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

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  parliamentary immunity
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dopuszczalność zatrzymania posła przez Straż Graniczną

100%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2017
|
issue 4(56)
163-170
EN
In the opinion it was stated that although examining identity documents is associated with a temporary restriction of freedom of a Deputy by an authorized body, it does not constitute a violation of the privilege of parliamentary inviolability. Undertaking Deputy’s activities related to the exercise of the mandate in a border zone, does not require an appropriate consent. The privilege of inviolability does not absolve the Deputy from the obligation to respect the law. As a rule, a Border Guard officer cannot detain the Deputy during performing activities falling within the scope of the parliamentary mandate in the border zone. Deputies may be detained only in the event of joint fulfillment of requirements provided in the Article 105 para. 5 of the Constitution.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie udostępniania osobom trzecim pism wpływających do biura poselskiego

100%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2017
|
issue 2(54)
159-166
EN
The author states that a Deputy does not have an obligation to make available document received from a private person, regardless the content of the document. Parliamentary immunity, according to the author, does not release the Deputy from an obligation to testify as a witness or does not release the Deputy from an obligation to provide public authorities with a document which may serve as an evidence. However, pursuant to Article 21 the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator, the Deputy might refuse to provide information about a person who has provided an information to a deputy. This principle applies to civil procedure, criminal procedure and other investigative procedures that include an obligation to testify. The scope of this privilege contains also the possibility of refusing to issue a document received within limits of exercising of the mandate whose content would reveal information of a deputy’s informer.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat udostępnienia informacji niejawnych na posiedzeniu Sejmu w procedurze uchylenia immunitetu

100%
Sakowicz A.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 2(42)
229-234
EN
The author analyzes the possibilities and consequences of the disclosure of classified information by a person covered by the motion for waiver of immunity at a sitting of the Sejm, in the course of examination of the motion. He claims that a person to whom the motion to waive immunity pertains is entitled to comment the information contained therein, including the use of classified information, insofar as they relate to the circumstances of the case and the allegations formulated in the motion. This is a guarantee of the right to defence in the course of proceedings relating to waiver of immunity. The author points out that such proceedings must respect basic procedural standards and, in particular, take into account the constitutional right to defence.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Możliwość pociągnięcia do odpowiedzialności prawnej byłego posła, członka Zgromadzenia Parlamentarnego Rady Europy

100%
Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2018
|
issue 4(60)
55-58
EN
A former Deputy to the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, and at the same time a former member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), cannot be held responsible to the Sejm. Potentially, bringing the above-mentioned person to a criminal liability may be considered, because, according to the author, in the analyzed case, that person was not protected by immunity privileges granted under international law to the members of PACE. A possible launch of this type of legal responsibility would, however, require determining of a few strictly criminal-law matters described in the opinion.
5
Content available remote

Hiszpania: postanowienie Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 9 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie specjalnej o numerze 20907/2017

88%
Dziedzic B.
Przegląd Sejmowy
|
2020
|
issue 5(160)
251-267
EN
The Supreme Court ruled on the legal consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras – the supporter of the independence of Catalonia convicted of sedition and misappropriation of public funds. Mr O. Junqueras was elected Member of the European Parliament while he was in provisional detention, but after the trial stage of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been opened. The CJEU judgment concerned the scope of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs. The Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the CJEU interpretation, that Mr Junqueras enjoyed the immunity. However, the prison sentence passed on him deprived him of his MEP status and therefore a request to waive the immunity in this particular case was not applicable.
6
Content available remote

Mołdawia: Postanowienie Sądu Konstytucyjnego z 20 stycznia 2015 r. nr 2 o wykładni art. 1 ust. 3 w związku z art. 69 i 70 Konstytucji Republiki Mołdawii (immunitet i wygaśnięcie mandatu deputowanego)

