DOCSLIB.ORG

I. the Constitutional Court's Relationship to Parliament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I. the Constitutional Court's Relationship to Parliament I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S RELATIONSHIP TO PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT Professor Tudorel TOADER, PhD, Judge of the Constitutional Court Marieta SAFTA, PhD, First Assistant Magistrate 1. The role of Parliament (as the case may be, of the Government) in the procedure for appointing judges to the Constitutional Court. Once appointed, can judges of the Constitutional Court be revoked by that same authority? What could be the grounds/ reasons for such revocation? The status of the constitutional judges, starting with the legislative provisions, the powers of the public authorities related to their appointment, the possibility for the same authorities to dismiss them, as well as the grounds for dismissal, duration of the term of office, as well as the possibility of a new term of office as judges are the factors based on which their independence and even the limitations in the fulfilment of their term are measured. 1.1. Parliament’s role in the procedure for appointing the judges to the Constitutional Court. Varying from case to case, Parliaments play an important role, sometimes even exclusive, in the appointment of constitutional judges. a – Parliament has exclusive power to appoint judges to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, in Germany, all constitutional judges are appointed by the Parliament. Half of the judges of a chamber are elected by the Bundestag, whereas the other half – by the Bundesrat – which means the directly elected representation of the people and by the Land representatives, based on the proportional representation rules. In Switzerland, the federal Parliament elects the judges of the Federal Tribunal, based on proposal by the Judicial Committee. In Poland, the 15 constitutional judges are individually appointed for a 9-year term of office, by the first Chamber of the Parliament. In Hungary, the eleven constitutional judges are elected by the Parliament. In Croatia , all thirteen judges are elected by the Croat Parliament. In Montenegro, the Constitutional Court judges are appointed by the Parliament. b - Parliament appoints part of the judges to the Constitutional Court. In France, the nine members of the Constitutional Council are appointed for a nine—year term, and, more specifically, three of them every other three years. With every renewal, one member is appointed by the president of the National Assembly and a second by the President of the Senate. In Latvia , of the seven judges of the Constitutional Court validated by the Parliament, three are proposed by at least ten members of the Parliament. In Lithuania, of the nine constitutional judges, one third is appointed based on proposal by the president of the Parliament. In the Republic of Moldova , the procedure to appoint judges to the Constitutional Court is a result of the principle of separation of powers in the State, enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution, but also of the exclusive substantive jurisdiction of the Court to enforce this principle. Thus, two judges are appointed by the Parliament, two by the Government and two by the Superior Council of Magistracy (Article 136 par. (2) of the Constitution). In Portugal, the Parliament shall appoint ten out of the 13 judges. In Romania , the appointment of the constitutional judges is based on the provisions of Article 142 par. (3) of the Constitution, as follows: three judges are appointed by the Chamber of Deputies, three by the Senate and three by the President of Romania. It is worth pointing out that the legislator appoints two thirds of the constitutional judges, whereas the executive, through the President of Romania, appoints one third 1 of their total number. In Spain, of the twelve constitutional judges, four are appointed by the Congress of Deputies and four by the Senate. In Armenia, the National Assembly appoints five of the nine members of the Constitutional Court. In Belarus, of a number of 12 judges, six are elected by one of the Chambers of Parliament, whereas other six are appointed by the President of the Republic. In Turkey, two of the 17 judges of the Constitutional Court are elected by the Large National Assembly. The rest of 15 members of the Constitutional Court are selected by the President of the Republic. c – Parliament appoints constitutional judges based on proposal by the Head of State. In Russia, the judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed by the Federation Council, in a secret ballot, based on proposal by the President of the Russian Federation. In Slovenia, judges at the Constitutional Court are elected by the National Assembly, through a secret ballot, based on the majority vote of the total number of Deputies, and based on proposal by the President of the Republic. In Azerbaijan, the appointment of Constitutional Court judges are made by the Parliament, based on recommendation by the President of the Republic. In Slovenia, the Constitutional Court judges are elected by the National Assembly, based on proposal by the President of the Republic of Slovenia. d – Parliament makes proposals to the Head of the State with respect to the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court. Thus, in Austria , the constitutional judges are appointed by the Federal President, who, is, however, bound by the recommendations made by the other constitutional bodies. Consequently, of the 12 constitutional judges, three are appointed based on the recommendation by the National Council (the Parliamentary Chamber elected through a direct vote based on a proportional system), whereas other three members are appointed based on a proposal by the Federal Council (the Parliamentary Chamber appointed indirectly and which represents the länder of Austria). In Belgium , the 12 judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed by the King based on a list that is alternatively presented to him by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Usually, the King shall appoint the person who ranks first on the list of that House. Consequently, in reality, the judge is not appointed by the King, but by either the Deputies or the Senators. In practice, when they appoint the judges, the parliamentarian assemblies exercise the principle of proportionality, therefore the composition of the Court shall reflect the composition of the assemblies. Consequently, no candidate will have the opportunity of being recommended, unless they have the support of the political group which holds the respective position. e – Parliament expresses its consent in connection with the proposals of the Head of State concerning the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court. Thus, in Albania, the members of the Constitutional Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic, with the consent of the Assembly. In the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court judges are appointed by the President of the Republic, based on the consent of the Senate. f – Parliament does not participate in the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court. In Luxembourg , the Parliament is not involved in the procedure of appointment of judges, whereas in Ireland , the Parliament does not have a direct role in the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court. In Cyprus , the Parliament does not take part in the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court which is the authority empowered to carry out constitutionality reviews. The members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the Republic. However, the President asks the Court to express its opinion, which is usually observed. 2 1. 2. The Government’s role in the procedure for appointing the judges to the Constitutional Court. In some States, the Government plays an important role, sometimes an exclusive one in the appointment of constitutional judges. a – Government has exclusive power to appoint judges to the Constitutional Court. Thus, in Ireland, the Government has the exclusive jurisdiction to appoint constitutional judges. The Government, after having selected a candidate for appointment, informs the President of Ireland on their appointment, whereas the President officially appoints the candidate. In Norway , the ordinary courts, in whose hierarchy, the Supreme Court rules as a last instance court, are competent to conduct the constitutionality review in terms of laws adopted by the Norwegian Parliament. The Norwegian Parliament does not take part in the appointment of judges. Judges are appointed by the State Council. b – Government appoints part of the judges to the Constitutional Court. In Spain, of the twelve constitutional judges, two are appointed by the Government. c – Government makes proposals for the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court. Thus, in Austria , constitutional judges are appointed by the Federal President, who, however, is bound by the recommendations made by the other constitutional bodies. Therefore, of the 12 constitutional judges, six are appointment based on proposal by the Federal Government. In Latvia, of the seven judges of the Constitutional Court, who are validated by the Parliament, two are proposed by the Cabinet of Ministers. 1.3. Following their appointment, may the same authority revoke the judges of the constitutional court? In most States, following their appointment, the constitutional judges cannot be dismissed by the authority that vested them with this high office. By exception, the dismissals may be likely to occur, as follows: In Albania , subsequent to their appointment, Constitutional Court judges may only be dismissed by the Assembly, based on a majority vote of two thirds of the number
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Publishing Information
