It's clearly a crime of sabotage under Art. 254a kk. Tender process does not matter in this case. We just need a competent prosecutor.
https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/kodeks-kar...
It's clearly a crime of sabotage under Art. 254a kk. Tender process does not matter in this case. We just need a competent prosecutor.
https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/kodeks-kar...
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Zalewski_(filolog)
He warned Bagsik and co. (who stole millions of public money through the famous Art-B company and escaped to Israel) that the police wants to imprison them - so they managed to escape. Bagsik later confirmed that they shared some of that money with Porozumienie Centrum's business named Telegraf. Somehow only the less important guy (Zalewski) went to jail, but Kaczyński brothers weren't prosecuted.
But there's a lot of low level corruption that is exposed, it's just usually ignored by country-wide media, because that corruption is local. For one example: https://samorzad.pap.pl/kategoria/prawo/prawomocny-wyrok-byl...
Is there any indicator they should have been in this case?
1. train manufacturer bricking trains - malice and monopolism as you say
2. prosecutors failing to bring court cases and convictions for train manufacturers - incompetence or more likely corruption.
For example, someone stole active train parts: https://orzeczenia.gdansk-poludnie.sr.gov.pl/content/$N/1510...
I quickly scanned the sentence you linked to, and art. 254a seems to be applied only to the theft of wires from tracks? Or am I missing something?
I've tried googling "infrastruktura kolejowa", and it seems that Ustawa o transporcie kolejowym defines it in art. 4.1, referencing Appendix 1. And that Appendix only lists immovable stuff. But again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm aware that definitions from one act often don't apply to a different act, in different branch of law.
But from the perspective of just the rail network, the track and other infrastructure is considered separate from the rolling stock.
I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?
> I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?
Assuming it's a philosophical question, and not a legal one, how about: - A runner that's currently running is obviously a runner - A runner that finished running for today is still a runner - A runner with serious knee problems is a former runner ?
- about common usage of the word - and here it _seems to me_ it's context- and domain-specific, because for instance we don't call cars a road infrastructure
- whether Polish penal code treats trains as rail infrastructure - and here I don't know, but I found a railway transport bill that lists what's considered infrastructure, and trains are not there
Rail companies own the right-of-way AND the rails. They control what runs on their rails, who runs on their rails, when they run, etc.
It's quite something to think that 97% of the rail tracks in the USA are privately owned.
https://public.railinc.com/about-railinc/blog/who-owns-railr...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-search-for-the-l...
And also:
> For Breyer, however, the prospect of a “tractive power” test
> confirmed that the concept of “use” is so inherently context-dependent
> that the court would be better off taking the “common law approach”
> of resolving just this particular case,
> rather than attempting to determine the word’s meaning for all time.