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.

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.

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.

Legalism or opportunism? – the analysis of constitutional responsibility proceedings

The following article discusses the constitutional responsibility proceedings, mainly concentrating on its legalistic or opportunistic character. The author thinks that signalled problem has got fundamental meaning, because its solution may have impact on the interpretations of the other rules. Because of that the author stars his deliberations on the theoretical analysis of the structures of legalism and opportunism. Bearing in mind the aforementioned observations, author of the article prospect for those elements in the Constitution and Tribunal of State’s main bill.

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.

Legal Consequences of the Addressee’s Failure to Reply to an Interpellation or of Replying Late

The article presents the essence of parliamentary interpellations, refers to the obligation incumbent on the addressee to provide an answer within the time limit indicated in the Constitution. The author is of the opinion that not replying or replying after the deadline is a constitutional tort and is subject to liability before the State Tribunal. The currently occurring, rather negative parliamentary practice necessitates appropriate amendments to the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. These changes should also cover the issues of abuse of the right of interpellation and enquiry by.

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.