The paper discusses two important aspects that have come out on the background of concerns raised in the course of parliamentary practice. The first issue concerns the possibility to convene a meeting of a parliamentary committee on the request of deputies from minority party, which could serve as a guarantee institution of the opposition’s rights. The second question concerns publishing the documents of the parliamentary Constitutional Accountability Committee in the Sejm’s electronic information system.
The subject of sources to the history of the November uprising is often brought up on the occasion of consequent anniversaries. Despite huge losses in the II World War these sources are relatively rich. Apart from the national sources numerous valuable materials can be found in archives and libraries abroad, i.e. in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Kiev. The Kiev sources are stored mainly in the Central National Historical Archives of Ukraine. They concern the actions during the uprising, particularly the repressions to the participants of the uprising. These sources are located in various fonds. The most important documents include the fonds of administrative and war-administrative offices among which the most significant is fond 442 – the Office of the Kiev, Podole and Volyn Governor-General. Of great research value is also fond 1342 – the Office of Podole and Volyn temporary War Governor. Other fonds which concern the November Uprising are fonds of governor and district commissions appointed to settle cases concerning the participants of the uprising of 1831 (in total 12 fonds). To investigate the post-uprising repressions of use are also fonds of staffs and administrations of war settlements (16 fonds). Among other fonds in this archive related to the events of 1831 one ought to enumerate: 1. Fonds of the judiciary and prosecutor’s office, particularly fond 484. 2. Fonds of economic institutions, organizations and enterprises, i.e. related to the Kiev arsenal – fond 582. 3. Fonds of educational institutions, offices and cultural-educational societies or organizations, particularly two: a) fond 707 – the Board of the Kiev School District; b) fond 710 – the Kremenets (Volynian) High School – 598 sign. (1819–1834). 4. Collections of maps – fond 2194. 5. Documents concerning the Polish uprisings of 1831 and 1863 – fonds 468 and 489. Moreover, other materials related to the post-uprising repressions may be found in the National Archives of Kiev and in the V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
PL
Temat źródeł do dziejów powstania listopadowego najczęściej powraca przy okazji obchodów kolejnych rocznic. Mimo dużych strat w okresie II wojny światowej źródła te są stosunkowo bogate. Poza źródłami krajowymi wiele cennych materiałów znajduje się w archiwach i bibliotekach zagranicznych, m.in. w Moskwie, Sankt Petersburgu i Kijowie. Źródła kijowskie przechowywane są głównie w Centralnym Państwowym Archiwum Historycznym Ukrainy. Dotyczą one działań powstańczych, a szczególnie represji wobec uczestników powstania. W Centralnym Państwowym Archiwum Historycznym Ukrainy w Kijowie źródła te skupione są w różnorodnych zespołach (fondach). Najważniejsze z nich to zespoły urzędów administracyjnych i wojenno-administracyjnych, wśród których należy przede wszystkim wymienić fond 442 – Kancelaria kijowskiego, podolskiego i wołyńskiego generał-gubernatora. Dużą wartość dla badacza ma również fond 1342 – Kancelaria podolskiego i wołyńskiego tymczasowego gubernatora wojennego. Powstania listopadowego dotyczą także fondy gubernialnych i obwodowych komisji powołanych dla rozstrzygnięcia spraw dotyczących uczestników polskiego powstania 1831 r. (razem 12 fondów). Dla zbadania represji popowstaniowych cenne są też zespoły sztabów i zarządów osad wojskowych (16 fondów). Spośród innych zespołów tego archiwum, w których możemy znaleźć materiały dotyczące wydarzeń 1830 i 1831 r., należy wymienić: 1. Zespoły organów sądowych i prokuratury, szczególnie zaś fond 484. 2. Zespoły gospodarczo-ekonomicznych instytucji, organizacji i przedsiębiorstw, m.in. dotyczące kijowskiego arsenału – fond 582. 3. Zespoły instytucji edukacyjnych, urzędów oraz towarzystw i organizacji kulturalno-oświatowych, w tym dwa najważniejsze: a) fond 707 – Zarząd Kijowskiego Okręgu Szkolnego; b) fond 710 – Liceum Wołyńskie (Krzemienieckie) – 598 sygn. (1819–1834). 4. Kolekcje map – fond 2194. 5. Dokumenty o polskich powstaniach 1831 r. i 1863 r. – fondy 468 i 489. Poza tym w Kijowie materiały odnoszące się w szczególności do represji popowstaniowych możemy znaleźć w Państwowym Archiwum Miasta Kijowa oraz w Bibliotece Narodowej Ukrainy im. W. I. Wiernadskiego.
