postępowanie ustawodawcze

  • Selected Aspects of the Application of the Constitution’s Provisions by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland

    Author: Grzegorz Koksanowicz
    E-mail: koksanowiczkancelaria@wp.pl
    Institution: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin
    Year of publication: 2017
    Source: Show
    Pages: 235-251
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2017.06.15
    PDF: ppk/40/ppk4015.pdf

    The direct application of the constitutional provisions gives rise to many problems due to the particularities involved. These problems can be encountered not only in a judicial, but also in a managerial type of law application. Within the framework of the last model, the application of the constitutional provisions has to be considered through the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. The constitutional law focuses on the institutions of the political system.It determines the structure, functions, the competencies and the relationship between them. Taking into consideration the fact that the parliament has an important influence on the functioning of governance, the issue of the direct application of constitutional provisions by that authority is taking on new significance. The issue of the application of the constitutional rules relating to the Sejm internal organisation and its political functions has to be considered as relevant. The order of the direct application of the constitution indicates not only the necessity of application of the regulations, which define its organisation, operation and the subject of activity, but also these, which express so-called principles and values. Their full normative content is generally determined in jurisdiction of Constitutional Tribunal, which in turn obliges the Sejm and its authorities to apply these regulations in a manner which takes into account the judicial acquis of this organ.

  • Nadawanie biegu inicjatywom ustawodawczym w świetle postanowień regulaminu Sejmu

    Author: Grzegorz Koksanowicz
    Institution: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie
    Year of publication: 2012
    Source: Show
    Pages: 13-27
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2012.01.01
    PDF: ppk/09/ppk901.pdf

    The Speaker, as the executive body of Polish Parliament has the authority to coordinate legislative activities. The authority covers formal control over a project brought, especially its justification, disposition to print the project and deliver it to the members of parliament as well as – which needs to be stressed – resolving the decision to undertake substantial works on a legislative project brought. The binding regulations concerning coordination of legislative activities were analyzed in the context of the parliamentary opposition’s laws. The problem broached relates to the legal instruments by the use of which the parliamentary opposition may influence the Speaker’s decision on undertaking substantial works on a legislative project brought by it.

  • Kontrola post-legislacyjna w Westminsterze

    Author: Anna Michalak
    E-mail: aniamich@wp.pl
    Institution: Uniwersytet Łódzki
    Year of publication: 2018
    Source: Show
    Pages: 11-30
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2018.05.01
    PDF: ppk/45/ppk4501.pdf

    Model procesu legislacyjnego przyjętego w Wielkiej Brytanii często bywa stawiany za wzór dla innych legislatyw. Na przestrzeni ostatnich dwudziestu lat ulegał on głębokim zmianom. Za ważniejsze zmiany w zakresie postępowania legislacyjnego można uznać wprowadzenie kontroli przed-legislacyjnej (pre-legislative scrutiny) i kontroli post-legislacyjnej (post-legislative scrutiny). Kontrola post-legislacyjna w Westminsterze stanowi rodzaj parlamentarnej kontroli nad działalnością rządu. Organem parlamentarnym, któremu powierzono przeprowadzenia kontroli post-legislacyjnej są komisje specjalne, które co do zasady nie są angażowane w postępowanie legislacyjne. Kontrola post-legislacyjna nie jest przy tym procedurą mającą zastosowanie do każdej ustawy uchwalanej przez parlament (wręcz przeciwnie, podlegają jej nieliczne akty prawne), a kryteria wyboru aktów normatywnych podlegających kontroli post-legislacyjnej nie zostały zdefiniowane. W konsekwencji zarówno decyzje rządu w zakresie wyboru aktów, odnośnie do funkcjonowania których faktycznie zostanie przygotowane sprawozdanie, jak i wybór ustaw podlegających pełnej kontroli post-legislacyjnej w parlamencie podejmowany jest w sposób uznaniowy i nie wymaga uzasadnienia. Można przy tym postawić tezę, że – jak wcześniej przewidywano – komisje specjalne nie mają możliwości poddania kontroli każdej uchwalonej ustawy publicznej, a skupiają się jedynie na tych, które mają szczególne znaczenie dla funkcjonowania społeczeństwa i demokracji.

