DOCSLIB.ORG

First Name Last Name Country Parliament/Chamber Department/Unit Workshop, Round 1 Workshop, Round 2 1 Mr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

First name Last name Country Parliament/Chamber Department/Unit Workshop, round 1 Workshop, round 2 1 Mr. Calin-Mihai RACOTI IPEX IPEX IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 2 Ms. Birgit von Pflug Germany Deutscher Bundestag European Affairs documentation Promoting IPEX Promoting IPEX 3 Ms. Iuna Sadat Belgium Senate Legislative Department Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 4 Mr. Yves Carl Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies International Relations Department Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 5 Mr. Marc Angel Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies Member of Luxembourg Chamber of deputies Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 6 Mr. Michael HOESSL Germany Bundesrat European Affairs Committee Improving the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 7 Mr. Daniel Nyilas Hungary Hungarian National Assembly Committee on European Affairs Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 8 Mr. Bruno Dias Pinheiro Portugal Assembleia da República Committees Secretariat Promoting IPEX Promoting IPEX 9 Ms. Cristina Correia Portugal Assembleia da República Permanent Representative of the Portuguese ParliamentEnhancing to the EU the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 10 Ms. Lotte Rickers Olesen Denmark Folketinget International Secretariat Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 11 Ms. LORELLA DI GIAMBATTISTA ITALY ITALIAN SENATE Standing and Special Committees Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 12 Ms. BEATRICE GIANANI ITALY ITALIAN SENATE BRUSSEL Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 13 Mr. Luk Van Looy Belgium Flemisch Parliament Legal Service Improving the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 14 Ms. Petra Ďurinová Slovakia National Council of the Slovak RepublicParliamentary institute of the Chancellery of the NationalImproving Council the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 15 Ms. Anna Uhnáková Slovakia National Council of the Slovak RepublicEuropean Affairs Department Improving the IPEX database Improving the IPEX database 16 Ms. Terezie Pisarova Czech Republic Senate Chancellery of the Czech Senate - EU Affairs dept. Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 17 Ms. Saša Lavrič Slovenia The National Assembly of the Republic ofCommittee Slovenia on EU Affairs Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 18 Ms. Caroline Schmölzer Sweden the Riksdag Committee on Health and Welfare Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 19 Ms. Aleksandra Jovanović Serbia National Assembly of the Republic of SerbiaEuropean Integration Department Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 20 Ms. Annie Schaffrath Sweden Swedish Parliament/Riksdagen Committee on Defence Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 21 Mr. Jakob Sjövall Sweden Swedish parliament Secretariat for EU coordination Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 22 Ms. Katry Ahi Estonia Riigikogu, Estonian Parliament EU Affairs Committee Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 23 Ms. Külli Kapper Estonia Riigikogu, Estonian Parliament EU Affairs Committee Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 24 Ms. Margit Muul Estonia Riigikogu, Estonian Parliament Chancellery of the Riigikogu Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 25 Ms. Lorella Di Giambattista Italy Italian Senate Standing and Special Committees Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 26 Mr. TIM DE BONDT COUNTRY BELGIAN SENATE European Affairs Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 27 Ms. Eva Hadravová Czech Republic Chamber of Deputies Committee on European Affairs Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 28 Ms. Eva Balounová Czech Republic Chamber of Deputies Parliamentary Institute Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 29 Ms. Eva Tetourová Czech Republic Chamber of Deputies Parliamentary Institute Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 30 Ms. Luiza-Georgiana Roibu Romania Chamber of Deputies Department for Parliamentary studies and EU policies/EUEnhancing Division the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 31 Ms. Agota Földes Sweden Riksdagen Näringsutskottet Improving the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 32 Ms. Jeannine Vassallo Malta House of Representatives Research Section Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 33 Mr. Mongin Forrest Denmark Danish Parliament International Department Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 34 Ms. Renée Krebs Germany German Bundestag European Affairs Department Promoting IPEX Promoting IPEX 35 Mr. Girts Ostrovskis Latvia Saeima European Affairs Committee Improving the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 36 Ms. Snježana Ramljak Croatia Croatian Parliament Office for International and European