The opinion relates to presidential project amending Act on martial law and Act of competence of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and its subordination to constitutional authorities of Republic of Poland and other acts, which was introduced to Marshal of the Sejm on 10th of July 2011. This project amends Acts contained in its title and Act on State of Emergency and Act of state of natural disaster. Author stresses that legislator should pass laws, which brings new legal norms, which are not included in current law. In opinion of the Author, interpretation of current law shall provide to conclusion that presidential project contains norms, already binding at the moment of introducing the amendment. Author criticizes definition of “cyberspace”, proposed by the project. In Author’s opinion this definition is not precisely specified. At the end of the opinion, Author repeats the thesis that, he doubts in necessity of this amendment, presented at the begging.
The author of the article argues that constitutions are written in a well-thought-out manner, in view of the scope of matters to be considered, their subjective content, particular sequence and internal composition. Constitutional issues mostly reflect general experiences of a number of countries, but also unique solutions of the country’s own historical experience. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 is an act founded, in principle, on liberal-democratic philosophy which takes into account experiences from systemic transformation since 1989, and reflecting political and axiological compromises made during the preparation thereof. In the conclusion, the author finds, above all, that the Constitution meets the current standards of European constitutional law. Apart from some deficiencies mentioned in the article, the author does not find need for any considerable modification or supplement, unless a substantial change is to be made in the philosophy of political system on which it is framed.
The purpose of the opinion is to examine the possibility of referring the recommendation for election or appointment by the Sejm of individual persons to particular State offices specified in Articles 26, 27–29 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, or dismissal therefrom, to more than one Sejm committee for their opinion thereto. In the author’s view, a flexible interpretation of Article 30 (5) is possible, as it is implied by the wording of that article which does not state that the recommendation is to be referred to “one” committee, so it does not preclude referring it to a greater number of committees.
In accordance with Article 193 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, the answer to an interpellation is to be given in writing. The term in question is, in the parliamentary practice, understood explicitly. It considers it as a “paper form” of a document, which is also supported by established practice of the Sejm in this respect.. Even if the Standing Orders do not contain a legal definition of the term “in writing”, the classification allowing – in the analyzed case – for the use of an electronic version would be of a “projective” nature and differ from the current understanding of the rules of the Sejm. The proposal for a relevant amendment of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, explicitly guaranteeing accessibility of an electronic document, is justifiable.
The opinion concerns a draft resolution to amend the Standing Orders of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. The principal purpose of the amendment was to abolish the requirement to seek an opinion of the minister competent for Republic of Poland’s membership in the European Union when considering matters concerning the conformity of provisions of the considered bills to the legislation of the European Union. Sponsors of the resolution justify the amendment on legal grounds, such as the need for implementation of the principle of separation of powers, and on extra‑legal grounds, such as the need for modernisation and restoration of functionality of the provision of opinions on legislative proposals. The author of the opinion challenges the arguments of the sponsors of the draft resolution, pointing out its lack of appropriate justification and possible inconsistency with the provisions of both the Constitution and the Act on the Branches of Government Administration.
The opinion stated that the proposed bill is incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution, which provides the basis of proper legislation. This incompatibility is due to the overlapping and conflict of norms in the sphere of competence. Additionally, some provisions of the bill are unclear and systemically inconsistent as a result of the introduction of new terminology. Considerable doubts as to constitutionality are also raised by the fact that the provisions of the bill allow for the situations in which the normative structures created on their basis would be devoid of practical significance.
The opinion states that the Marshal (Speaker) of the Sejm is not competent to resolve disputes concerning the consequences of a refusal to provide information to a deputy by a company, pursuant to Article 19 of the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator. The opinion stated that in order to “defend their good name” the Deputies concerned may benefit from legal instruments to which all citizens are entitled. Measures applied against the Deputies do not violate the dignity of the Sejm and do not imply the need to defend their good name by the Marshal of the Sejm.
The article provides an assessment of conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of the procedure for examination of the admissibility of bills, as referred to in Article 34 paragraph 8 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm of 1992. The author discusses the scope of existing practice, the criteria for examination and the legal nature of an opinion of the Legislative Committee and the decision of the Marshal of the Sejm in this respect, as well as presented proposals. He presents the views of constitutional law theory and the jurisprudence of constitutional court, especially in the context of the legal nature of the right to submit bills and the constitutional elements of the legislative procedure. He finds the said provisions of the Standing Orders of the Sejm to be constitutional.