The first orders had been established and awarded by monarchs long before the republican concept of presidency was developed. The many powers which presidents took over from monarchs include, inter alia, the awarding (and revoking) of state honours. The issue, usually regarded as marginal, does not appeal to constitutional law scholars. Poland’s legal regulations concerning orders are hardly precise (this being particularly true as far as the constitutional law is discussed) and the fact gives rise to many practical problems concerning application of the country’s constitution and statutes from the field, quite frequently going beyond the matters of orders in the strict meaning of the phrase. One of the questions of the kind, not having become an object of interest to legal scholars so far, is the acceptance by the President of the Republic of Poland of foreign orders and distinctions received either within his capacity as the supreme representative of the State in international relations or as a private individual. The picture resulting from an analysis of practice and theory of order-related issues is hardly a coherent one. The following paper – besides due presentation – aims at sharpening the somewhat blurry image.

The problem of jurisdiction under presidental offences

The article discusses the scope of legal responsibility on the part of The President of the Republic of Poland. The lack of precise legal regulations concerning the matter in question leads to the following conclusion: taking into consideration the present prohibitionof implicit immunity the President of the Republic of Poland ought to share the same realm of legal responsibility as do other Polish citizens. Yet, due to the apparent dangers inherent in the execution of the legal responsibility the author proposes for the jurisdiction in question to be under the supervision of the State Tribunal. The author’s argument is founded on the present legal order as well as in numerous functional and language oriented factors. As a consequence, the author claims “the offense” as defined in the 145th article of the Constitution is in reality a general notion for criminal responsibility.

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.

Temporary impossibility of performing the functions by the Polish President under the Constitution and the new Constitutional Tribunal Act

This paper discusses temporary impossibility of performing the functions by the Polish President. The Polish Constitution defines three kinds of such impossibility. First of all, there are situations when the President may inform about this impossibility, secondly – when s/he cannot do this, and thirdly – the President may be suspended because of being arraigned before the State Tribunal. Each of these situations is considered in the paper, one by one. The author refers, among others, to the grounds on which impossibility of performing the functions by the Polish President is declared and analyses in detail the provisions of the new Constitutional Tribunal Act concerning this issue. The author’s comments are accompanied by related conclusions and suggestions concerning the amendment of both the Polish Constitution and the said act.

Supreme command of the President of the  Republic of Poland of the Armed Forces (selected subjects)

The article presents the status of the President of the Republic of Poland in the executive structure in Poland, taking into account the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal on the dispute settlement between the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of Poland (Kpt 2/08). The author also defines the Presidential power of „supreme command” over the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland (Polish Constitution, Article 134) and the manner in which it is exercised it in times of peace (through the Minister of National Defence), as well as in times of war (through the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces). The article also shows selected specific powers of the President provided for in the statutory law.

The author describes mutual, constitutional relations between the Senate and the head of state, and asks questions about the perspectives of their modification. The political events of 1989 leading to the reinstatement of a single-member head of state and Senate in Poland made their restitution closely related. At present, the competence and functional dependence of these bodies is low. The President and the Senate share a common view on the constant presence in the doctrinal and political discussion of the problem of changing their political position.

This article analyzes tasks and competences of the President of the Republic of Poland as the guardian of sovereignty and security of the state. The author recognizes major importance of the head of state in that field. The President is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces and exercises powers connected with this function. The President also exercises a number of other powers, including those of an extraordinary nature (introduction of martial law and the state of emergency, declaring a time of war, declaring a general or partial mobilization). The author of the article underlines the necessity of cooperation of the President and the Council of Ministers in the field of the state security. It results from the fact that some powers are subject of countersignature of the Prime Minister or are exercised at the request of the Council of Ministers or its members (the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defense).

Once again on the Pre-Constitutional Referendum

The article discusses the issue of the pre-constitutional referendum in Polish law. In 1992 a referendum approving the new constitution was introduced to the constitutional provisions. The current constitutional regulations expressly allow only the possibility of holding a constitutional referendum approving constitutional amendments. However, the analysis of current regulations leads to the conclusion that it is possible to announce a referendum on constitutional matters in accordance with Article 125 of the Constitution, regulating the so-called nationwide referendum.

