Legal opinion on whether there is need to take a vote, during the sitting of the Sejm, to remove from office of the member of the Presidium of the Sejm in the event of his/her resignation

The opinion analyses the possibility of removal from office of the Marshal (Speaker) and Vice-Marshals (Deputy Speakers) of the Sejm. In the author’s view, the provision contained in the amendment to the Standing Orders (2008) making possible such a remove is not compatible with Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, which does not relate to appointment of a Marshal or Vice-marshals, but rather deals with the “election” of a Marshal (which would imply his/her irremovability during the term of parliament). He also points to the controversies relating to the possibility of an appropriate application of the provision on resignation from the function of Marshal when the Vice-Marshal has been removed from office. Such an interpretation seems to be abuse of law, since an appropriate application of the provisions in similar situations cannot be assumed, but should rather be expressly formulated in a legal provision. From an analysis of Article 10a (5) of the Standing Orders of the Sejm it follows that the future regulation should be made more specific, particularly by the inclusion of the case of death and the conditions of resignation of the Vice-Marshal

Legal opinion on a local referendum (according to particular questions)

In response to the questions posed, the author reminds us that from the constitutional principle of universal suffrage, specifying one of the fundamental principles of electoral law, there follows an obligation to organize, inter alia, a referendum in such a way that the highest possible number of eligible voters can participate. According to the author, it is difficult to give an unambiguous answer to the question of what would be the impact of failure to create the so‑called separate polling districts, since the literal wording of the legal provisions does not resolve numerous problems raised in the request for opinion. In the absence of statutory requirement (Article 54 of the Act on Local Referendum) for creation of separate district in respect of local referenda, it is doubtful – in the author’s view – that legality of referendums will be challenged by courts

Legal Opinion on the Possibility of Covering by Insurance Civil Liability of the Deputies for Running their Parliamentary Offices

The author claims that non‑accountability or non‑liability (parliamentary privilege) provided for in the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator protects a Deputy (a Senator) only in relation to his/her activity falling with the scope of the exercise of his/her mandate. This privilege is a so‑called permanent immunity, and covers all types of MPs’ liability before the courts, including civil liability. The Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator provides that A Deputy and Senator is entitled to a limp sum to cover the costs related to the functioning of the offices, according to the principles and in amount specified, respectively, by the Marshals of both chambers. These funds cannot be spent for purposes other than those specified above. The absence of insurance (a widely known category of costs) in the list of expenses specified in §9 (1) of the Order No. 8 of the Marshal of the Sejm does not seem to be incidental. In the author’s view, it is deliberately and intentionally omitted in the Order. Civil liability insurance would relate only to organisational and technical aspects of the functioning of a Deputy’s office, but not to the exercise by a Deputy of his/her mandate (i.e. parliamentary duties) in a Deputy’s offic

Legal opinion on holding accountable, on disciplinary matters, by the regional bar council, of a D eputy who is also an advocate – for public appearances in connection with the exercise of their mandate

The author attempts to resolve the issue of the admissibility of the extension of parliamentary immunity to include disciplinary (professional) responsibility of the Deputy for actions taken in connection with the exercise of the mandate. He claims that material immunity (non‑liability) enshrined in the Constitution and developed by the Act on the Exercise of the Mandate of a Deputy or Senator, also applies to the professional activity of the Deputy, provided that such activities fall within the “scope of the mandate”, as referred to in Article 105 of the Constitution. In the conclusion, he stresses that the Deputy being at the same time an advocate accounts to the Sejm for the activities falling within the scope of the mandate