DOCSLIB.ORG

View in Full Screen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
View in Full Screen Strasbourg, 2 mars/March 2005 Diffusion restreinte/Restricted Etude/Study No 287/2004 CDL-EL(2004)011prov Bil. COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR LA DEMOCRATIE PAR LE DROIT (COMMISSION DE VENISE) EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REPONSES AU QUESTIONNAIRE SUR L’USAGE DU REFERENDUM REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE USE OF REFERENDUMS This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. CDL-EL(2004)011 - 2 - TABLE DES MATIERES / TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Albanie/Albania...............................................................................................................................3 Andorre/Andorra ...........................................................................................................................10 Arménie/Armenia ..........................................................................................................................14 Autriche/Austria ................................................................................................................................ Azerbaidjan/Azerbaijan..................................................................................................................... Belgique/Belgium.............................................................................................................................. Bosnie-Herzégovine/Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................................ Bulgarie/Bulgaria............................................................................................................................... Croatie/Croatia................................................................................................................................... Chypre/Cyprus................................................................................................................................... République Tchèque/Czech Republic .............................................................................................. Danemark/Denmark .......................................................................................................................... Estonie/Estonia .................................................................................................................................. Finlande/Finland................................................................................................................................ France................................................................................................................................................. Géorgie/Georgia ................................................................................................................................ Allemagne/Germany ......................................................................................................................... Grèce/Greece ..................................................................................................................................... Hongrie/Hungary............................................................................................................................... Islande/Iceland................................................................................................................................... Irlande/Ireland.................................................................................................................................... Italie/Italy ........................................................................................................................................... Lettonie/Latvia................................................................................................................................... Liechtenstein...................................................................................................................................... Lituanie/Lithuania ............................................................................................................................. Luxembourg....................................................................................................................................... Malte/Malta........................................................................................................................................ Moldova ............................................................................................................................................. Pays-Bas/Netherlands........................................................................................................................ Norvège/Norway ............................................................................................................................... Pologne/Poland.................................................................................................................................. Portugal .............................................................................................................................................. Roumanie/Romania........................................................................................................................... Fédération de Russie/Russian Federation......................................................................................... Saint-Marin/San Marino.................................................................................................................... Serbie-Monténégro/Serbia and Montenegro .................................................................................... Slovaquie/Slovakia ............................................................................................................................ Slovénie/Slovenia .............................................................................................................................. Espagne/Spain.................................................................................................................................... Suède/Sweden.................................................................................................................................... Suisse/Switzerland............................................................................................................................. “L’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”/“The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”........................................................................................................................................ Turquie/Turkey.................................................................................................................................. Ukraine............................................................................................................................................... Royaume-Uni/United Kingdom........................................................................................................ - 3 - CDL-EL(2004)011 ALBANIE / ALBANIA I - Référendums nationaux A - Quel fondement juridique? 