Constitutional responsibility of the President of Ukraine

This article presents issues pertaining to the constitutional responsibility acknowledged by the president of Ukraine. Under the Ukrainian law, the scope of responsibilities taken over by the president of Ukraine translates into his legal and system-related position. According to the Constitution of 26 June 1996, the duties and responsibilities may be attributed ex officio, under the procedure of impeachment. The aim of this article is also to present differences between the representatives of legal doctrines in terms of acknowledging the constitutional responsibility by the president of Ukraine. The article also specifies each stage of the procedure aimed at dismissing the president, provides a list of bodies authorised to commence and conduct the proceedings and making the final decision on the dismissal. Furthermore, the article also provides analysis of legal effects being exerted when the head of state was unconstitutionally dismissed by Viktor Yanukovych. The result of the analysis of legal acts was the formulation of de lege ferenda conclusions referring to/concerning the spectrum of entities authorized to initiate and conducting the impeachment procedure.

The Constitutional Responsibility of the President of Serbia

The topic of this article is the constitutional responsibility of the President of Serbia and the powers of the parliament and the Constitutional Court in this regard. The procedures governing the President for pulling constitutional responsibility begins with the submission of the proposal in Parliament on the indictment of President of having committed a constitutional delict and carrying preliminary proceedings by the committee and adoption by Parliament of a resolution on the adoption or rejection of the application. When determining and adjudicating authority is the Parliament, a group of deputies initiated the proceedings. Then the major procedure is carried out and shall be tested the charges against President. In addition, the committed by the President of the constitutional delict is required the Constitutional Court decision. At the end of voting takes place on the submission of the President from office because of committing a constitutional delict and order early elections for President. The decision is made by a resolution of Parliament.

„Even the same Ones, who are Established to be Protectors of Law, they Ought to be Their First Preservers”. On the Rule of Law in the Debate and Reform work of Polish Great Sejm (1788–1792)

Although the theoretical assumptions of the concept of the rule of law have been developed in the continental tradition only in the 19th century, its systemic elements have their roots deep in history. In this contribution, the author analyses selected examples from the field of legislation and legal culture of the Great Sejm era (1788–1792). She focuses in particular on the problems of articulation and functioning of the supremacy of the constitution in the legal order and the innovative shaping of the responsibilities of key state authorities. These issues notably seem to reflect the suspension between the domestic heritage and the modernity of constitutionalism. At the same time, both cases prove that the ratio legis of these solutions was primarily of a practical, not conceptual nature.

Constitutional Responsibility of the Presidents in the Post-Soviet Authoritarian States

The article tackles the issue of constitutional responsibility of the Presidents of post-Soviet authoritarian republics (Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan). This institution exists in the legal orders of most of them, although the complicated procedure, that involves parliaments, supreme courts, and constitutional courts makes it hardly possible to successfully impeach the President. This confirms the thesis that the institution of a democratic state of law in the case of most post-Soviet countries is just a facade. The consecutive parts of the text discuss the existing models of constitutional responsibility of the Presidents of democratic countries, the views of Russian-language legal doctrine regarding this issue, and the regulations implemented by the post-Soviet authoritarian states. The procedure is multi- stage, and the reason for impeachment may be a state treason or a serious crime, but generally not a constitutional tort.