Affairs Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 37 Mr. Henning Stuhr Germany Bundestag Liaison Office Brussels Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 38 Ms. Sara Andersson Sweden The Swedish Parliament AdministrationSecretariat – EU coordination Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 39 Ms. Agnieszka Maciejczak Poland Sejm EU Division Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 40 Ms. Regina Wasowicz Poland Sejm of the Republic of Poland European Information and Documentation Centre Improving the IPEX database Improving the IPEX database 41 Ms. Ilse Van den Driessche The Netherlands Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal Standing Committee on European Affairs Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 42 Ms. SKRZYNSKA Magdalena Poland Sejm EU Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 43 Ms. Joanna Kwiecien Poland Senate Foreign and EU Affairs Committee Unit Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 44 Ms. Iwona Kozera-Rytel Poland Senate Legal Department Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 45 Ms. Livia Spada Sweden The Swedish Parliament EU coordination unit Improving the IPEX database Enhancing the IPEX network 46 Mr. Søren Koushede Denmark Folketinget - The Danish Parliament International Secretariat Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 47 Mr. Manuel Carlo Papuc România Senate IT Improving the IPEX database Improving the IPEX database 48 Mr. Paolo Atzori EU European Parliament Directorate for relations with national parliaments Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 49 Mr. Csaba HUSZAR Hungary National Assembly EU Department Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 50 Ms. Lidiya Simova Bulgaria Народно събрание Committee on European Affairs Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 51 Mr. Mladen Lambev Bulgaria Народно събрание Directorate “International Relations, protocol and BulgarianEnhancing Presidency the IPEX of the network CouncilImproving of the EU” the IPEX database 52 Mr. Vladimir Doychinov Bulgaria Народно събрание Directorate "CT Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 53 Mr. Matas Maldeikis Lithuania Seimas Beased in Brussels Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 54 Ms. Katharina Stourzh Austria Austrian parliament EU-Information and -Databasemanagement Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 55 Ms. Carmen Mihăileanu Romania Senate Service for European Affairs Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 56 Ms. Mihaela Barbieru Romania Romanian Senate European Affairs Division Enhancing the IPEX network Promoting IPEX 57 Ms. Janneke Timmer The Netherlands Dutch parliament Parliamentary representation Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 58 Mr. Kenneth CURMI MALTA Kamra tad-deputati COSAC Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 59 Ms. Haralambia Parla Cyprus House of Representatives International Relations Service Improving the IPEX database Promoting IPEX 60 Ms. Georgia Liberi Cyprus House of Representatives European Affairs Service Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 61 Ms. Eleni Georgiou Cyprus House of Representatives International Relations Service Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 62 Ms. Izabella moldovan Romania Senate General Secretariat Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 63 Ms. Satu TUOMIKORPI Finland Parliament of Finland the Grand Committee Promoting IPEX Promoting IPEX 64 Ms. Mia NORDLUND Finland Parliament of Finland the Grand Committee Enhancing the IPEX network Enhancing the IPEX network 65 Mr. Gerard HILBERT EU EP ITEC (Informatics) Improving the IPEX database Improving the IPEX database 66 Ms. Blanca Hernández Oliver Spain Congress of Deputies Directorate for Studies, Research and Documentation Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 67 Ms. Carmen Sánchez-Abarca Gornals Spain Cortes Generales Congress of Deputies General Secretariat Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 68 Mr. Jasenko Selimovic Sweden European Parliament European Parliament 69 Ms. Helena Fridman Konstantinidou Sweden Swedish riksdag Committee on EU Affairs Promoting IPEX Enhancing the IPEX network 70 Ms. Laura Heller Austria National Council EU-and International Services Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 71 Ms. Elise Valetoux France National Assembly European Affairs commission Promoting IPEX Improving the IPEX database 72 Mr. Johan Eriksson Sweden Sveriges riksdag Committee on Social Insurance Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 73 Ms. Maja Sjöstedt Sweden Sveriges riksdag Committee on the Labour Market Enhancing the IPEX network Improving the IPEX database 74 Ms. Maria Sundin Sweden Swedish Riksdag Library Improving the IPEX database Improving the IPEX database 75 Ms. Dinka Jasarevic Sweden Swedish Riksdag EU coordination secretariat 76 Ms. Tuula Zetterman Sweden Swedish riksdag EU coordination secretariat.
Recommended publications
  • Synopsis of the Meeting Held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013