1. Le référendum est prévue par la constitution albanaise. 2. La Constitution, dans l’Article 150 paragraphe 3, statue que les principes et les procédures pour le déroulement du référendum ainsi que sa validité sont prévues par la loi. Le Code Eléctoral comprend aussi des dispositions sur le référendum national et local. B - Quel est le type du référendum? Qui décide? 1. Il n’y a pas de référendum obligatoire. Aucun texte n’est soumis automatiquement au référendum, ni avant ni après son adoption par le Parlement. 2. a. Le référendum peut être organise à la demande d’une autorité. b. L’organisation d’une référendum peut être décidé seulement par le Parlement quand il s’agit d’un problème ou d’un projet de loi d’une importance particulière, ou par le Président de la République, quand le référendum pour un problème particulièrement important est requis par 50.000 citoyens ayant droit de vote. 3. a. 50.000 électeurs enregistrés dans le Registre National des Electeurs ont droit á un référendum général pour l’abrogation d’une loi. Ils peuvent aussi demander au Président de la République l’organisation d’un référendum pour une question particulièrement importante. La demande pour le commencement de la procédure est présentée à la Commission Centrale Electorale (CCE) par un groupe initiateur d’au moins 12 électeurs. Les papiers standard avec les signatures requises sont déposés prés de la CCE qui vérifie les signatures et la régularités des documents d’identification des électeurs. b. Les électeurs ont le droit de présenter une demande de référendum abrogatif sur un texte déjà adopté par le Parlement, mais il n’ont pas le droit de proposer un texte nouveau. 4. La présentation d’un texte au vote populaire doit être soumise á l’accord d’autres organes dans deux cas: CDL-EL(2004)011 - 4 - a. si au moins 50.000 électeurs demandent au Président de la République l’organisation du référendum sur une question particulièrement importante. Dans ce cas c’est le Président qui décide d’accepter ou de ne pas accepter la demande de la fraction du corp électoral. b. si le Conseil des Ministres propose l’organisation d’un référendum sur une question ou un projet de loi d’un intérêt particulier, la décision est du ressort du Parlement. 5. Aucune des options mentionnées dans ce point n’est prévue par la Constitution ou par la loi. C - Contenu 1. Types d’actes soumis au référendum
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dr. Theresa Reidy the Citizens' Assembly
    Paper of Dr. Theresa Reidy University College Cork delivered to The Citizens’ Assembly on 13 January 2018 Session 6: Citizens’ Initiatives Theresa Reidy, University College Cork Introduction Voters in most countries choose their public representatives at national elections. The representatives elected go on to sit in parliament and/or take up executive office. They are responsible for governing on behalf of the citizens that have elected them. We call this representative democracy. Direct democracy occurs when citizens are asked to vote on a specific issue in a referendum or initiative vote. Ireland is a representative democracy which uses referendums (an instrument of direct democracy) to make decisions on changes to the constitution. Many states incorporate elements of direct democracy into their overall systems of representative democracy. Citizens’ initiatives are another tool of direct democracy. Citizens’ initiatives Citizens’ initiative is an umbrella term often used to cover a series of instruments which allow voters to propose a new policy, law or constitutional amendment or to repeal an existing or new piece of legislation. The specific instruments which fall into this category include: 1. A citizens’ initiative which refers to voters proposing and voting in a popular vote on a new legislative or constitutional proposal. 2. An agenda initiative which allows citizens to propose new legislation. If the vote on the agenda initiative is successful, the proposal passes to parliament. Parliament may accept or amend the proposal. 3. An abrogative referendum (sometimes also known as a repeal initiative) which allows citizens to vote to retain or repeal an existing law. 4. A rejective referendums which allows citizens to vote accept or reject a new law.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Democracy an Overview of the International IDEA Handbook © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2008
    Direct Democracy An Overview of the International IDEA Handbook © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2008 International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The map presented in this publication does not imply on the part of the Institute any judgement on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement of such boundaries, nor does the placement or size of any country or territory reflect the political view of the Institute. The map is created for this publication in order to add clarity to the text. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. Cover design by: Helena Lunding Map design: Kristina Schollin-Borg Graphic design by: Bulls Graphics AB Printed by: Bulls Graphics AB ISBN: 978-91-85724-54-3 Contents 1. Introduction: the instruments of direct democracy 4 2. When the authorities call a referendum 5 Procedural aspects 9 Timing 10 The ballot text 11 The campaign: organization and regulation 11 Voting qualifications, mechanisms and rules 12 Conclusions 13 3. When citizens take the initiative: design and political considerations 14 Design aspects 15 Restrictions and procedures 16 Conclusions 18 4. Agenda initiatives: when citizens can get a proposal on the legislative agenda 19 Conclusions 21 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use and Design of Referendums an International Idea Working Paper *
