The first and the second reform of federalism in the Federal Republic of  Germany – the amendments of the Basic Law of 2006 and 2009 in order to the legislative powers and financial relations of the Union and Länder

The text contains description and analysis of changes of 2006 and 2009 in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany concerning legislative powers and financial relations of federation and länder. The text begins with a description of advancing for over 50 years “process of policies’ merging”, described already in seventies of 20th century as a “trap”. Therefore, it was important to try to resolve the problem by two large amendments of the German constitution in 2006 and 2009 (i.e. the 1st and the 2nd reforms of federalism). The author describes assumptions and instruments applied by the first reform, ie. strengthening of legislative competences of the Union and länder, reducing the number of cases towards which the Bundesrat may apply the absolute veto, limiting so-called “mixed funding”, making “blocking up” of the Union and the countries through new regulation of matters more difficult by requiring the approval of the Bundesrat, as well as the adjustment of the Basic Law to the challenges of membership of Germany in the European Union. In this context the second reform of federalism was also the subject of analysis. The reform amended the system of mutual financial relations of the Union and countries and introduced a so-called “debt brake” (Schuldenbremse) but also limited some solutions which had been introduced three years before.

The legal status of the independent Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, which in 1990 seceded from Moldavia being then a part of the USSR, still remains unclear. Although over a quarter of the century has passed since its creation, it is still a de facto state, for it has not been recognized by the international community. In the lights of the international law Transnistria is treated as a Moldavian autonomous region of a special status. The hereby paper is the next publication out of the series, undertaken within the wider research over Transnistria’s legal status. It comprises the fragmentary results of the further research phase, which aims at analysing its binding basic law and the assumptions of its constitution- al system. The subject of the work is the shape and content of the independent Transnistria’s constitution of 1995, which has been revised several times and is still in force. The results of this research contributes to more precise determination of the region’s legal status.

Human dignity in the Israel’s legal order – an outline of the problem

The traumatic experiences of World War II have highlighted the serious deficit of national and international measures to protect human rights and their ideological support to place human dignity as the main and indisputable pillar of a democratic state and supranational communities. Human dignity is nowadays one of the factors determining the court’s jurisdictional proceedings. This also applies to states that formally did not include it in the catalog of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. Qualitative, quantitative and comparative analysis of the functioning of the concept of human dignity reveals its various meanings and functions. They are determinants in assessing the activities of state authorities from the point of view of implementing the principles of a democratic state of law and the need to respect the rights of individuals. In connection with the richness of interpreting the concept of human dignity within the framework of constitutional values, one can not ignore the rich history of the doctrine of human dignity. It allows us to understand and define the nature of general concepts and give different meanings. Human dignity in many legal systems, including Israel, is a constitutional value, as well as the law that the constitutional norms guarantee. The issue of its regulation and definition in the Israeli legal order due to the specificity of the problem is an interesting issue, both theoretical and legal as well as practical.

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.

The 1993 Russian constitution has been amended many times. The largest amendment was carried out on March 14, 2020. However, this is not a revision of the Constitution. The amendment includes changes strengthening the constitutional position of the President of the Russian Federation, correcting the federal system and the legal status of the bicameral Parliament and the Government of the Russian Federation. A new constitutional body was introduced, the State Council of the Russian Federation, and, for the first time, a provision on faith in God was introduced. Russia’s right not to recognize rulings and decisions of international bodies contrary to the Russian Constitution and the right to support compatriots living abroad in the exercise of their rights to protect their interests were enshrined. The amendment to the Russian Constitution is of fundamental importance for the policy pursued and the implementation of Russia’s national security strategy.