    Synopsis of the Meeting Held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013

    BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2013) 01 21 January 2013 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on 21 January 2013 in Strasbourg, with Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, President of the Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: - First part-session of 2013 (Strasbourg, 21-25 January 2013): i. Requests for debates under urgent procedure and current affairs debates: . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report; . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold the debate under urgent procedure on “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report; . decided not to hold a current affairs debate on “The deteriorating situation in Georgia”; . took note of the decision by the UEL Group to withdraw its request for a current affairs debate on “Political developments in Turkey regarding the human rights of the Kurds and other minorities”; ii. Draft agenda: updated the draft agenda; - Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (5 October 2012 – 21 January 2013): (Rapporteur: Mr Kox, Netherlands, UEL): approved the Progress report; - Election observation: i. Presidential election in Armenia (18 February 2013): took note of the press release issued by the pre-electoral mission (Yerevan, 15-18 January 2013) and approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee to observe these elections (Appendix 1); ii.
  • Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021

    Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021

    Romanian Political Science Review vol. XXI, no. 1 2021 The end of the Cold War, and the extinction of communism both as an ideology and a practice of government, not only have made possible an unparalleled experiment in building a democratic order in Central and Eastern Europe, but have opened up a most extraordinary intellectual opportunity: to understand, compare and eventually appraise what had previously been neither understandable nor comparable. Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review was established in the realization that the problems and concerns of both new and old democracies are beginning to converge. The journal fosters the work of the first generations of Romanian political scientists permeated by a sense of critical engagement with European and American intellectual and political traditions that inspired and explained the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, political liberty, individual freedom, and civil rights. Believing that ideas do matter, the Editors share a common commitment as intellectuals and scholars to try to shed light on the major political problems facing Romania, a country that has recently undergone unprecedented political and social changes. They think of Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review as a challenge and a mandate to be involved in scholarly issues of fundamental importance, related not only to the democratization of Romanian polity and politics, to the “great transformation” that is taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, but also to the make-over of the assumptions and prospects of their discipline. They hope to be joined in by those scholars in other countries who feel that the demise of communism calls for a new political science able to reassess the very foundations of democratic ideals and procedures.
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe

    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe

    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Issued by the EP Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments N° 13 - November 2016 Quality of legislation stemming from the EU On 19 September 2016, the Italian Senate submitted a request to the ECPRD network concerning the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. This request was an opportunity for National Parliaments to exchange best practices on how to ensure the quality of legislation with specific regard to transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU law. From the 21 answers provided by National Parliaments it is clear that transposition and implementation of EU Law is highly unlikely to require special attention. While almost all of them are using legislative guidelines and procedures for guaranteeing high standard of general law-making, only a few have felt the need to establish special mechanisms to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures; the main way to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures appears to be the most common way for National Parliaments to ensure the quality of legislation, also the legislation stemming from the EU. It allows for good linguistic coherence in the national languages while enhancing the standardization of the law. For example, in the case of Austria, the Federal Chancellery has published specific “Legistische Richtlinien”. In Spain, the instrument used is the Regulation Guidelines adopted in the Agreement of the Council of Ministers of 22 July 2005. Both Italian Chambers use Joint Guidelines on drafting of national legislation.
  • Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010

    Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010

    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 constituteproject.org Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 Table of contents I. Historical Foundations . 3 II. Basic Provisions . 4 III. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . 7 1. General Provisions . 7 2. Personal and Political Freedoms and Rights . 9 3. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . 14 IV. Organization of Government . 18 1. The Croatian Parliament . 18 2. The President of the Republic of Croatia . 22 3. The Government of the Republic of Croatia . 26 4. Judicial Power . 28 5. The Office of the Public Prosecutions . 30 V. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia . 31 VI. Local and Regional Self-Government . 33 VII. International Relations . 35 1. International agreements . 35 2. Association and Succession . 35 VIII. European Union . 36 1. Legal Grounds for Membership and Transfer of Constitutional Powers . 36 2. Participation in European Union Institutions . 36 3. European Union Law . 37 4. Rights of European Union Citizens . 37 IX. Amending the Constitution . 37 IX. Concluding Provisions . 38 Croatia 1991 (rev. 2010) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 I. Historical Foundations • Reference to country's history The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood,
  • How Sweden Is Governed Content

    How Sweden Is Governed Content

    How Sweden is governed Content The Government and the Government Offices 3 The Prime Minister and the other ministers 3 The Swedish Government at work 3 The Government Offices at work 4 Activities of the Government Offices 4 Government agencies 7 The budget process 7 The legislative process 7 The Swedish social model 9 A democratic system with free elections 9 The Swedish administrative model – three levels 10 The Swedish Constitution 10 Human rights 11 Gender equality 11 Public access 12 Ombudsmen 12 Scrutiny of the State 13 Sweden in the world 14 Sweden and the EU 14 Sweden and the United Nations 14 Nordic cooperation 15 Facts about Sweden 16 Contact 16 2 HOW SWEDEN IS GOVERNED The Government and the Government Offices The Prime Minister and the other ministers After each election the Speaker of the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament) submits a proposal for a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is subsequently appoin­ ted by the Riksdag and tasked with forming a government. The Government, led by the Prime Minister, governs Sweden. The Government consists of the Prime Minister and a number of ministers, each with their own area of responsibility. The Swedish Government at work The Government governs Sweden and is the driving force in the process by which laws are created and amended, thereby influencing the development of society as a whole. However, the Government is accountable to the Riksdag and must have its support to be able to implement its policies. The Government governs the country, which includes: • submitting legislative proposals to the Riksdag; • implementing decisions taken by the Riksdag; • exercising responsibility for the budget approved by the Riksdag; • representing Sweden in the EU; • entering into agreements with other states; • directing central government activities; • taking decisions in certain administrative matters not covered by other agencies.
  • Factsheet: the Austrian Federal Council