    N. º 4, Segundo Semestre 2007 ISSN: 1659-2069 THE USE AND DESIGN OF REFERENDUMS AN INTERNATIONAL IDEA WORKING PAPER * Andrew Ellis ** [email protected] Nota del Consejo Editorial Abstract: Introduces an International IDEA working paper on referendum and direct democracy as result of an investigation carried out in Europe and Latin America. It analyzes matters such as the use of direct democracy and its impact in representative democracy, as well as the adoption of the referendum mechanism, referenda types, matters of situations where a referendum can take place, participation thresholds, financial controls, the writing of the question to be consulted, etc.. Key words: Direct democracy / Referendum / Popular consultation / Plebiscite / Latin America / Democracy. Resumen: Presenta un ensayo práctico de IDEA Internacional sobre el referéndum y la democracia directa producto de un trabajo investigativo realizado en Europa y América Latina. Analiza temas como el uso de institutos de democracia directa y su impacto en la democracia representativa, la adopción del mecanismo del referéndum, los tipos de referéndum, los temas o situaciones en que un referéndum puede ser celebrado, los umbrales de participación, los controles financieros, la redacción de la pregunta a consultar, etc. Palabras claves: Democracia directa / Referéndum / Consulta popular / América Latina / Democracia. * Dissertation presented at "Seminary of reflection on the importance and use of mechanisms of direct democracy in democratic systems", celebrated on May 25th, 2007, at San José, Costa Rica and organized by International IDEA and the Electoral Supreme Tribunal of the Republic of Costa Rica. This Working Paper is part of a process of debate and does not necessarily represent a policy position of International IDEA.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Ireland Country Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators
    Ireland Report Brendan M. Walsh, Paul L. Mitchell, Nils C. Bandelow (Coordinator) m o c . a i l o t o F – Sustainable Governance g i n n a v Indicators 2016 o j © Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2016 | 2 Ireland Report Executive Summary During the period under review, the pace of the Irish economic recovery accelerated. Its strength and speed have taken commentators by surprise and facilitated the over-achievement of most of the government’s fiscal and economic targets. The deficit has fallen sharply, the level of employment is now close to its pre-recession peak and the unemployment rate is likely to be below 9% by year-end. While there are some fears that the reported exceptionally high rate of growth is somewhat distorted by how multinational corporations are treated in the Irish national accounts, there can be no doubting that the recovery has been robust. The government elected in 2011 will complete its full term of office; the next general election being held on 26 February 2016. The symbolism of leaving office with a booming economy just a month before the centenary celebrations of the Easter 1916 Rising, which led to the eventual independence of the country in 1922, is already being highlighted. The 2016 budget marked a clear move away from years of austerity, which had been characterized by tax increases and expenditure retrenchment. The new budget contained significant reductions in the income tax burden on lower and middle income earners as well as modest increases in social welfare and other current spending. These measures are widely regarded as an effort to influence the electorate in the lead up to the general election.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Direct Democracy in the European Union
    THE ROLE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION LARS P. FELD GEBHARD KIRCHGÄSSNER CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 1083 CATEGORY 2: PUBLIC CHOICE NOVEMBER 2003 PRESENTED AT CESIFO CONFERENCE “A CONSTITUTION FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION”, FEBRUARY 2003 An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded • from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com • from the CESifo website: www.CESifo.de CESifo Working Paper No. 1083 THE ROLE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Abstract In this paper, the introduction of direct-democratic decision-making in all EU decisions is considered when it is feasible without prohibitively increasing decision-making costs. We start with the contractarian argument that each constitution is a contract joining the citizens of a state and requires as such the explicit agreement of (a majority of) citizens. Thus, the future European Constitution as well as future changes of it should be decided by the European citizens. After a discussion of the pros and cons of direct democracy, the ability of direct democracy to help creating a European demos is discussed. Consequently, we propose a mandatory (required and binding) referendum on total and partial revisions of the European Constitution. In addition, we propose a constitutional initiative, a statutory and a general initiative as well as a fiscal referendum for financially important projects. JEL Classification: D78. Keywords: direct democracy, referenda, initiatives. Lars P. Feld Gebhard Kirchgässner Philipps-University of Marburg University of St. Gallen Public Finance Group SIAW-HSG, Institutsgebäude Am Plan 2 Dufourstr. 48 35037 Marburg (Lahn) CH-9000 St. Gallen Germany Switzerland [email protected] [email protected] We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant-No.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Compendium
