The article focuses on the constitutional aspects of defense and security of the Republic of Poland. It analyzes the provisions of the Constitution concerning defense and security, including the tasks and the competences of the state bodies in the area of defense and security, the principles of commanding over the Armed Forces in time of peace and wartime, their tasks in the field of defense and security. According to the author of article the constitutional regulation on security of the Republic of Poland leaves room for numerous doubts. They can be largely attributed to the lack of a distinct division of the state bodies’ competencies in the area of security and defense. The Constitution does not stipulate the rules on commanding over the country in wartime. Whereas solutions included in the statutes arouse doubts in terms of their accordance with the Constitution.

Constitutional Status of the Speaker of the Senate

This article aims to highlight the issue of the constitutional status of the Speaker of the Senate by analyzing the constitutional position, powers as well as the election and removal procedure of the Speaker of the Senate. In addition, this paper includes a consideration of the Speaker of the Senate as a State organ, his powers related to the President of the Republic of Poland, as well as the Speaker of the Senate presiding over the proceedings of the chamber and guarding its rights and responsibility for taken actions.

Uprawnienia Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w zakresie zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa państwa

W świetle Konstytucji Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 2 kwietnia 1997 r. Prezydent Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej jest najwyższym przedstawicielem państwa oraz gwarantem ciągłości władzy państwowej. Jednym z należących do niego obowiązków jest obowiązek stania na straży suwerenności i bezpieczeństwa państwa, jak również nienaruszalności i niepodzielności jego terytorium. Prawodawca w ustawie zasadniczej, jak też w innych aktach rangi ustawowej przyznał głowie państwa uprawnienia, których wykonywanie ma służyć właściwej ochronie bezpieczeństwa państwa i jego obywateli. Artykuł w ogólnym zarysie ukazuje zakres uprawnień Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, które w sytuacjach wystąpienia różnych zagrożeń są wykorzystywane przez głowę państwa w celu ich zapobiegnięcia lub zminimalizowania ich skutków.

Glossary to the Decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court of May 11, 2021, file ref. no. III OSK 3265/21

In the commented order, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the matter of conferring the title of professor is an administrative matter. The court assumed that the conferring the title of professor is not a discretionary decision of the President, falling within the scope of his personal prerogative. The decision of the President of the Republic of Poland falls into a category “acts or actions related to public administration regarding rights or obligations under legal regulations” referred to in Art. 3 § 2 point 4 of the Act of August 30, 2002 – the Law on proceedings before administrative courts. The President of the Republic of Poland should be treated as an administrative body in a functional sense, and thereby a lack of action or excessive length of proceedings in this case can be a subject to review by an administrative court.

On the Possibility for the President to Withdraw the Request to the Constitutional Court Under the Preventive Control Procedure and the Request for Reconsideration of Law

The aim of the article is to draw attention to the issue of the possibility of the President of the Republic of Poland withdrawing a motion to the Constitutional Tribunal in the mode of preventive control and a motion for reconsideration of a law. In this paper the author discusses Art. 122 of the Constitution, in particular the time given to the President to become familiar with the presented regulations and to decide what further action should be taken, i.e. to sign it, to submit a motion to the Constitutional Tribunal, or alternatively to return it to the Sejm for reconsideration, or to exercise a veto. The author focuses primarily on the analysis of regulations concerning the problem in question, extended by a number of doctrinal views.

Gloss to the Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 2 June 2023 file ref. no. Kpt 1/17

The article refers to the judgment of the Tribunal Court of 2 June 2023, file ref. no. Kpt 1/17. In this jurisdiction, the Tribunal resolves a competence dispute between the Supreme Court and the President of the Republic. In the resolution of 31 May 2017 file ref. no. I KZP 4/17 the Supreme Court climes that The President is not supposed to apply the law of pardon to people, who are not finally sentenced. The Tribunal decides that the Supreme Court doesn’t have a competence, which allows controlling the President’s individual acts. The Author of the article criticizes the Tribunal’s judgment and climes that in this particular case there is no a competence dispute. The Tribunal intends to present formally binding interpretation of the article no 139 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court and common courts are entitled to control President’s applying the right of pardon during fulfilling their function of the administration of justice.

The First Meeting of the Senate of the Republic of Poland

The purpose of this article is to present the constitutional and legal issues related to the first sitting of the Senate of the Republic of Poland after the elections. The author made a substantive analysis of the issue of the entity obliged to convene the first sitting, the legal form of this convocation, the date and place of the sitting, as well as the subject matter, i.e. the agenda of the sitting. A division was made into obligatory and optional points of the agenda of the meeting. The article also contains several conclusions concerning the status of the Senior Speaker. The author focuses his attention primarily on an analysis of the constitutional regulations concerning the issues raised, obviously taking into account the provisions of the rules of the chamber.

This article is devoted to the issue of death as a premise for vacating the office of President of the Republic of Poland. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland comprehensively regulates the institution of substitution of the President of the Republic of Poland, specifying the legal forms of its execution and indicating the Marshals (of the Sejm and the Senate) as entities authorized to carry out the duties of the head of state. In the event of the occurrence of the death of the President, doubts arise as to the possibility of implementing civilian regulations at the time of triggering the procedure of substitution of the President provided for in Art. 131 of the Constitution. The analysis carried out in the article is aimed at answering the question of whether the Marshal of the Sejm (on whom the duty to assume the duties of head of state is incumbent), functioning in the field of constitutional law, is bound by the regulations applicable in principle on civil law grounds.