The subject of this article is the character and meaning of the head of state’s liability. The author notices that this institution is an important factor that determines the systemic and legal position of the supreme body in the country, and adopting different solutions in this matter may make the position of heads of state significantly different, even if they seem to have a similar character. This relation has been shown on the example of regulations of liability of the heads of state in Monaco and Liechtenstein. In both countries, there is an almost identical manner of appointing to the office of a head of state and the scope of their authorities. However, the matter of liability has been regulated in a completely different way in these two countries.

The creation of a special body whose sole purpose is to rule on violations of the constitution or statutes by senior state officials, including the president, is relatively rare. Only Greece and Poland have implemented such a solution and until recently also the French law provided such a possibility but the amendment of the Constitution in 2007 changed the legislation within that scope. The subject of the study is the analysis of Polish regulations concerning the State Tribunal in the context when the National Assembly adopts a resolution to put the President in charge of committing a constitutional delinquency.

Rationalization of Polish political institutions with the application of the solutions of the modern states

The article is an attempt to identify the constitutional authorities of Poland, whose functioning can be improved through the application of solutions operating in other countries. The change in the way the Senate is elected is seen as an opportunity to improve the quality of the statutes passed in Poland. The appointment of the vice president is to improve the functioning of the office of the President of the Republic and to make him independent of the parliament. Entrusting the constitutional review of the law to the Supreme Court can contribute to the depoliticization of this process. A similar effect can be attained in the case of constitutional responsibility, provided that its common courts are enforced.

Sejm as the Competent Authority Responsible for Indictment against the Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces to Constitutional Responsibility before the Tribunal of State

The control function of the Sejm does not imply that it has the power to directly control the armed forces. Control powers may be exercised only against certain civilian authorities authorized to control and direct the armed forces, such as the Council of Ministers or the Minister of National Defense. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the external security of state and the general direction of defense in the country. The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic of Poland at the request of the President of the Council of Ministers, only during the time of war. He is subordinated to the President of the Republic of Poland. That implies the existence of subordinated position between those authorities. Therefore, the Author of this paper is wondering whether the right to indictment against of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to constitutional charges to the Tribunal of State shall be within competences of Sejm. Such competence of the Sejm may be interpreted as a mechanism for assessment of the activity of the President himself, which in the light of the constitutional principles of division of powers is not allowed.

On the responsibility of the Speaker of the Sejm – a contribution to the discussion

The Speaker of the Sejm holds a unique political position. It results from the fact that it is a leading body of the Polish Sejm, with a number of competences exceeding the scope of the representative body’s operation. In addition, the Speaker performs the duties of the President of the Republic of Poland in cases specified by the Constitutional Act. The Speaker’s competences were defined very broadly, but he was subsequently not included in the regime of constitutional responsibility. The absence of mechanisms for enforcing the constitutional responsibility of the Speaker of the Sejm is in contradiction with the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, assuming the responsibility of the authorities.

Constitutional responsibility of the President of Ukraine

This article presents issues pertaining to the constitutional responsibility acknowledged by the president of Ukraine. Under the Ukrainian law, the scope of responsibilities taken over by the president of Ukraine translates into his legal and system-related position. According to the Constitution of 26 June 1996, the duties and responsibilities may be attributed ex officio, under the procedure of impeachment. The aim of this article is also to present differences between the representatives of legal doctrines in terms of acknowledging the constitutional responsibility by the president of Ukraine. The article also specifies each stage of the procedure aimed at dismissing the president, provides a list of bodies authorised to commence and conduct the proceedings and making the final decision on the dismissal. Furthermore, the article also provides analysis of legal effects being exerted when the head of state was unconstitutionally dismissed by Viktor Yanukovych. The result of the analysis of legal acts was the formulation of de lege ferenda conclusions referring to/concerning the spectrum of entities authorized to initiate and conducting the impeachment procedure.

The president in a parliamentary system of government of the Republic of Bulgaria. Genesis – the political position – a constitutional responsibility

The text is an analysis of the Bulgarian legal regulations concerning the constitutional responsibility of the President. President of Bulgaria for committing a constitutional delict is responsible before the Constitutional Court. The proposal in this regard may submit a group of parliamentarians and parliament puts indictment. If the Constitutional Court decides the merits of allegations made in the indictment, the president shall be deposited with the office.

The Constitutional Responsibility of the President of Serbia

The topic of this article is the constitutional responsibility of the President of Serbia and the powers of the parliament and the Constitutional Court in this regard. The procedures governing the President for pulling constitutional responsibility begins with the submission of the proposal in Parliament on the indictment of President of having committed a constitutional delict and carrying preliminary proceedings by the committee and adoption by Parliament of a resolution on the adoption or rejection of the application. When determining and adjudicating authority is the Parliament, a group of deputies initiated the proceedings. Then the major procedure is carried out and shall be tested the charges against President. In addition, the committed by the President of the constitutional delict is required the Constitutional Court decision. At the end of voting takes place on the submission of the President from office because of committing a constitutional delict and order early elections for President. The decision is made by a resolution of Parliament.