    Country Compendium A companion to the English Style Guide July 2021 Translation © European Union, 2011, 2021. The reproduction and reuse of this document is authorised, provided the sources and authors are acknowledged and the original meaning or message of the texts are not distorted. The right holders and authors shall not be liable for any consequences stemming from the reuse. CONTENTS Introduction ...............................................................................1 Austria ......................................................................................3 Geography ................................................................................................................... 3 Judicial bodies ............................................................................................................ 4 Legal instruments ........................................................................................................ 5 Government bodies and administrative divisions ....................................................... 6 Law gazettes, official gazettes and official journals ................................................... 6 Belgium .....................................................................................9 Geography ................................................................................................................... 9 Judicial bodies .......................................................................................................... 10 Legal instruments .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Popular Sovereignty and the Use of the Referendum – Comparative Perspectives with Reference to France
    Marie-Luce Paris 1 Popular Sovereignty and the Use of the Referendum – Comparative Perspectives with Reference to France ‘Une constitution, c’est un texte, un esprit et une pratique’ 2 INTRODUCTION Constitutions are bound to evolve. A constitution which cannot change or adapt does not serve effectively its purpose since the values and principles it is based upon need to be ‘brought to life’ through interpretation, application and incremental revisions: in sum, a successful ‘living constitution’ has a past, present and future. 3 In this regard, it is remarkable to observe how the Irish and French Constitutions have survived through time as two of the most enduring constitutions in Europe without either becoming a mere ‘petrified object of devotion’. 4 The 1937 Bunreacht na hÉireann is the Republican constitution which is the longest continuously in operation within the European Union (EU). The 1958 French Constitution of the Fifth Republic, just approaching its 55th year in 2013, is also noteworthy for its longevity. The Fifth Republic is after all the longest regime since the Third Republic (1875–1946) in a country known 1Lecturer at the School of Law, University College Dublin. The author is grateful to Mr T John O’Dowd and Dr Derval Conroy for their relevant comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter. Any remaining errors and omissions remain those of the author. 2‘A constitution, it is a text, a spirit and a practice’: quote by Charles de Gaulle in Bégoc , Le Dictionnaire des Citations Politiques: Petites et Grandes Phrases de la Politique (La Maison d’Editions, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Seanad Éireann
    Vol. 213 Wednesday, No. 2 1 February 2012 DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SEANAD ÉIREANN TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised) Dé Céadaoin, 1 Feabhra 2012. Business of Seanad ………………………………65 Order of Business …………………………………66 Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2011 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages ……………………………87 Motion for Earlier Signature……………………………115 Local Government Reform: Statements, Questions and Answers ………………116 Renewable Energy: Motion ……………………………134 Adjournment Matters Pupil-Teacher Ratio ………………………………165 Schools Recognition ………………………………167 Crime Prevention ………………………………169 Hospital Services ………………………………171 SEANAD ÉIREANN ———— Dé Céadaoin, 1 Feabhra 2012. Wednesday, 1 February 2012. ———— Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m. ———— Paidir. Prayer. ———— Business of Seanad An Cathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator John Whelan that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter: The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to clarify the measures he proposes to take to curb the theft of scrap and precious metals across the country. I have also received notice from Senator Darragh O’Brien of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to grant official status to Gaelscoil Ros Eo, Naomh Maur, County Dublin, which has 96 pupils and been in operation for four years. I have also received notice from Senator Fidelma Healy Eames of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Education and Skills, to review the Government position on small rural schools and its impact on education and communities. I have also received notice from Senator David Cullinane of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to discuss the impact health funding cuts will have on the delivery of services in Waterford Regional Hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis of National Sovereignty in the Military Context of the European Union States on the Example of Romania and Austria
    The Analysis of national Sovereignty in the military Context of the European Union States on the Example of Romania and Austria Bachelor Thesis Created during an ERASMUS exchange from 03th March, 2019 to 03th May, 2019 on the Fachhochschul-Bachelor Programme Military Leadership at the Theresan Military Academy Austria Committee in charge: Col Assoc. Prof. Harald GELL, PhD Assoc. Prof. Anca DINICU, PhD by OCdt Cristina Barbu Student of the “Nicolae Bălcescu” Land Forces Academy of Sibiu Romania Wiener Neustadt, May 2019 Abstract and Keywords in English Language Background: The sovereignty is a controversial attribute of the state. The history gives many examples of confrontations for maintaining or gaining the sovereign power. In order to be stronger and to make progress, the states do not act as separate entities in the new international context anymore. Therefore, as a unity, which brings the order of the international system, the state is influenced and undergoes certain transformations, including the right to exercise its sovereignty. The accession to the European Union (EU) causes a reduction of the Member States’ sovereignty. In these circumstances, the author considers relevant to analyse the national sovereignty in the military context of two EU Member States – Romania and Austria. Purpose: This thesis aims to identify the relationship between the national sovereignty and the military systems of Romania and Austria from the perspective of their memberships to the EU. It also seeks to analyse the sovereignty’s characteristics of the two states and the way, in which the EU influences the organisation and functioning of the armed forces through the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Entitled to Vote?
