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

Results found: 55

first rewind previous Page / 3 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Standing Orders of the Sejm
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 3 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat wątpliwości interpretacyjnych odnoszących się do art. 193 ust. 1 i 2 regulaminu Sejmu

100%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 4(44)
43-47
EN
The opinion provides an assessment of the legal acceptability of limiting the form of submission of interpellation and Deputies’ questions to the format an electronic document. The analysis of Article 193 (2) of the Standing Orders of the Sejm currently precludes such a possibility, as both interpellations and Deputies’ Questions must meet the formal requirements that include, inter alia, the need to be in writing. The Standing Orders of the Sejm do not contain a legal definition of the phrase “in writing”. From literal interpretation it follows that it is a paper document, signed in person by its author. The inability to accept that the meaning of the written form can also include the form of electronic document is proved by an absolute requirement to append two copies to an answer to a Deputies’ question. The imposition of an obligation for interpellations and Deputies’ question to be submitted in the form of an electronic document therefore requires amendment of Article 193 (1) and (2) of the Standing Orders of the Sejm.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat wykładni pojęcia „forma pisemna” występującego w przepisach regulaminu Sejmu

100%
Szydło M.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 4(44)
53-73
EN
The requirement to perform a particular act “in writing”, as provided for in the Standing Orders of the Sejm, should be understood as an obligation to fix on paper the content of a particular act, using in this purpose graphic symbols, as required by the so-called written language, and such a paper document should be signed in person. The requirement to perform a particular act “in writing” cannot be satisfied by making it in an electronic form. Electronic form is a form of making certain acts (separate and autonomous from a written one) which the Standing Orders of the Sejm provides for only in special situations. A written response to a Deputy’s interpellation must therefore be filed in paper, hand-signed by the person giving response to the interpellation.
3
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.
4
Content available remote

Badanie dopuszczalności projektu ustawy w trybie art. 34 ust. 8 regulaminu Sejmu

100%
Szmyt A.
Przegląd Sejmowy
|
2012
|
issue 5(112)
9-29
EN
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.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wykładnia art. 152 ust. 5 regulaminu Sejmu – powiadomienie członków komisji o posiedzeniu komisji

100%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2018
|
issue 3(59)
50-55
EN
Notification to committee members about a committee sitting (date and agenda) should take place at least three days before the sitting, unless the meeting was convened as a result of decisions taken at the sitting of the Sejm. The discussed rule allows each member of the committee to plan a calendar of activities taking into account all individual responsibilities. The author emphasizes that with Article 152 para. 5 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm causes a few interpretation concerns, what indicates a need of its amendment.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie pojęcia „forma pisemna” w odniesieniu do przepisów zawartych w regulaminie Sejmu

100%
Szmyt A.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 4(44)
48-52
EN
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.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wykładnia pojęcia „ustawa podatkowa” (art. 37 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu)

100%
Odrowąż‑Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2021
|
issue 2(70)
85-98
EN
The term “tax act” is used in the Standing Orders of the Sejm in the substantive sense and refers to a public levy having the features of a tax, i.e. a pecuniary, compulsory, non-returnable and nonequivalent payment imposed by law and constituting budgetary revenue of the State Treasury or local government units of general purpose. The author points out that it is irrelevant for the qualification of a bill as a “tax bill” what name the bill uses to denote a public levy, if it bears the features of a tax. The title of a tax bill also refers to the bill that repeals or modifies the scope of a tax obligation or its elements. The author concludes that any tax act amendment bill meets the characteristics of the term “tax act”, and the scope of the term “tax act” does not include public tributes other than taxes.
8
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.
9
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.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie wykładni art. 24 ust. 2 ustawy o wykonywaniu mandatu posła i senatora

80%
Kubuj K.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 1(49)
183-186
EN
The opinion relates to the use of the term “occasional “ in the context of provision of office space to a Deputy for meetings with voters. This cannot apply to fixed, regular meetings of a Member of Parliament with voters, but only occasional, irregular work on duty. Even if governmental or local administration authorities are obliged to provide premises for the duration of such occasional work, the way (form) in which such premises are provided is at the discretion of these authorities, which means possibility – but not a necessity – to provide office space without charge.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat zasad udostępniania pełnego zapisu posiedzenia Komisji ds. Służb Specjalnych

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 3(51)
45-57
EN
It does not seem possible to formulate an exhaustive list of instances in which it would be permitted to make access to a complete records of the meeting of the Special Services Committee, marked as classified. Typical examples where such access is allowed include actions by the public prosecutor’s office taken within the framework of criminal proceedings and by special services for the detection of crime or actions related to the conduct of inspection under the Act on the Protection of Classified Information. The Marshal of the Sejm is a body competent for making decisions on the provision of classified documents providing the record of the Committee meeting. The head of one of the special services, who at the invitation of the Committee participated in the committee meeting, has the right to be acquainted with the text “working” or preliminary version of the minutes of the meeting. This, however, does not preclude that the activities of services (subordinate to him) provided for in the Act will require reading of the final text of the minutes marked as classified.
12
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.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie interpretacji art. 152 ust. 2 regulaminu Sejmu w świetle wątpliwości przedstawionych przez przewodniczącego Komisji Ochrony Środowiska, Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa

