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

Results found: 18

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Sejm committee
help Sort By:

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

Opinia prawna na temat konsekwencji utraty mandatu przez posła popierającego wniosek o zwołanie posiedzenia komisji (art. 152 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu)

100%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 1(49)
59-63
EN
The author is of the opinion that the loss of the mandate by a Deputy, who has supported the motion to convene a sitting of the committee in accordance with Article 152 para. 2 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, does not affect the effectiveness of the motion, even if it will result in the number of members supporting the motion (putting their signatures thereupon) being less than 1/3 of the committee membership. An obligation to establish the date and time of the sitting of the committee arises at the time of submission of the properly formulated motion, and should be satisfied immediately. It cannot be accepted that the tardiness in the implementation of the obligation, which arose at the time of submission of the motion, could have an impact on its binding efficiency.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie możliwości zgłoszenia wniosku o odwołanie członka prezydium komisji przez posła niebędącego członkiem komisji

100%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 2(38)
181-184
EN
The opinion addresses the question of autonomy of a Sejm committee in the situation when a Deputy who is not its member – exercising his/her right to take part in a committee meeting and making motions – puts a motion to recall a member of the presidium (bureau) of that committee. The author gives her opinion, based on her own interpretation of the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, that such motion should be considered admissible, since there is no legal basis that would make that motion illegitimate.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Założenia zmian w regulacji prawnej w dziedzinie funkcjonowania Komisji ds. Unii Europejskiej – materiał analityczny

100%
Cieślik Z.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 1(49)
103-116
EN
This paper deals with the regulation which specifies the rules in which the Sejm affects the policies of the European Union. It examines the assumptions for change in respect of the Act of 8 October 2010 on Cooperation of the Council of Ministers with the Sejm and the Senate in Matters Related to the Republic of Poland’s Membership in the European Union, as well as the Standing Orders of the Sejm. The proposed changes relate primarily to the socalled a general mechanism of cooperation in the field of EU law making between the Council of Ministers and the Sejm and the Senate. It is assumed that general principles relating to the so-called political dialogue and the carrying out by the Sejm of notification duties will be introduced by the Cooperation Act. The proposed amendment to the Standing Orders of the Sejm deals with participation by the branch committees in consideration of documents that are sent to the Sejm by the EU institutions, as well as the participation of the Sejm operating at plenary sitting in activities related to Poland’s membership in the EU.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia w sprawie art. 30 ust. 5 regulaminu Sejmu RP

100%
Szmyt A.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 3(39)
70-72
EN
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.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie obecności na zamkniętym posiedzeniu komisji sejmowej posłów do Parlamentu Europejskiego

80%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2015
|
issue 4(48)
55-59
EN
The opinion shows that, specifying the range of entities that can participate in closed committee meetings, the Standing Orders of the Sejm expressly states that such meetings may be attended by Deputies who are not members of that committee and the persons whose participation the committee deems indispensable. There is no legal basis for the admissibility of participation of MEPs in closed meetings of Sejm committees that involve classified information. The author of the opinion notes that the possible attendance of a Member of the European Parliament at such a meeting would implicate the recognition by the Commission of their attendance “as indispensable” and the requirement to present of an appropriate security clearance.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie wniosku o zwołanie posiedzenia komisji sejmowej, złożonego w trybie art. 152 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu – według pytań szczegółowych

80%
Wrona Z., Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 2(38)
60-67
EN
The opinion deals with the powers of a Sejm committee to demand that the minister and a member of the State institution provide information about pending administrative proceedings and to require the committee to take position in relation to such proceedings. In the authors’ view, there are no provisions under which the motion would be found inadmissible. The committee may also express its position on the discussed issue which, however, has no binding character, and it cannot impose the content of a solution in pending administrative proceedings.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie udzielania komisjom sejmowym informacji niejawnych przez szefów Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego i Agencji Wywiadu