    Policy paper requested by MEP Josep-Maria Terricabras Nogueras SUMMARY 1. Introduction ....................................................................................3 2. Typologies of referendums ..............................................................6 3. Question wording in independence referendums .............................9 4. Participation and approval thresholds in independence referendums ...19 5. The franchise in independence referendums ..................................24 6. Conclusions and open questions ..................................................33 7. Highlights .....................................................................................37 8. Tables ..........................................................................................39 9. References ..................................................................................47 1. Introduction Referendums are back.1 We can find them at the forefront of political agendas in many countries and they are in the limelight of media coverage worldwide. This is particularly true for Europe, where in recent months referendums have been held on key issues for the electorate, such as electoral reform, nuclear power, gay marriage and citizenship rights, to name just a few. Indeed, a certain trend can be perceived in today’s politics in considering referendums as the best democratic tool to legitimize legal initiatives that are going to deeply affect the people of a country and their ordinary lives. Referendums are subject to a number of criticisms,
    [Show full text]
  • Swiss Political System Introduction
    SWIss POLITICAL SYSTEM INTRODUCTION Switzerland is a small country in Western roots date back to 1291, whereas the Europe with 7.8 million inhabitants. With modern nation state was founded in 1848. its 41,285 square kilometres, Switzerland Switzerland’s population is 1.5 % of Europe; accounts for only 0.15 % of the world’s total however, the country is economically com- surface area. It borders Germany in the paratively strong. north, Austria and Liechtenstein in the east, Italy in the south and France in the west. The population is diverse by language as well as by religious affiliation. Its historical FEDERAL SYSTEM Switzerland is a federation; the territory is divided into 26 cantons. The cantons themselves are the aggregate of 2,600 municipalities (cities and villages). ELECTIONS AND The political system is strongly influenced by DIRECT DEMOCRACY direct participation of the people. In addition to the participation in elections, referenda and ini- tiatives are the key elements of Switzerland’s well-established tradition of direct democracy. CONSENSUS The consensus type democracy is a third char- DEMOCRACY acteristic of Swiss political system. The institu- tions are designed to represent cultural diver- sity and to include all major political parties in a grand-coalition government. This leads to a non- concentration of power in any one hand but the diffusion of power among many actors. COMPARATIVE After the elaboration of these three important PERSPECTIVES elements of the Swiss political system, a com- parative perspective shall exemplify the main differences of the system vis-à-vis other western democracies CONTENTS PUBliCATION DaTA 2 FEDERAL SYSTEM Switzerland is a federal state with three ■■ The decentralised division of powers is political levels: the federal govern- also mirrored in the fiscal federal structure ment, the 26 cantons and around 2,600 giving the cantonal and municipal level own municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Direct Democracy in Swiss Cantons Between 1997 and 2003
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Research Papers in Economics MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Development of Direct Democracy in Swiss Cantons between 1997 and 2003 Fischer, Justina AV University of Hohenheim 08. July 2009 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16140/ MPRA Paper No. 16140, posted 09. July 2009 / 01:11 Development of Direct Democracy in Swiss Cantons between 1997 and 2003 Justina AV Fischer University of Hohenheim Abstract This paper describes institutions of direct democracy between 1997 and 2003 in 26 Swiss cantons (states), specifically the statutory initiative and referendum, the constitutional initiative, and the fiscal referendum. In particular, it discusses their applications, but also the legal requirements for making use of them, including the signature requirements, the time available for their collection, and the financial thresholds. Optional and mandatory forms of these direct-legislative institutions are distinguished. This paper also provides calculations of the index and sub-indices of direct democracy for the additional years 1997 to 2003, in continuation of Stutzer (1999), using the identical methodology. Extending Trechsel and Serdült (1999) and Stutzer (1999) this paper includes the political institutions of the so-called Landsgemeinde cantons. Description of these institutions is based on the author‟s reading of 26 cantonal constitutions in their versions between 1997 and 2003. JEL-codes: H11; H73; K19; H40; H72; N40; D70; I31 Keywords: institutions; direct democracy; direct legislation; initiative; referendum; fiscal referendum; constitution; Switzerland: culture [email protected] and [email protected] , at the time of writing: University of St.
    [Show full text]