The monograph of Joanna Marszałek-Kawa concerns one of the key problems of the European integration process: the impact of European Union membership on the position of the national parliament. It is clear that EU membership affects the constitutional status and functions of national legislature in a number of ways. The author hypothesised the following: „After the accession of Poland to the European Union, both the Polish constitutional status and functions of the Sejm of the RP have significantly changed. The Council of Ministers became an authority that partly assumed its competences, which in practice should be viewed as dominance of an executive over a legislative branch. As a result of accession, prerogatives of the Sejm were significantly reduced in favour of the government. The fall of legislative sovereignty took place when the amendments made were more and more oft en assessed.” 

The Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship constitutes one of the smallest of the Polish voivodeships. It is composed of nineteen land districts and four city counties, including Bydgoszcz, Torun, Wloclawek and Grudziadz. According to the data provided by the Public Electoral Commission (PKW), in 2009 the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship was inhabited by more than 2 million people, 1.65 million of whom had the right to vote. Despite the relatively small number of inhabitants, due to provisions of the act regulating the process of voting for the Members of the European Parliament, the voivodeship in question became a separate electoral district with the electoral commission located in Bydgoszcz. This decision was infl uenced mostly by members of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) representing this region in the Polish Parliament. This lobbing activity seemed benefi cial from the party’s perspective, since SLD has been gaining extraordinary support in the region. But for this lobbing, the voivodeship under consideration would have been included in one district together with the Pomeranian Voivodeship, where the majority of voters are prone to give their support to the right-wing and centre-wing parties.

According to Montesquieu tripartite system, formed in the European constitutionalism, the organs of authority, in a democratic state, affect each other in an inhibitory way, balancing mutually. Traditionally, it is understood that the executive power is performed by the Head of State (monarch, president) and government, legislative power belongs to the parliament, whereas the judicial power is exercised by independent courts. Analyzing the political reality of member states it is necessary to note, that the executive participates in the national legislative processes more actively, for example, through executing constitutionally granted right of legislative initiative (usually together with deputies), by issuing acts with the power of law, or incorporating Community directives into the internal legal order.

A study of the Euro-barometer performed at the end of January and beginning of February 2009 showed that not even 34% of the surveyed in all the 27 countries of the European Union declares the desire to cast their vote in the approaching election to the Euro-community. 15% of the respondents answered that they would de! nitely not vote in the coming election. The participation in the European Parliament Elections has fallen from election to election. This tendency persists and no signs of improvement of the situation can be seen. In 1994, 56.8% of the entitled to vote participated in the elections in all the member countries. Ten years later, only 45.6% of voters cast their votes. New member countries with low level of interest in European matters have considerably contributed to the fall in the level of legitimisation of the European Parliament.

The European Union increasingly in€uences the member states, their political institutions, business groups, commercial business sector and the citizens. The institutions, politics and legal regulations of the Communities in€uence also countries and human beings from outside the Union. is in€uence means that each member state of the European Union has its own representative in the European Institutions such as European Parliament, European Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors.

Political scientists, in their research work, concentrate on various topics. For some, thoughts and ideas of a famous statesman are fascinating and for others is the future influence of NGO’s on local communities. One thing, one time is said to have enough potential to unite attention of most of political scientists, as this is an event when they may observe how matters that they are especially interested in are apprehended. is mentioned event is, in my opinion, what elections indeed are and some may even say that elections are the festival of politics and sometimes of democracy.

EU financial perspective 2007–2013 and the directions of development of the community policies

The progressive process of European integration has shaped and developed the policy of the European Community. The structural policy meant the Commu­nity intervention in the economic structures of the Member States. This policy, however, did not include the Community interventions in a social structure. The concept of the regional policy appeared in the 30's of the twentieth century and it was used only at the state level. The cohesion policy for 2007–2013 has aimed at the increase of economic growth and employment in all regions and cities of the European Union. It has been implemented mainly by two structural funds, namely: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF).

In the perspective of 2007–2013 the differences between the legal bases for the operations of the European Regional Development Fund and the Europe­an Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund have been blurred. In November 2013, the European Parliament adopted a budget for 2014–2020. For the first time the multiannual financial framework for the EU will actually lower than the previous ones.

The migrant crisis in Europe, which reached its zenith in 2015, made EU politicians realize the urgent need for a more effective migration policy that would rely more on supranational cooperation. Absence of this policy triggers migrant influx to Europe, in particular of unqualified labour force, and enhances illegal migration from which organized criminal groups profit enormously. Moreover, uncontrolled migration processes give rise to a number of social, economic, political and cultural problems all across the EU, and thus nurture the Eurosceptic mood. This leads to societal negation of the European integration project and provides fertile soil to the spread of radicalism and xenophobia. The aim of the study is to capture the position of European Parliament on recent migrant crisis. The Parliament, a democratically legitimate body, which claims the right to represent European societies, advocates adoption of systemic EU approach to migration which should be based on the respect of human rights and creation of legal migration pathways for refugees and workers needed by Europe. The solution of the present migrant crisis is sought by the EP in moving towards a common, comprehensive European immigration policy and enhanced solidarity of EU member states in response to increased influx of refugees from conflict zones.

The article outlines the role of the EU in resolving the armed conflict in the western Sudanese province of Darfur, and explains the important role played by the EU in its engaged in peacekeeping and that guided his condition, as well as how it actions and decisions were received by the Darfurians and the government in Khartoum. Unfortunately, the nature and progress of the conflict, and above all, the great ignorance of the region and the population, makes all attempts to resolve the conflict are ineffective. Through these years, the EU has introduced a number of resolutions, declarations and sanctions. All this was not only to save the life of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but also opposition to the regime and impact on its interests. Unfortunately, there was no general coordination of EU the actions, not only in Darfur, but also in the whole of Sudan. That resulting chaos in actions related to the quality of cooperation between the EU bodies. There was no close co-operation aimed at planning of aid from the United Nations, also because it was a kind of rivalry between EU and UN organizations who want to be seen as a major mediator in peacekeeping.

