Expiry of the employment contract due to provisional detention

The aim of the paper is analysis of article 66 of the Labour Code from the point of view of criminal procedure. The author points on inconsistencies of some of the expressions used in the provision with the terminology of criminal law and on the need to extend the grounds for re-employment. The obligation should, without a doubt, exist in case of termination of criminal proceedings due to passage of time. Moreover, it is worth to consider to link the obligation of re employment also with other decisions than the final verdict of not guilty or termination of the proceedings. The author expresses the opinion that the regulation analysed is needed, passes the proportionality test and the expiry of the employment contract due to provisional detention does not interfere with the presumption of innocence.

Bibliografia/References

Kruszyński, P. (1983). Zasada domniemania niewinności w polskim procesie karnym, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Marszał, K. (2003). W: K. Marszał, S. Stachowiak, K. Zgryzek, Proces karny, Volumen.

Matras, J. (2023). W: K. Dudka (Red.), Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Tęcza, A. M. (2008). Obserwacja psychiatryczna w świetle zasady domniemania niewinności, Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego (23).

Trechsel, S. (2006). Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford University Press.

Waltoś, S., Hofmański, P. (2018). Proces karny. Zarys systemu, Wolters Kluwer Polska.

Wiliński, P. (2020). W: P. Wiliński (Red.), Polski proces karny, Wolters Kluwer Polska.