides for the possibility of punishing a person who evades to fulfill of a compensatory measure in the form of a duty to redress damage or make restitution, ordered by the court in favour of the wronged party, for a crime prosecuted by public indictment. The regulation was analysed using the formal-dogmatic method, in order to verify whether the introduced provision is consistent with other solutions of criminal law and whether it does not contain any constructional errors. As a result of this analysis, it was concluded that this regulation cannot be reconciled with the nature of redress damage as a compensatory measure. Overly far-reaching penalisation has led to excessive differentiation of the effects of imposing the duty to redress damage on the perpetrator as a compensatory measure and as an effect of allowing a civil action and has led to many systemic inconsistencies related to the imposition of the duty to redress damage in criminal law. The regulation itself, on the other hand, is not very precise and does not properly define when the offender’s fulfilment of the elements of this criminal act occurs, which is its fundamental error.
Read full abstract