Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II W 399/22 AI generated

Court convicted restaurant owner of food safety negligence causing public health risk and sentenced to fine.

Case Number II W 399/22
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court convicted the restaurant owner of violating food safety regulations and sentenced him to a 200 zloty fine. Evidence from three sanitary inspections, including one with police presence, confirmed the defendant failed to adhere to hygiene and production standards, creating a threat to public health. The court rejected the defendant's denial of guilt, noting his lack of due care despite foreseeing the risk, and determined the fine was appropriate for both general and special prevention.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 111 § 1 pkt 1 kw; Art. 24 § 1, 3 kw; The court established that a business owner who fails to comply with hygiene and production standards, thereby creating a threat to human health, is criminally liable for the offense, even if committed negligently.

Keywords

AI generated
food safety regulations criminal negligence public health threat sanitary inspection business owner liability hygiene standards criminal fine

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 111 § 1 pkt 1 kw
Art. 24 § 1, 3 kw
Art. 33 § 1 - 4 kw
Art. 119 § 1 k.pw.
AI generated
VI Ka 32/17
Appeal court amended first instance verdict to remove refusal of criminal mandate from offense description.
III W 953/14
Court acquitted defendant for insulting sanitary inspector's hygiene, ruling it did not obstruct official duties.
IV Ka 506/22
Court dismisses prosecution due to statute of limitations expiration for social insurance fraud offense.
II W 328/25
Court dismisses objection to veterinary inspection, ruling obstruction of official control constitutes an offense punishable by fine.
XI Ka 1163/15
Appeal court quashes first-instance acquittal due to one-sided evidence evaluation and remands for retrial.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text