    October 2016 | Progress Report Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Publishing information Published by Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e. V. President: Prof. Jörg Hacker – German National Academy of Sciences – Jägerberg 1, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany Editor Dr Johannes Fritsch, Yvonne Borchert German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Contact Office of the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Head: Dr Johannes Fritsch Reinhardtstraße 14, 10117 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)30 2038 997-420 [email protected] www.leopoldina.org/de/ausschuss-dual-use Contact at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Dr Ingrid Ohlert German Research Foundation Kennedyallee 40, 53175 Bonn, Germany Tel.: +49 (0)228 885-2258 [email protected] www.dfg.de Design and setting unicom Werbeagentur GmbH, Berlin Recommended form of citation German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) (2016): “Joint Committee on the Handling of Security- Relevant Research”, progress report of 1 October 2016, Halle (Saale), 22 pages Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research Preface 3 Preface This progress report begins with a summary in Chapter A of the developments leading up to the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Founda- tion) and the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in November 2014. Chapter B reports on the tasks of the Joint Committee and its activities up to 1 Octo- ber 2016, with particular focus on the progress of implementing the DFG and the Leo- poldina’s “Recommendations for Handling Security-Relevant Research” of June 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahresbericht 2020
    BaFin Jahresbericht der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht 2020 Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht der Bundesanstaltfür Jahresbericht 2020 © Pixabay/antelope-canyon iStock-996573506_ooddysmile Jahresbericht 2020 der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort 11 Die BaFin in Kürze 12 Die BaFin als integrierte Aufsicht und Nationale Abwicklungsbehörde 13 1 Aufgaben 13 2 Ein Blick auf die zentralen Aufgaben 14 2.1 Die Bankenaufsicht 14 2.2 Die Versicherungsaufsicht 15 2.3 Die Wertpapieraufsicht 15 2.4 Kollektiver Verbraucherschutz 15 2.5 Gegen Geldwäsche und unerlaubte Geschäfte 16 2.6 Abwicklung 16 2.7 Die BaFin international 17 2.8 Innere Verwaltung und Recht 17 Zahlen im Überblick 18 I. Schlaglichter 22 1 COVID-19 23 1.1 BaFin passt Rahmenbedingungen in der Krise an 23 1.1.1 Bankenaufsicht 23 1.1.2 Versicherungs- und Pensionsfondsaufsicht 25 1.1.3 Wertpapieraufsicht 26 1.1.4 Geldwäschebekämpfung 27 1.1.5 Erlaubnispflicht 27 2 Wirecard 27 3 Brexit 29 4 Digitalisierung 30 5 Sustainable Finance 32 6 Niedrigzinsumfeld 32 6.1 Lage der Kreditinstitute 32 6.2 Lage der Versicherer und Pensionskassen 32 7 Geldwäscheprävention 33 8 Solvency-II-Review 34 9 Bessere Liquiditätssteuerung bei offenen Investmentvermögen 35 II. Die BaFin international 40 1 Deutsche EU-Ratspräsidentschaft 41 1.1 MiCA – Märkte für Kryptowerte 41 1.2 DORA – Digitale operationelle Resilienz des Finanzsektors 42 1.3 Europäische Kapitalmarktunion 42 2 Bilaterale und multilaterale Zusammenarbeit 43 3 Arbeiten der drei ESAs 46 3.1 EBA 46 3.2 EIOPA 46 3.3 ESMA 47 3.4 Nachhaltigkeitsbezogene Offenlegungspflichten 47 4 Arbeiten der globalen Standardsetzer 48 4.1 Basler Ausschuss zieht Schlussstrich 48 4.2 IAIS setzt neue Rahmenwerke um 48 4.3 IOSCO im Pandemiejahr 49 4.4 FSB untersuchte Folgen der Corona-Pandemie 49 III.
    [Show full text]
  • News from Ukraine
    March, 2013 NEWS FROM UKRAINE Rada to adopt EU-recommended bills on data protection, combating discrimination, says speaker The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine will approve the draft laws on amendments to the laws on personal data protection and countering discrimination that was recommended by the European Union, Verkhovna Rada Chairman Volodymyr Rybak has said. “There are several key issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible. In particular, these are the legal regulation of the fight against corruption, and the introduction of the EU-recommended amendments to Ukraine’s laws in the field of personal data protection and combating discrimination,” Mr. Rybak stated at a meeting of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Seimas of Lithuania, the Sejm and Senate of Poland in Warsaw on 26 March. Mr. Rybak said the Verkhovna Rada has already adopted most of the laws that are needed to implement the first stage of the action plan on the liberalization of the EU visa regime with Ukraine. In particular, the Parliament passed the laws dealing with the issues related to migration, a resolution to introduce biometric travel documents. Besides, a system of personal data protection was created in Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian Parliament’s Chair, Ukraine plans to submit to the European side soon its third report on the implementation of the first stage of the visa liberalization action plan, which would give the EU grounds to switch to the second stage. Read more: Interfax Ukraine, 26 March 2013 http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/146376.html#.UVGP7DesZVQ Ukrainian Parliament ratifies visa facilitation agreement with EU Some 275 of the 350 MPs registered in the parliamentary sitting hall supported the Law “On the Ratification of the Amended Visa Facilitation Agreement between Ukraine and the EU”.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATION on the Joint Meetings of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate of Romania Regulation on the Joint Meetings Of