  • Zarządzenia tymczasowe w praktyce Sądu Konstytucyjnego Republiki Łotewskiej: najnowsze tendencje

    Author: Anita Rodiņa
    E-mail: anita.rodina@lu.lv
    Institution: University of Latvia
    Year of publication: 2014
    Source: Show
    Pages: 39-56
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2014.05.02
    PDF: ppk/21/ppk2102.pdf

    In the article author analyses the experience of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in applying temporary adjustment in examining constitutional complaints submitted by persons. In view of the case law of the Constitutional Court, the rulings of the Constitutional Court regarding issues not envisaged in the Constitutional Court procedure are analysed as well. Thus, the article provides answers to questions – whether the Constitutional Court may suspend legal proceedings and legislation procedure.

  • Granice poselskich poprawek do rządowych projektów tzw. ustaw zwykłych oraz ustawy budżetowej

    Author: Sławomir Patyra
    Institution: Uniwersytet Marii Curie - Skłodowskiej w Lublinie
    Year of publication: 2013
    Source: Show
    Pages: 79-112
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2013.04.04
    PDF: ppk/16/ppk1604.pdf

    The article concentrates on the issue of regulations of legislative proceedings in the Sejm in the scope of the right of Members of Parliament to put forward amendments to government bills. Analysis of the provisions of the Constitution of April 2, 1997 and of the Standing Orders of the Sejm of 1992 proves that the current regulations, both with reference to the so-called regular bills, as well as the draft of the budget act, create great possibilities for Members of Parliament to make changes to the government legislative proposals during the stages of the first and the second reading of a bill. This creates a serious threat to the material integrity of the projects, as well as limits the effectiveness of the policy conducted by the government. The previous amendments to the Standing Orders of the Sejm made in order to limit the influence of MP’s amendments on the contents of government projects proved to be not effective enough; therefore, the Author calls for the further modernization of legislative proceedings aimed at guaranteeing effective protection of government projects against their deformation during the legislative proceedings in the Sejm.

  • Postępowanie ustawodawcze w zakresie projektów ustaw publicznych wnoszonych indywidualnie przez brytyjskich parlamentarzystów

    Author: Anna Michalak
    Institution: Uniwersytet Łódzki
    Year of publication: 2011
    Source: Show
    Pages: 31-59
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2011.01.02
    PDF: ppk/05/ppk502.pdf

    The article deals with the law making process of Private Members’ Bills, which are Public Bills introduced by MPs and Lords who aren’t government ministers. A minority of Private Members’ Bills become law but, by creating publicity around an issue, they may affect legislation indirectly. Private Members’ Bills can be introduced in either House and must go through the same set of stages. There are three ways of introducing Private Members’ Bills in the House of Commons: the Ballot, the Ten Minute Rule and the Presentation. Ballot Bills have the best chance of becoming law, as they get priority for the limited amount of debating time available. The names of Members applying for a Bill are drawn in a ballot held at the beginning of the parliamentary year. Ten Minute Rule Bills are often an opportunity for Members to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation, rather than a serious attempt to get a Bill passed. Members make speeches of no more than ten minutes outlining their position, which another Member may oppose in a similar short statement. It is a good opportunity to raise the profile of an issue and to see whether it has support among other Members. Additionally any Member may introduce a Bill by presentation. Private Members’ Bills introduced in the Lords go through the same stages as any other Public Bill. Once completed, and if an MP supports the Bill, it continues in the Commons. The discussed procedure in its current form does not ensure the effectiveness of this way of making law. Nevertheless it provides an excellent opportunity for backbenchers to gain experience and present issues that attract public attention in the forum of Parliament.

  • Redrafting of a Proposal in the Polish Legislative Procedure

    Author: Piotr Uziębło
    E-mail: piotr.uzieblo@ug.edu.pl
    Institution: Uniwersytet Gdański
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-9240
    Year of publication: 2019
    Source: Show
    Pages: 97-108
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2019.05.07
    PDF: ppk/51/ppk5107.pdf

    The main goal of article is to evaluate the functioning of a redraft of a legislative propos- al in the Polish legal order, particularly whether this mechanism may be considered as making the legislative procedure more flexible and improving the quality of the legisla- tive works of the Polish Parliament, or whether the constitutional shape of a redraft and its use leads to conclusions that this solution is misguided and negatively affects parlia- mentary legislative proceedings. Both normative analysis and systemic practice lead to the conclusion that the regulation of a redraft by the Sejm’s Rules cannot be considered op- timal. From my point of view, it is necessary to make such corrections to Art. 36 par. 1a- 1c that will prevent from abusing this instrument. However, the critical assessment of the redraft standardization does not change the generally positive assessment of the in- stitution itself, because the specific self-correction of the proposal, often resulting from the reflection of the initiator of the legislative proceedings (resulting from both internal and external factors), is fully desirable, primarily from the perspective of implementing the postulate of the legal system coherence and its completeness.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart