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.

The evolution of the European Parliament as an institution in the legislation of the European Union and the status of its members – selected issues

The article presents the evolution of the mandate of a Member of Parliament from the beginning of its development as an institution of the European Union. PE began to take shape already in 1949 due to the changes that followed as a result of the formation of the European Communities.It is believed that, its benchmark was a Consultation Assembly of the Council of Europe which was brought into being in 1949. Moreover, its beginnings can be associated with Paris Treaty signed on 18 April 1951. Under this treaty the European Union of Coal and Steel was created. European Parliament Deputies` status was assigned by the Decision of Council of the European Union concerning an election of members of the European Parliament in general elections (76/787/EWWiS, EWG, Euratom), Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the Regulations of the European Parliament and the European Parliament decision on the adoption of the status of Members of the European Parliament. The purpose of this article is to show the changes that have since the beginning of the formation of the EP followed in EU legislation, in relation to the EP and how legislation is shaped mandate of its members. The basic thesis of this article is how the process of evolution PE over the years, has changed its position in the EU institutional system, and how over the years, regulated the issue of the mandate and status of its deputies. The article is also of evolutionary political position of the EP and the status of its members. The analysis, applicable to several common problems associated with the evolution of EU legislation, the institution of free mandate of MEP over the years.

Legal Protection of a Member of Parliament – Comments de lege lata

Legal protection of the polish Parliament members’ includes material, formal and personal immunity. The material immunity guarantees that deputies mustn’t be called to account for their activity which is a part of their seats in the Parliament. The formal immunity prohibits instituting legal proceedings against a deputy without the Parliament’s agreement. The personal immunity means a prohibit of deputies’ detention and arresting without the Parliament’s agreement. A wide range of legal protection of the polish Parliament members’ guarantees them free and independent representative activity. An aim of these privileges is an assurance of independence and autonomy of the polish Parliament. It is important to remember that in accordance with the present legislatives deputy’s immunity mustn’t be treated as a privilege that guarantees impunity and relieving deputies’ of criminal responsibility

Members of the Bundestag enjoy parliamentary immunity under the Basic Law. The member may be held liable or arrested for an offense punishable by criminal law only if the Bundestag permits it and waives the member’s immunity, unless the member is caught red-handed or on the following day. Since the majority rule also applies here, the decision to waive immunity is decided by the governing majority. This raises the question, especially on the part of members of individual opposition parties, to what principles the Bundestag is subject to when deciding whether or not to waive the immunity of a member of the Bundestag. The Bundestag’s reservation of permission (Genehmigungsvorbehalt) to conduct criminal proceedings according with the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court serves primarily the benefit of the parliament as a whole. The subjective rights of members of the Bundestag to certain conduct of the Bundestag cannot be derived directly from the Article 46 (2) of the Basic Law. However, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 46 in conjunction with the second sentence of the Article 38 (1) of the Basic Law, a member of the Bundestag may demand that the Bundestag, deciding whether or not to waive his or her immunity, not be guided by unreasonable and arbitrary motives.

Non-Obvious Immunities – Comments on Polish Legal and Financial Regulations

Immunity (parliamentary, judicial or vested in other persons performing important public functions) seems to be an indispensable institution in legal systems of democratic countries. However, notwithstanding the legal regulations on immunity(s) in given conditions (regulations on immunity expressis verbis), there are also legal provisions which indirectly exempt people who perform certain public functions from liability or create a situation where they cannot be held liable. This study is devoted to such unobvious immunities in Polish law. The analysis is limited to the sphere of financial law due to the functions, role and significance of public financial decisions and their effects. Recognizing that finances are „nerves of the state”, tolerance (non-sanctioning) in this sphere of undesirable behavior requires analysis, especially in the context of the principles of proper management of public funds.

The Material Scope of Immunities in the Light of the Notion of “Criminal Liability” in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland

In the article the author analyses whether the notion of ‘criminal liability’ contained in constitutional provisions relating to formal immunity should be understood in the same way as the identical term in art. 42(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The author answers affirmatively to such research question, relying on linguistic directives of interpretation (prohibition of synonymous and homonymous interpretation), as well as the need to safeguard the effectiveness of immunity. Alternative line of interpretation – presented in the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal P 31/12 and based on exceptiones non sunt extendendae argument – is rejected. From this one can derive a conclusion that formal immunity provides protection against i.a. liability for administrative infractions. The author observes as well that statutory provisions which precise constitutional regulations on immunity do not cover such situations.