    REGULATION on the Joint Meetings of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate of Romania Regulation on the Joint Meetings of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate, approved by the Decision of the Parliament of Romania No 4 of 3 March 1992, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, No 34 of 4 March 1992, as amended and completed by the Decision of the Parliament No 13/1995, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, No 136 of 5 July 1995. CHAPTER I Organisation and Running of the Joint Meetings Section 1 Competence; Convening of the Joint Meetings Article 1 - The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate shall meet in joint meetings in order: 1. to received the message of the President of Romania (Article 62 (2) (a) of the Constitution); 2. to approve the State Budget and the State social security budget (Article 62 (2)(b) of the Constitution), the corrections and the account for budget implementation; 3. to declare general or partial mobilization (Article 62 (2) (c) of the Constitution); 4. to declare a state of war (Article 62 (2) (d) of the Constitution); 5. to suspend or terminate armed hostilities (Article 62 (2) (e) of the Constitution); 6. to examine reports of the Supreme Council of National Defence and of the Court of Audit (Article 62 (2) (f) of the Constitution); 7. to appoint, upon the proposal of the President of Romania, the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, and to exercise control over the activity of this Service (Article 62 (2) (g) of the Constitution); 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Seminar
    9-10 July 2018 European Parliament, Brussels SUMMER SEMINAR The European Semester for economic policy coordination from a parliamentary perspective with the participation of EU National Parliaments’ administrations PROCEEDINGS 1 2 Executive summary This paper gives an overview of the topics discussed during the first European Semester Summer Seminar, which was co-organized by the Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV) and the Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments of the European Parlia- ment. The first summer seminar for EU national parliaments’ staff on the “European Semester for economic policy coordination from a parliamentary perspective” took place on 9 and 10 Ju- ly 2018 in the European Parliament’s premises in Brussels, and brought together 35 officials dealing with the European Semester from 22 countries and 28 parliamentary chambers. Main issues discussed in the Summer Seminar: • Process of the European Semester, and better understanding of the involvement of the Parlia-ments • The main underlying tools of the European Semester • Cooperation and capacity building - at administrative level - among the European Parliament and the EU national Parliaments Main outcomes of the Summer Seminar: • Establishment of a network between administrative parliament experts on the European Se-mester, including an annual meeting • Follow -up seminars/workshops to strengthen cooperation and capacity building at adminis- trative level between the European Parliament and National Parliaments in the area of eco-nomic governance on specific topics 3 4 Introduction This paper was prepared by the Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV) of the European Parliament. EGOV provides in-house expertise to support the European Parliament and its relevant committees and bodies, notably in their scrutiny-related activities on the economic governance and banking union frameworks.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations with Other State Powers
    THE BULLETIN The Venice Commission was requested by the Constitutional Court of Romania, currently holding the presidency of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts (CECC), to produce a working document on the topic chosen by its Circle of Presidents at the preparatory meeting in Bucharest in October 2009 for the XV th Congress of the CECC. The topic was the following: “The relations of the Constitutional Court with other state authorities. Sub-topic 1: relations between the Constitutional Court and parliament. Sub-topic 2: conflicts of competence. Sub-topic 3: the execution of judgments.” The present working document is a contribution by the Venice Commission to the success of the Congress. Constitutional courts are the independent guarantors of the constitution and their main task is to protect the supremacy of the constitution over ordinary law. Over time, however, these courts have taken on further tasks, such as safeguarding the individual against the excess of the executive or providing a safeguard against judicial errors. Another very important role of these courts is to act as a neutral arbiter in cases of conflict between state bodies. Parties to such a conflict know that they can turn to the Constitutional Court for a decision that will help them in resolving their conflict based on the constitution. The possibility of turning to the court in itself sometimes incites them to settle their disputes before they even reach the court. In order to function correctly as an effective institution that stands above the parties in such a dispute, Constitutional Courts need to be independent and need to be seen as being independent.
