Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 7

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Presidium of the Sejm
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article points out that the activity of conducting occasional lectures and publishing articles and books should be classified as an activity subject to copyright law within the meaning of Article 33 para. 1 of the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator. Members of the Presidium of the Sejm are obliged to report their income from this source in the Register of Interests and to reveal it in two statements of financial status. From the analysis of the case law of the Constitutional Tribunal it follows that even incidental lectures can be classified as “other function” within the meaning of Article 4 para. 2 of the Act on the Remuneration of Persons Holding State Management Posts. It was stated, however, that this position contradicts the historical and teleological interpretation of the rule presented in the law doctrine and the trend observed in relation to those legal solutions which take into account the principle of freedom of choice and carrying out of the profession. Therefore, it can be assumed that a member of the Presidium of the Sejm may earn income from activities subject to copyright law and obtain, at the same time, a salary due to the position of Marshal or Vice-Marshal of the Sejm. In the author’s view, the provision in question should be amended.
EN
Analysis of the matter of decisions that may be taken by the Presidium of the Sejm, considering an application for reconsideration of the case. In the author’s opinion, the scope of possible decisions of the Presidium of the Sejm, made on the basis of the analyzed provision, includes: sustaining the original resolution, repealing it, as well as changing the amount of deprivation of Deputy’s benefits made in the original resolution (in favour of the appealing Deputy).
EN
The opinion analyses the possibility of removal from office of the Marshal (Speaker) and Vice-Marshals (Deputy Speakers) of the Sejm. In the author’s view, the provision contained in the amendment to the Standing Orders (2008) making possible such a remove is not compatible with Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, which does not relate to appointment of a Marshal or Vice-marshals, but rather deals with the “election” of a Marshal (which would imply his/her irremovability during the term of parliament). He also points to the controversies relating to the possibility of an appropriate application of the provision on resignation from the function of Marshal when the Vice-Marshal has been removed from office. Such an interpretation seems to be abuse of law, since an appropriate application of the provisions in similar situations cannot be assumed, but should rather be expressly formulated in a legal provision. From an analysis of Article 10a (5) of the Standing Orders of the Sejm it follows that the future regulation should be made more specific, particularly by the inclusion of the case of death and the conditions of resignation of the Vice-Marshal.
EN
The repeal of the resolution of the Ethics Committee by the Presidium of the Polish Sejm under Article 22 Paragraph 3 point 1 in conjunction with Article 147 Paragraph 4 and Article 132 Paragraph 2 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland lead to closure of the case. There are no adequate normative basis, which would indicate the possibility of a retrial by the Presidium of the Sejm. Discontinuance of proceedings by the Presidium of the Sejm stimulates a state of rei iudicatae. Outside the scope of review remains the legal assessment of this resolution and its justification, which implies that the procedural irregularities in the proceedings conducted by the Deputies’ Ethics Committee are a sufficient condition for the repeal of the resolution of the Committee, and consequently the closure of the case.
EN
Provision of Article 132 Paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 147 Paragraph 4 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland doesn’t provide a legal basis for the participation of the chairman of the Deputies’ Ethics Committee in the meeting of the Presidium of the Sejm in order to present a resolution referred to in Article 147 Paragraph 1. In Article 132 Paragraph 2, only the requirement to provide a document to the Presidium of the Sejm is stated.
EN
The opinion refers to a number of problems related to the statutory obligation to provide Deputies with information by representatives of state organs. The most important of the analyzed issues is the matter of legal measures at the disposal of a Deputy who decides that organs of the state do not realize or improperly realize their obligations in the scope of providing information on their activity.
EN
Examining the possible adoption by the Presidium of the Sejm of an interpretative resolution regarding limiting the number of interpellations and Deputy’s questions on the same “matter”, the author of the opinion concludes that any restrictions in this regard should be formulated with caution. The rights of Deputies to submit interpellations cannot be only illusory. He also notes that the Standing Orders of the Sejm have already introduced a mechanism for control by the Presidium of the Sejm over interpellations and Deputy’s questions. In order to counter the practice of submitting excessive number of interpellations of similar content to the same body, the author examines the possibility of combining by the Presidium of the Sejm similar interpellations into one interpellation.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.