80%
Czarny P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2015
|
issue 3(47)
65-72
EN
Sejm committees may apply to the heads of the Internal Security Agency and Foreign Intelligence Agency (which are representatives of state institutions) with a request to provide information and explanations which concern matters falling within the scope of activity of the committee. If information requested from the above-mentioned agencies by a Sejm committee constitutes classified information within the meaning of the Act on the Protection of Classified Information, then provision thereof to the committee is allowed only after meeting stringent requirements specified in that Act and – to an extent – in the Act on Internal Security Agency and Foreign Intelligence Agency.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie zasad dostępu do materiału dowodowego zgromadzonego przez Komisję Odpowiedzialności Konstytucyjnej

80%
Sakowicz A.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 1(41)
339-344
EN
The author points out that the possibility of access to evidence in the course of work of the Constitutional Accountability Committee depends on the consent of a body conducting the proceedings, i.e. Constitutional Accountability Committee. According to him, the Committee is obliged to make all evidence (including classified information) accessible to the person subject to initial application and his/her defence council. Nevertheless, he emphasizes that access to evidence composed of classified information should be provided in the office for confidential documents of the Chancellery of the Sejm. In the authors view, the defence council should not be required to have an adequate security clearance level or a valid certificate of training in the field of classified data protection.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat wykładni art. 70 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu

80%
Kubuj K.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 2(38)
68-72
EN
The opinion deals with the interpretation of the provision which states that the Marshal (Speaker) of the Sejm may request the committee to express its attitude to the conclusions and remarks made by the legal services of the Chancellery of the Sejm, which have not been taken into consideration, and whether – in this context – it is possible to change the report adopted by the committee. The author argues that the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Sejm provide no grounds for claim that expressing by the committee of its attitude to the conclusions and remarks could take place by way of modification of the report already adopted by the committee. In this situation, it seems that it could only be admissible that the Deputy Rapporteur takes position at the sitting of the Sejm considering the bill or draft resolution in the second reading.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat wykładni art. 157 regulaminu Sejmu

80%
Odrowąż‑Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 1(37)
121-124
EN
The opinion deals with the exercise of parliamentary oversight functions by Sejm committees. It provides an analysis of whether the representatives of State administration might be held responsible for failure to discharge their duties resulting from Article 157 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm. In the author’s view, Sejm committees have at their disposal the means to enforce only political responsibility. Moreover, as concerns suspension of work on a bill in the event of breach of the obligations specified in Article 157 by the representatives of public administration, the author believes that the legitimacy of such action cannot be assessed in abstracto. The author does not rule out that, depending on circumstances and seriousness of the infringements, suspension of work on a bill may be justified.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie normatywnych skutków wycofania petycji skierowanej do Sejmu

80%
Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 3(51)
64-68
EN
The specificity of the proceedings in relation to petitions precludes the admissibility of discontinuance of the proceedings regarding consideration of a petition on the basis of appropriate application of Article 105 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. In case of withdrawal of a petition submitted to the Sejm, the body responsible for its consideration, i.e. the Petitions Committee, should make a decision about the way of proceeding with the petition. Withdrawal of the petition does not prevent its consideration. Given the open catalogue of the ways in which petitions can be proceeded, the Committee should be allowed to adopt a resolution to refuse consideration of the petition because of the applicant’s willingness to withdraw the petition
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna dotycząca prac nad projektem ustawy w komisji i podkomisji

80%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 3(39)
87-90
EN
The author claims that there is no possibility for sub‑committee members to submit to the chairperson a written request requiring him/her to convene a meeting or to convene a meeting of the subcommittee by the Presidium of the Sejm. As a means obligating the members of the subcommittee to hold a meeting to consider a bill, she points out, inter alia, a time limit for submission of the report on the work of the subcommittee which could be specified in the resolution appointing it. She also indicates that the committee is allowed to take over a bill considered by a sub‑committee, by taking an appropriate resolution.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat postępowania z projektem ustawy podczas prac komisyjnych między pierwszym i drugim czytaniem

80%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2015
|
issue 3(47)
73-77
EN
On the basis of a particular bill, the author analyses the possibility of continuing work on that bill even if the title of the act has not been approved in voting. She also examines admissibility of recognition as an amendment of a proposal having the same wording as the title rejected in the vote. In the author’s view, due to the principles of effectiveness and efficiency of legislative work and, above all, due to the lack of specific regulation in this respect, numerous issues concerning the committee stage of legislative process can be resolved in accordance with parliamentary practice, and the committee has high level of autonomy in this area. For these reasons, the author allows the possibility of submission of the above-mentioned amendments and taking a stance on them.
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat skutków prawnych głosowania prowadzącego do odrzucenia projektu uchwały komisji sejmowej

