Prosecutor’s Office and the Council of Ministers  (remarks aside the evaluation of the report of Public  Prosecutor General by the President of the Council of Ministers)

The time of the prosecutor’s office functioning within the new political system allowed for determination of deficiencies in terms of legal regulations and correction of the legal instruments of the prosecutor’s office operation. Present legal regulations give the autonomy to the Public Prosecutor General, which is expressed in the fact that the prosecutor’s office is not subordinate to any other state authority. However, placement within the state authorities’ structures does not involve breaking up the institutional bonds between the Public Prosecutor General and other public authorities, especially with the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice. Pursuant to the idea of separation of powers in the democratic state of law, apart from the principle of competences distribution, the principle of public authorities’ co-operation is underlined. In the context of the activity of the Public Prosecutor General and yearly report which is submitted by him to the Council of Ministers the author presents the dilemmas which result from the situation. She indicates which direction the changes shall go with reference to it, in the new act on the prosecutor’s office right which is under preparation by the government. The main objective of the new bill is to allow for the parliamentary, yearly debate over the prosecutor’s office activity and introduction of institutional solutions which would allow for good co-operation of the Council of Ministers with the Public Prosecutor General, what does not always happen. The author thinks that the act does not specify any deadline in which the President of the Council of Ministers has to evaluate the report. Such a state of uncertainty is a major threat for the prosecutor’s office functioning. It may have a negative impact on the act of undertaking organizational and functional changes which improve the work of the prosecutor’s office, while the Public Prosecutor General being afraid of the prime minister’s decision may avoid public speaking in important issues. This is why the prime minister shall be bound with the specified deadline for giving the decision. Additionally, the President of the Council of Ministers may apply to the Seym with the motion to recall the Public Prosecutor General before the end of the period which he was appointed for. The article indicates then issues that have to be changed in the new act in order to assure the efficient functioning of the prosecutor’s office.

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.