Is Polish Constitution adjusted to the times of crisis? Selected problems and de lege ferenda propositions

The subject of this article is the question whether the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 provides sufficient guarantees for the continuity of government and cooperation of public authorities in the event of sudden threats such as war, rebellion, natural disaster or terrorist attack. The analysis shows that the Constitution of the Republic of Poland is prepared for standard emergency situations, but does not contain procedures in the event of the worst-case scenarios: necessity of state of emergency during electoral campaign; failure to gather a minimum quorum of 230 deputies for the needs of a session of the parliament; the death of top politicians in the state.

Przedmiotem artykułu jest jedna z instytucjonalnych form kooperacji dwóch podmiotów dualnej egzekutywy w Polsce, czyli instytucja Rady Gabinetowej. Jak stanowi Konstytucja, tworzy ją Rada Ministrów pod przewodnictwem Prezydenta RP. Ustrojodawca wyposażył tym samym głowę państwa w możliwość zwołania spotkania z rządem, który musi stawić się na zaproszenie Prezydenta. Co prawda temu organowi nie przysługują kompetencje Rady Ministrów, jednak można odnieść wrażenie, że rozmowa głowy państwa z rządem to dobra sposobność do wygaszania wzajemnych sporów oraz okazja do rozmowy dwóch politycznych graczy o przyszłości Polski. Czy to wrażenie ma pokrycie w rzeczywistości? Jak wyglądają obrady, co jest ich tematyką i kto im przewodniczy? Jaki może być realny cel obrad? Jakie funkcje może spełniać Rada Gabinetowa w warunkach koabitacji, a jakie przy politycznej jedności obu podmiotów egzekutywy? Celem artykułu jest przede wszystkim znalezienie odpowiedzi na tak postawione pytania.

Dualism of Executive Power in the Third Polish Republic – Constitutional Regulations and Political Practice

The aim of the article is a critical analysis of the rationalized parliamentary system established in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland with the strengthened position of both bodies of the dualistic executive. The study presents the regulations increasing the political role of the President and the government (prime minister) as well as the conditions and political effects of the adopted system. The premise of the article is to highlight the dysfunctionality of the constittional model of the executive and the practice of its implementation.

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.

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.

The Guarantor or an Arbitrator? The Role of the President of the Republic of Poland in the Light of Art. 126 sec. 1 of the Polish Constitution

The author of the study claims that assigning the role of an arbitrator to the President of the Republic of Poland is incorrect. It is a misleading reference to the constitutional position of the President of the Fifth French Republic, who vests much stronger power. It deprives the function of the guarantor of the continuity of power, referred to in Art. 126 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, of its content and systemic significance. The President of the Republic is not impartial and apolitical and takes part in the implementation of state policy. These features prevent him from taking a neutral position towards the participants in the conflict and from resolving it impartially. In addition, the Polish Constitution does not equip him with the appropriate competencies.

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.

Act of March 11, 2022. on defense of the Homeland is a classic example of an “executive act” for the constitutional regulation of issues related to state security, including military security. The Homeland Defence Act contains the so far missing specification of the normative solutions contained in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997. They concern in particular the development of regulations concerning the following constitutional issues: the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland, the duty of a Polish citizen to defend the Homeland, the President of the Republic as the supreme commander of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland and the Council of Ministers as the body that ensures the external security of the state and exercises general management in the field of national defense. The main goal of the legislator is to replace the archaic and incompatible with the current needs and tasks of the Polish state and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland regulations contained in the Act of November 21, 1967. on the general duty to defend the Republic of Poland.

The Institution of the President of the Fourth Republic of Poland

The article is a presentation of concepts concerning the institution of the President of the Republic of Poland in the system of the Fourth Republic, promoted by Law and Justice and the League of Polish Families. Both groups took the position that the president should be made the most important person in the state, with influence over all areas of political life. The president would have the right to determine with the government the main directions of state policy, direct the work of the government according to his will, influence the legislative process so that it proceeds in accordance with his expectations, and control the judiciary. It was believed that this would make the head of state, coming from one party or the other, more effective in implementing the vision of the Fourth Republic.

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.