    Factsheet: the Austrian Federal Council

    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Austrian Federal Council 1. At a glance Austria is a federal republic and a parliamentary democracy. The Austrian Parliament is a bicameral body composed of the National Council (Nationalrat) and the Federal Council (Bundesrat). The 61 Members of the Federal Council are delegated by the nine regional parliaments (Landtage) and represent the interests of the regions (Länder) in the federal legislative process. They need not necessarily be Members of the regional parliament that delegates them, but they must in principle be eligible to run for elections in that region. The overall number of Members of the Federal Council is linked to the population size of the regions. The biggest region delegates twelve, the smallest at least three members. The Presidency of the Federal Council rotates every six months between the nine regions in alphabetic order. It is awarded to the Federal Council Member who heads the list of Members established by her or his region. In most cases, the National Council issues federal legislation in conjunction with the Federal Council. However, with some rare exceptions the Federal Council only has a so-called “suspensive” veto right. The National Council can override a challenge by the Federal Council to one of its resolutions by voting on the resolution again. 2. Composition Composition of the Austrian Federal Council Party EP affiliation Seats Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) Austrian People's Party 25 Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) Social Democratic Party of Austria 19 Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) Freedom Party of Austria 11 Die Grünen 5 The Greens NEOS 1 61 3.
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
  • Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians

    Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians

    Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Warsaw, 2012 Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10, 00–251 Warsaw, Poland http://www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2012, ISBN 978–92–9234–844–1 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. Designed by Homework Cover photo of the Hungarian Parliament Building by www.heatheronhertravels.com. Printed by AGENCJA KARO Table of contents Foreword 5 Executive Summary 8 Part One: Preparing to Reform Parliamentary Ethical Standards 13 1.1 Reasons to Regulate Conduct 13 1.2 The Limits of Regulation: Private Life 19 1.3 Immunity for Parliamentarians 20 1.4 The Context for Reform 25 Part Two: Tools for Reforming Ethical Standards 31 2.1 A Code of Conduct 34 2.2 Drafting a Code 38 2.3 Assets and Interests 43 2.4 Allowances, Expenses and Parliamentary Resources 49 2.5 Relations with Lobbyists 51 2.6 Other Areas that may Require Regulation 53 Part Three: Monitoring and Enforcement 60 3.1 Making a Complaint 62 3.2 Investigating Complaints 62 3.3 Penalties for Misconduct 69 3.4 Administrative Costs 71 3.5 Encouraging Compliance 72 3.6 Updating and Reviewing Standards 75 Conclusions 76 Glossary 79 Select Bibliography 81 Foreword The public accountability and political credibility of Parliaments are cornerstone principles, to which all OSCE participating States have subscribed.
  • Estonia Today STATE SYSTEM of the REPUBLIC of ESTONIA

    Estonia Today STATE SYSTEM of the REPUBLIC of ESTONIA

    Fact Sheet 2007 Estonia Today STATE SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA Parliamentary democracy SUPREME COURT THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC The highest court in the state The head of state and the supreme commander of the national and the court of constitutional defence of Estonia. The President is elected by the Riigikogu review. The Riigikogu on or by an electoral body comprised of members of the Riigikogu nomination by the President of and representatives of the local government councils for a the Republic appoints the Chief term of 5 years. Justice of the Supreme Court. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Riigikogu on nomination by the Chief GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC Justice of the Supreme Court. Judges are appointed for life. The Government exercises RURAL MUNICIPALITY AND executive power. The candidate for CITY GOVERNMENTS Prime Minister is authorised to office by the Riigikogu on the LEGAL CHANCELLOR The executive bodies formed by proposal of the President. The the council. An independent official who President on the proposal of the reviews the legislation of general Prime Minister nominates members application of the legislative and of the government. executive powers and of local governments for conformity with the Constitution and the law. The Legal Chancellor is nominated by the Riigikogu on the proposal of LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS the President for a term of 7 years. RIIGIKOGU (The Parliament) The representative and legislative The Riigikogu is a legislative body. bodies of local governments, elected It has 101 members and is elected by the residents of the rural on the basis of a general, direct and STATE AUDIT OFFICE municipality or city for the period of 3 uniform right to vote by the citizens years.
  • How Do National Parliaments Supervise and Control Their Own Budgets? Practice and Experience from Selected Member States