State Tribunal of the Republic of Poland in Polish political system. Chosen aspects

The article concentrates on issues of the State Tribunal in contemporary political order of the Republic of Poland. In the beginning there was explained the place of the State Tribunal in the system of separated powers. Next, applying the legal-historical method there was reconstructed its model in Polish political regulations, starting from the Constitution on 17 March 1921. Hereinafter there was made analysis of the contemporary position and competence of that State Tribunal and who can be the subject to his cognition. There was distinguished a constitutional and disciplinary responsibility, clarifying the being and premises for each of them. On the basis of made arrangements there was taken an attempt of evaluation of the contemporary constitutional regulation, formulating appropriate conclusions de lege ferenda.

Commission phase of works on the motion for constitutional liability

The article is concerned with the commission phase of works on the motion for constitutional liability which is initiated by the Marshall of Sejm handing over the preliminary motion to the Constitutional Liability Commission, and finished with Sejm or the National Assembly debating its summary. The task of the Commission is to debate the preliminary motion, gather evidence, interrogate witnesses and submit the summary of its work. The Commission is obliged to recommend prosecutors that shall represent Sejm before the State Tribunal.

Exceptions to the Principle of Discontinuation of Works of the Polish Parliament

The subject of the study is the exception to the principle of discontinuation of works of the Polish parliament issue. The initial point of reference for further discussion is the statement that the principle despite its benefits has also disadvantages which justify admissibility to formulate exceptions thereto. Then the author indicates its legal nature which has an effect on possible determination thereof. The exceptions to the discontinuation rule in legislation and parliamentary regulations were further analysed. Analyses carried out have led to the conclusion that the discontinuation of works of the Polish parliament has the nature of the constitutional principle and exceptions thereto may be established only by an express decision of the legislator.

„Even the same Ones, who are Established to be Protectors of Law, they Ought to be Their First Preservers”. On the Rule of Law in the Debate and Reform work of Polish Great Sejm (1788–1792)

Although the theoretical assumptions of the concept of the rule of law have been developed in the continental tradition only in the 19th century, its systemic elements have their roots deep in history. In this contribution, the author analyses selected examples from the field of legislation and legal culture of the Great Sejm era (1788–1792). She focuses in particular on the problems of articulation and functioning of the supremacy of the constitution in the legal order and the innovative shaping of the responsibilities of key state authorities. These issues notably seem to reflect the suspension between the domestic heritage and the modernity of constitutionalism. At the same time, both cases prove that the ratio legis of these solutions was primarily of a practical, not conceptual nature.

The Myth of Constitutional Liability

The article attempts to prove that the mechanism of constitutional liability, generally accepted in democratic countries, is largely based on a systemic myth, which is primarily of historical origin, but which does not correspond to the modern doctrinally distinguished functions of law, constitution and its guarantees. In this context, this particular type of legal liability of high state officials has been subjected mainly to a theoretical functional analysis and taking into account teleological criteria, as well as factors that affect its assumed and actual systemic shape.

Gloss to the Resolution of the Tribunal of State of May 15, 2019, file ref. no. TSZP 1/17

The subject of this gloss is an analysis of the resolution of the Tribunal of State of 15 May 2019 (file ref. no. TSZP 1/17) resolving a legal issue, the essence of which boils down to answering the question whether the interruption of the limitation referred to in Art. 23 of the Tribunal of State Act should be understood in such a way that, after the occurrence of such an event, the limitation runs anew. The author, partly polemicising with the findings of the Tribunal of State, points out that this issue cannot be resolved by using the methods of linguistic and systemic interpretation. Only a functional interpretation supports a positive answer to the question under consideration. Thus, the author confirms the correctness of the Tribunal’s decision, while pointing out the deficiencies of its justification.

Constitutional Responsibility of the Presidents in the Post-Soviet Authoritarian States

The article tackles the issue of constitutional responsibility of the Presidents of post-Soviet authoritarian republics (Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan). This institution exists in the legal orders of most of them, although the complicated procedure, that involves parliaments, supreme courts, and constitutional courts makes it hardly possible to successfully impeach the President. This confirms the thesis that the institution of a democratic state of law in the case of most post-Soviet countries is just a facade. The consecutive parts of the text discuss the existing models of constitutional responsibility of the Presidents of democratic countries, the views of Russian-language legal doctrine regarding this issue, and the regulations implemented by the post-Soviet authoritarian states. The procedure is multi- stage, and the reason for impeachment may be a state treason or a serious crime, but generally not a constitutional tort.