80%
Kubuj K.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2014
|
issue 3(43)
73-78
EN
As determined by analysis, a committee sitting convened under Article 152. para. 2 at the request of a defined group of Deputies should concern matters falling within the scope of activities of a Sejm committee. In contrast, a supervisory measure established in Article 167 consists in inspecting and examining by committees of the activities of the entities specifically mentioned in that provision (enterprises, firms or government institutions; basic criterion for the designation of controlled entities is a form of property – the property of the Treasury). Moreover, there are no legal obstacles for the committee (or the committee’s presidium) convened in accordance with Article 152 para. 2 to decide on the visit of the committee members, to inspect the entity meeting the requirements specified in Article 167. The author stresses, however, that such a visit, or examination of activities, should take into account the aim expressed in Article 167, which is the assessment of the mode of action of specific entities managing the property belonging to the State Treasury.
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie możliwości zabrania głosu w debacie nad wnioskiem o odwołanie Marszałka Sejmu przez Marszałka Sejmu lub posła rekomendowanego na to stanowisko

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2015
|
issue 1(45)
75-82
EN
The author analyzes the normative model derived from the Standing Orders of the Sejm and confronts the theoretical assumptions with parliamentary practice accompanying the procedure for election of the Marshal of the Sejm, based on its similarity to the procedure for recall of the Marshal of the Sejm. He argues that the general principles set out in Chapter 2, “Debates of the Sejm” in Section III of the Standing Orders of the Sejm, should apply to this matter in question. The said provisions do not provide for specific powers that would give the Deputies subject to the motion for the recall of the Marshal of the Sejm the right to speak in the debate in accordance with the rules different from those defining the procedure for taking floor by other speakers. It should be assumed that in the debate on a motion to recall the Marshal of the Sejm the questions in the debate can be responded by their intended addressees, i.e. a person subject to the motion or the designated candidate. There is no specific basis in the Standing Orders that would allow giving a speech by the Deputy subject to the motion when no question has been addressed to him/her during the debate.
15
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna na temat procedury uchwalania przez Komisję Ustawodawczą opinii dla Marszałka Sejmu w trybie określonym w art. 34 ust. 8 regulaminu Sejmu

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2012
|
issue 4(36)
90-95
EN
The article provides an analysis of the procedure for adoption by the Legislative Committee of a resolution containing an opinion referred to in Article 34 paragraph 8 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm. It deals, in particular, with taking a decision whether a quorum is present and an assessment of the consequences of the meaning of the phrase “in the presence of at least half of the number of members of the Committee” for the validity of resolutions adopted by the Committee. The author claims that the said requirement determines the Committee’s capability of making legally binding decisions under Article 34 paragraph 8 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm (the procedure for adoption of a resolution finding a bill inadmissible under Polish law). The notion of “presence” contains all members of the Committee staying at the place where its meeting is held, irrespective of whether they participate in the vote or not. The requirement of presence of at least half of the number of members of the Committee should be referred to the total number of its members elected by the Sejm as it stands at the moment of election.
16
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.
17
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
18
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Opinia prawna w sprawie interpretacji art. 184 regulaminu Sejmu w zakresie zasad dokonywania przez posłów sprostowania

80%
Gierach E.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2016
|
issue 3(51)
58-63
EN
Article 184 para. 1 of the Standing Orders of the Sejm obligates the Marshal of the Sejm to give the floor regardless of the orders of the day for the sitting or in respect of the debate to claim rectification. Only the Deputies to the Sejm are entitled to make rectifications. Rectifications can only refer to “statements that has been misunderstood or imprecisely quoted,” and notice of intention to use the remedy of rectification under this procedure is a direct response to the statement of another Deputy or any other participant in the sitting of the Sejm. For assessing the admissibility of rectification request it does not matter whether the author of the rectified statements directly mentioned the specific individuals whose statements he/she quotes giving their names. Presented rectification is not subject to debate or vote. A rectification should take the form of indicative sentence. In a situation where the Deputy’s statement does not satisfy the requirements relating to rectification, the Marshal of the Sejm has the right, and even the obligation, to reproach the Deputy, and to discontinue his/her speech.
19
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Tryb zwoływania posiedzeń komisji sejmowych

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2018
|
issue 1(57)
174-178
EN
The power of the presidium of the committee to determine the agenda of a committee sitting is limited only in two cases – a minority request to convene a sitting and an initiative of the Presidium of the Sejm. The chairperson of the committee establishes the agenda of the committee meeting only in the case in which he executes the minority’s request. No provision of the Standing Orders of the Sejm l allows the chairman of the committee to set the agenda for a committee meeting without the involvement the presidium of the committee. Producing minutes documenting a sitting of the presidium is not required, nor there are any procedural requirements regarding the rules for convening these sittings.
20
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Możliwość składania przez posłów interpelacji w sprawach dotyczących podmiotów gospodarczych, w stosunku do których prawa z akcji (udziałów) Skarbu Państwa wykonują członkowie Rady Ministrów, pełnomocnicy rządu lub państwowe osoby prawne

80%
Odrowąż-Sypniewski W.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2019
|
issue 3(63)
221-227
EN
A shareholder’s right of access to information concerning a company, in accordance with the Commercial Companies Code, is a form of exercising ownership supervision. The entity exercising the rights attached to the State Treasury shares is obliged to take advantage of this right in order to protect the interests of the State Treasury. Procedures regarding interpellations may be used only to obtain information that the addressee of the interpellation has obtained in the course of ownership supervisions. However, these procedures cannot serve to incurring a binding effect on the exercise of rights relating to ownership supervision.
first rewind previous Page / 3 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.