    How Do National Parliaments Supervise and Control Their Own Budgets? Practice and Experience from Selected Member States

    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT D: BUDGETARY AFFAIRS How do national parliaments supervise and control their own budgets? Practice and experience from selected Member States STUDY Abstract The study assesses the budget discharge procedures in ten EU Member States and one Third Country (Canada), in order to identify good practices to help the European Parliament to enhance its own budget discharge procedure. The focus is on the effectiveness of the national budget discharge procedures, in terms of achieving two objectives, i.e. to ensure sound financial management and to enhance transparency. The study takes the European Parliament’s budget discharge procedure as a point of reference in order to better understand the national parliaments’ procedures. The study findings identify best practices that might contribute to a further enhancement of the European Parliament’s budget discharge procedure in the following areas: a robust and trust instilling multi-facetted auditing framework; public transparency and accessibility of the budget; documentary basis; fostering accountability in Members of Parliament’s expenses; building skills; formalising the discharge procedure. IP/D/ALL/FWC/2009-056 24/10/2012 PE 490.662 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Affairs. It designated Mr Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to follow the study AUTHORS Blomeyer & Sanz c/cerezos 545b - cd 250 el clavin, es-19163 Guadalajara +34 650 480 051 [email protected] www.blomeyer.eu RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Ms Beata Grzebieluch Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: FR and DE ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in July 2012.
  • The Parliamentary Mandate

    The Parliamentary Mandate

    THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE A GLOBAL COMPARATIVE STUDY Marc Van der Hulst Inter-Parliamentary Union Geneva 2000 @ Inter-Parliamentary Union 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be a way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold hired or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form or binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent publisher. ISBN 92-9142-056-5 Published by INTER-PARLIAMETARY UNION Headquarters Liaison Office with the United Nations Place du Petit-Saconnex 821 United Nations Plaza C.P. 438 9th Floor 1211 Geneva 19 New York, N.Y. 10017 Switzerland United States of America Layout, printing and binding by Atar, Geneva Cover design by Aloys Robellaz, Les Studios Lolos, Carouge, Switzerland (Translated from the French by Jennifer Lorenzi and Patricia Deane) t Table of Contents FOREWORD ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION l PART ONE: NATURE AND DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE I. NATURE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE 6 1. The traditional opposition between national sovereignty and popular sovereignty 6 2. The free representational mandate 8 3. The imperative mandate 9 4. A choice motivated by pragmatic rather than ideological considerations? 10 II. DURATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY MANDATE..
  • In Defense of Parliament Aivar Jarne, Riigikogu Toimetised Editor in Chief

    In Defense of Parliament Aivar Jarne, Riigikogu Toimetised Editor in Chief

    Summaries in English EDITOR IN CHIEF'S COLUMN In defense of parliament Aivar Jarne, Riigikogu Toimetised editor in chief, adviser to the President of the Riigikogu The leading article treats the topic, raised by the media, of employment benefits for Riigikogu members. The writer compares salaries and other benefits to those of other European parliaments. A comparison with 21 European countries shows that the Riigikogu's benefits are more conservative than lavish. Our system, in which salary is proportional to the average wage, is also in use in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria. Austria uses average per capita income of the past year as a basis; Hungary, the basic civil servant salary. Naturally, Estonian MPs are not in the same league as their German colleagues, who make over 100,000 kroons a month ($6,000) or Swedish and Finnish MPs ($4,500). Even in Slovenia, similar in other economic respects, MPs make $5,000 a month. None of the parliaments under study have dispensed entirely with salary and benefits. The systems employed are relatively varied and depend on each country's standard of living, its traditions and the amount of precedence that its culture ascribes to parliamentary work. That is the case today and has been so in the past, even in Republican Estonia. A very generous benefits system was in effect for the sixth Riigikogu (1938-1940). The legal status of members has developed over the more than 1000-year-long history of the parliament as an institution. Estonia, with its brief experience with parliamentary democracy, has not had, and likely will not have, occasion to revolutionize the field.