88%
Pogłódek A.
Przegląd Sejmowy
|
2019
|
issue 2(151)
195–214
EN
Judgment no. 2 of the Constitutional Court of Moldova of 20 January 2015 refers to the issue of parliamentary immunity and the cases of termination of a mandate of a member of Parliament as foreseen by the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. The Constitutional Court laid down the scope interpretation of Articles 69 and 70 of the Constitution, adjudicating that a Deputy sentenced with a valid court judgment does not enjoy the privilege of parliamentary immunity. Also, the privilege is not applied where a national court recognizes a sentence passed by a court of a foreign state. A person sentenced with a valid court judgment for a crime committed with intention or sentenced to a prison term loses its right to be elected, hence cannot be legitimately elected to the Parliament. He/she also loses his/her mandate ex lege after the judgment had been passed.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Immunitet parlamentarny we współczesnym świecie – ujęcie prawnoporównawcze

75%
Jackiewicz A.
Przegląd Europejski
|
2019
|
vol. 2019(1)
57-74
PL
The purpose of the article is to determine the current form of parliamentary immunity in various countries. The author uses the comparative-law method to analyse constitutions that represent the most common solutions, taking into account the geographic criterion, used in countries located on different continents and having different legal cultures. The author analyses the subjective scope of non-accountability and non-violability and focuses on the time and place in which the protection is provided, and trace the objective scope of the protection and the solutions related to the possibility to lift the parliamentary immunities. The analysis leads to the conclusion that non-accountability is similar in different countries, has undergone few modifications over the years, and it is permanently formed. In the case of non-violability, there are more extensive differences, in particular in the objective scope and the degree of protection. However, various solutions prove that there is not a single universally accepted model of immunity and that the scope of the guaranteed protection can be more diverse, it can be subject to change, and be adapted to the changes in political systems and the political and social expectations.
8

Immunitet parlamentarny we współczesnym świecie – ujęcie prawnoporównawcze

75%
Jackiewicz A.
Przegląd Europejski
|
2019
|
issue 1(51)
57-74
PL
Celem artykułu jest ustalenie aktualnego kształtu immunitetu parlamentarnego w państwach współczesnego świata. Wykorzystując metodę prawnoporównawczą, przeanalizowano konstytucje, które obrazują najczęściej spotykane rozwiązania przy uwzględnieniu kryterium geograficznego, powołując się na państwa z różnych kontynentów i kręgów kultury prawnej. Zbadano zakres podmiotowy immunitetu materialnego oraz immunitetu formalnego, zwrócono uwagę na czas i miejsce w jakich przysługuje ochrona, prześledzono zakres przedmiotowy tej ochrony oraz rozwiązania dotyczące możliwości uchylania immunitetów parlamentarnych. Z przeglądu tego wynika, że immunitet materialny w poszczególnych państwach wykazuje wiele podobieństw, na przestrzeni lat podlegał niewielu modyfikacjom i jest trwale ukształtowany. W przypadku immunitetu formalnego dostrzegalne są dalej idące różnice, szczególnie w sferze zakresu przedmiotowego i stopnia ochrony. Różne rozwiązania dowodzą jednak, iż nie ma jednego, powszechnie przyjętego, modelu immunitetu, a zakres gwarantowanej ochrony może być bardzo zróżnicowany, podlegać zmianom i być dostosowywanym do przemian ustrojowych i oczekiwań politycznych i społecznych.
EN
The purpose of the article is to determine the current form of parliamentary immunity in various countries. The author use the comparative-law method to analyse constitutions that represent the most common solutions, taking into account the geographic criterion, used in countries located on different continents and having different legal cultures. The authors analyze the subjective scope of non-accountability and non-violability and focus on the time and place in which the protection is provided, and they trace the objective scope of the protection and the solutions related to the possibility to lift the parliamentary immunities. The analysis leads to the conclusion that non-accountability is similar in different countries, has undergone few modification over the years, and it is permanently formed. In the case of non-violability, there are more extensive differences, in particular in the scope of the objective scope and the degree of protection. However, various solutions prove that there is not a single universally accepted model of immunity and that the scope of the guaranteed protection can be more diverse, can be subject to change, and be adapted to the changes in political systems and the political and social expectations.
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.