80%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 1(37)
113-120
EN
The opinion was drawn up in the context of the work of Sejm committees on the Concept for Town and Country Planning 2030 (Paper No. 169). The author finds the occurrence of procedural inconsistency in the conduct of the committee’s procedures and the ineffectiveness of the election of a Deputy‑Rapporteur. She claims that the formal requirements provided in Article 43 (2) of the Standing Orders for the adoption by the committee of a report on a bill (draft resolution) should also be applied to other committee resolutions relating to reports, information or other documents supposed to be discussed by the Sejm, as well as committee desiderata and opinions. The lack of support from the majority of Deputies participating in the vote does not necessarily mean support for the motion to the contrary. Therefore, in the author’s view, the committees have not finished their work on the above‑mentioned draft resolution.
15
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Tryb rozpatrywania przedłożonego przez Radę Języka Polskiego „Sprawozdania o stanie ochrony języka polskiego za lata 2016–2017”

80%
Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2020
|
issue 2(66)
69-75
EN
The report, submitted by the Council for the Polish Language, entitled “Language of political information”, contains an analysis of the problem that is narrow in scope. In the light of the current parliamentary practice, the narrow scope of the Council’s reports is typical and this has not been questioned in the course of parliamentary work. The decision of the Culture and Media Committee, resulting in a refusal to consider the document in question, is an expression of negation of the decision of the Marshal of the Sejm to recognize this document as a report. Formally, the committee proceedings on the report had not been completed. The Committee should return to examining this document and complete its work, formulating an appropriate opinion.
16
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie zakresu uprawnień przedstawiciela Komisji Ustawodawczej w pracach innych komisji nad projektem ustawy – według pytań szczegółowych

80%
Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 2(42)
76-83
EN
The Deputy who represents the Legislative Committee may participate in the legislative work of a subcommittee set up within another committee but, then, he/she has the status of “regular” Deputy who is not a member of that subcommittee. The author stresses that the status of the representative of the Legislative Committee is specified by the Standing Orders of the Sejm. Moreover, he points out that the Deputy who is both a representative of the Legislative Committee and a member of the committee appropriate for the bill, cannot participate in voting on motions and amendments, which he/she submitted, acting as a representative of the Legislative Committee. There are no obstacles for the Deputy to participate in other votings. During the work of the committee, it should be determined in each case whether the Deputy fulfilling the two above‑mentioned functions acts in the capacity of a member of the committee, or as a representative of the Legislative Committee.
17
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat podstaw prawnych i trybu udostępniania informacji Sejmowi i jego organom przez Prezesa Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 2(50)
47-51
EN
The author points out that the principles of, and procedures for, providing information to the Sejm by the President of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) are specified in the provisions of the Act on the IPN and in the general rules for the acquisition by the Parliament and its bodies of information from representatives of the competent authorities and State institutions contained in the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator, and in the Standing Orders of the Sejm. “Heads of other State offices and institutions” are in fact obliged to submit reports and render information, and to participate in committee sittings where matters relating to the scope of their activity are considered. The exception limiting the scope of this duty of the President of the IPN concerns information contained in the so-called classified collection in the archives of IPN, composed of the documents for which the head of the Internal Security Agency and the head of the Intelligence Agency or the Minister of National Defence, respectively, declared that – for a specific period – they cannot be made available to any person apart from the representatives appointed by them, if it is necessary for the state security.
18
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie wniosku grupy posłów, złożonego w trybie art. 152 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu, o zwołanie posiedzenia Komisji Sprawiedliwości i Praw Człowieka

70%
Chybalski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2013
|
issue 2(38)
52-59
EN
The opinion deals with a motion to convene a meeting of a Sejm committee to consider the consequences of a particular court decision. In the author’s view, the subject matter of the motion is outside the scope of a committee’s competence as provided in the Standing Orders of the Sejm. Therefore, the motion is defective and the convening of a committee meeting to consider the abovementioned matter is inadmissible.
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.