This article analyses the position of European Parliament (EP) in the question of the lasting from 2010 association process of the South Caucasus countries with the EU. The process is aimed at the establishment of close, extensive political and economic cooperation of the countries with the EU. The author stresses the importance attached by EP to the association negotiations, which according to the Parliament should have a crucial impact on the democratization process in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. It should be underlined that the development of democracy in those EU’s partner countries is of special interest to EP, which in recognition of their geopolitical importance with its numerous resolutions requires making closer relations with them and even providing the countries with a potential European perspective (Georgia). However the more extensive cooperation of the EU with the countries is made dependent by EP on the incorporation by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia of the values defined as European (democracy, rule of law, protection of human rights etc.). That is why so important for EP are the questions of human rights observance, observance of the rules of democracy and law, including transparency and fairness of the processes in the countries. In case of violating rules constituting foundations for democratic and lawful country’s functioning, EP responds in a determined way and usually takes un unambiguous stand quite often contrasting with more “weighted” opinions of other Union institutions.

The article presents the problem of the functioning of factions within the European Parliament and the formation of coalitions between individual political groups basing on the Rules of Procedure and data from the seventh term of the EP. The article involves an analysis of the principles for forming factions as specified in the Rules of Procedure of the EP and the consequences for the cooperation of national parties in the Parliament arising from these regulations. In the second part of the article, matters concerning coalition formation between political groups within the EP are discussed together with the phenomenon of ‘grand coalitions’, related definitional problems and the functioning of the entire political system of the EU in this context.

It is without any doubt that one of the most important elements of every democratic political system is a Parliament, that is, a collective authority elected in direct elections, which is simultaneously an emanation of will of citizens as a sovereign. Over the years of the technological development of societies and evolution of the economic cooperation amongst states, its role and scope of responsibilities have gradually grown. The European Parliament is one of the key elements of the institutional system of the European Union, and thus, the only body, the composition of which is elected in direct election. This body, as a forum for universal representation by the elected deputies from the member states, brings together views and positions not only of the representatives but also of their electorate. The parliament is also an expression of the multinational EU community, its voice and its desire to have influence on the fate of the entire EU.
This article presents the evolution of the European Parliament and of the election law concerning this body, since its formation as an institution of the European Union until now. The purpose of this article is to present changes which have taken place in the EU legislation in respect of the electoral law, on the basis of which members of the parliament are elected, since the formation of the EP. The main subject of this article covers following issues: how the evolution process of the parliament has looked like over the years, how its position in the institutional architecture of the EU has been evolving and how it has been endeavoured to harmonize electoral procedures to this body over the years. The article is about the evolutionary political position of the EP. The article focuses on selected aspects of unification of the electoral procedure for the election to the EP due to their path-breaking character and importance of the procedure being currently in force.

Ensuring cyber security in scope of cyber defense is currently among the top priorities of the EU Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Matters included in scope of cyber defense are a competence of the Member States and cooperation at EU level in this area is governed by decisions of the EU Council based on unanimity. This means that the European Parliament (EP) in the field of cyber defens acts only as an opinion-forming body expressing its position through the adoption of non-legislative resolutions. The aim of the article is to analyze the content of these resolutions and present the EP’s opinion on the challenges facing the EU in the field of cyber defense. It should be stressed that the EP is the EU body that strongly emphasizes the need for a common EU approach to these issues. Given that the area of cyber defence is subject to intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms, the EP considers that the EU needs to develop not only cooperation and coordination mechanisms at the level of its institutions, but also to take action to enhance the EU’s capability to counter cyber threats. These significant cyber defense capabilities should be essential elements of the CSDP and of the development of the European Defense Union, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to counter cyber attacks for the Member State level alone. The role of the CSDP should be to ensure that the EU, in cooperation with NATO, has an autonomous strategic capability to act in the field of cyber defense.

This article addresses the problem of the EP’s role in the process of multi-level governance illustrated with the example of EU expansion policy through the accession of the West Balkan states. As an effect of the European integration process, resulting in the transfer of decision-making competences from the state level to the transnational level, nation-states have lost their monopolistic position in the European decision-making process. This has enabled the formation of multi-level political system within the EU. Within the system, there is a multi-level governance model, with the EP as its crucial element. This article reveals an important role of the EP as a transnational decision-making centre, which with its specific competences (giving consent to the accession of a country to the EU, giving consent to sign international agreements crucial for the integration process, budget rights, co-decisions on the form of the EU law with an ordinary law making procedure) considerably forms the policy of the EU in relation to the Balkan countries. The explanation of the policy’s functioning and its outcomes are based on the concept of multi-level governance, which is analyzed herein in depth.

European Parliament’s participation in the process of shaping Ukraine’s electoral law

The article is an attempt to look at the process of shaping Ukraine’s electoral law in terms of the European Parliament’s initiatives. The research aim is to demonstrate the influence of the European Parliament in this regard. The research was based on a qualitative methodology with the use of institutional and legal analysis and critical analysis of strategies. The research showed that the European Parliament was the main initiator of changes in Ukraine’s electoral law after the entry into force of the Association Agreement. European Parliament significantly contributed to the reforms’ implementation and made Ukraine one step closer to the European Union.