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.

Launching Legislative Initiatives in the Light of the Provisions  of the Sejm Regulations

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.

Post-legislative scrutiny in Westminster

The model of the legislative process adopted in Great Britain is often set as a model for other legislations. The model of British legislative procedure has undergone profound changes over the past twenty years. The introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny may be considered the most important changes in the field of legislative proceedings. Post-legislative scrutiny in Westminster is a kind of parliamentary control over government activities. The parliamentary body entrusted with the post-legislative scrutiny is the special committees, which, as a rule, were not involved in the legislative procedure. Post-legislative scrutiny is not a procedure applicable to every act passed by parliament (on the contrary, only a few legal acts are subject to it), and the criteria for the selection of normative acts subject to post-legislative control are not defined. As a consequence, both government decisions regarding the selection of acts, regarding the functioning of which the report will actually be prepared, and the choice of laws subject to full post-legislative control in the parliament are taken in a discretionary manner and do not require justification. At the same time, it is possible to put forward the thesis that – as previously anticipated – the special commissions have no possibility of reviewing every public law that has been passed, and focus only on those that are particularly important for the functioning of society and democracy.

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.

The Limits of MP’s Amendments of Government Drafts  of Regular Bills and the Budget Act

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.

Law-making process of British Private Members’ Bills

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.

The main goal of article is to evaluate the functioning of a redraft of a legislative proposal 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 legislative 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 parliamentary 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 optimal. 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 institution 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.

Mediation committee in the parliament

The subject of the article is the possibility of establishing a mediation committee in the Polish parliament. It is a special type of parliamentary committee responsible for resolving disputes between parliamentary chambers. The need to establish such committee results from the fact that the Senate exercises a number of constitutional powers independently of the Sejm. They include, among others, approval of the election of the Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights made by the Sejm. This issue became the subject of a long dispute in the Polish parliament. Solutions to this type of problem could be served by a mediation committee composed of representatives of both chambers, which main task would be to work out a compromise solution in the dispute between the Sejm and the Senate. The mediation committee could also facilitate the legislative procedure in the parliament, although in this case the final vote almost always belongs to the Sejm, which may reject amendments or the Senate’s objection to the bill.

The Innovation of the Citizens’ Legislative Initiative in Finland

Finland was relatively late in introducing the institution of the citizens’ legislative initiative into its legal order, only in 2012. However, it can be said that the solutions adopted, both constitutional and statutory, differ to some extent from typical regulations. There are both formulated and unformulated initiatives, and the choice of the form of initiative depends on the initiators. Moreover, the digitisation of the initiative submission process is noteworthy. Particularly noteworthy is the creation of a generator of such initiatives. It has translated into a significant interest of citizens in this form of initiating the legislative process. However, this does not change the fact that the success rate of such initiatives is not particularly high. This concerns both the successful collection of signatures of support and the eventual subsequent acceptance of the citizens’ proposal by the Finnish parliament.