    [Show full text]
  • H.E. Mr. Nicolae GOIA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to Pakistan H.E
    Monthly Magazine on National & International Political Affairs, Diplomatic Issues December 2019 Volume 10 Issue12 Promoting Bilateral Relations | Current Affairs | Trade & Economic Affairs | Education | Technology | Culture & Tourism ABC Certified “Publishing from Pakistan, United Kingdom/EU & will be soon from UAE , Central Africa, Central Asia & Asia Pacific” Member APNS Central Media List A Largest, Widely Circulated Diplomatic Magazine | www.diplomaticfocus.org | www.diplomaticfocus-uk.com | Member Diplomatic Council /diplomaticfocusofficial /dip_focus Romanian Ambassador Applauds the Positive Trend of the Pakistan - Romania Relationship H.E. Mr. Nicolae GOIA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to Pakistan H.E. Mr. Klaus Iohannis H.E. Mr. Ludovic Orban’s H.E. Bogdan Lucian Aurescu President of Romania Prime Minister of Romania Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania Cordially Congratulations On the National Day of ROMANIA 2010 House No 263-C, Street 87, Sector E-11/2 Islamabad Tel: +92-51-2163092, 2163070 Mobile: +92-345-5565552, +92-322-5565552 Email: [email protected], [email protected] www.diplomaticfocus.org 00 Diplomatic Focus December 2019 www.diplomaticfocus.org Editorial Mian Fazal Elahi November 2019 November akistan have great attachment with the importance to its relations with Romania and considers Romania as an important member of EU. PThe history of Pakistan and Romania relations had established ever since of diplomatic relations in 1964, both the nations have come very close to each other. Romania considers Pakistan as a credible and responsible country and supports Pakistan at every international forum including GSP Plus status which has increased Pakistan’s exports to the EU by more than 30 per cent.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy
    INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE FOR THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY AND THE COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY 4–6 September 2013 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Vilnius DRAFT PROGRAMME 4 September, Wednesday Arrival of the participants 15.00–19.00 Check-in at hotels Meeting of the Presidency Trio and representatives of the European Parliament 17.30 Departure from hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 18.00–19.00 Meeting of the Presidency Trio (Ireland/Lithuania/Greece) and representatives of the European Parliament Venue: Presidential Hall, Building 1 of the Seimas Departure from the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania for the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania 19.30 Departure from hotels for the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania 20.00 Dinner hosted by Mr Artūras PAULAUSKAS, Chair of the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence Venue: Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, Katedros a. 4, Vilnius 22.30 Return to hotels Gedimino pr. 53, LT-01109 Vilnius, LITHUANIA Tel. + 370 5 239 6762 E-mail [email protected] 2 5 September, Thursday 8.30 Departure of the participants of the Working Group of the Ad Hoc Review Committee from hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 9.00–10.00 Meeting of the Working Group of the Ad Hoc Review Committee Venue: Meeting Room of the Committee on European Affairs, Building 1 of the Seimas 9.30 Departure of the participants of the meeting of the Ad Hoc Review Committee from hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 10.00–11.00 Meeting of the Ad Hoc Review Committee Venue: Meeting Room of the Committee on European Affairs, Building 1 of the Seimas 11.00–12.00 Meetings of political groups 11.00 Departure of other participants from hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 11.30–12.00 Registration (for those non-registered yet) Venue: Building 1 of the Seimas Opening Session 12.00–12.15 Opening remarks by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic
    National Programme for Turkey 2010 under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey TR2010/0136.01-01/001- Technical Assistance for Improved Strategic Management Capacity Germany Country Report 30/01/2015 1 Table of Contents Page 1. General Information 4 1.1. Sources and Aims 4 1.2. Structural Aspects of the German State 4 1.3. Area and Population 7 1.4. GDP and Financial and Budgetary Situation 10 1.5. Main Economic and Commercial Characteristics 12 2. Government and Public Administration of the Federal Level 15 2.1. Federal Constitutional Structure (head of state, head of government, parliament, judiciary) 15 2.2. Central Bodies (chancellor, ministers) 16 2.3. Public Administration 17 2.3.1. Public Administration: employees 17 2.3.2. Public Administration: assessment and training 19 2.4. Reforms to the Structure of Government (past, in progress, planned) 22 3. Four Examples of Länder/Federal States (according to size, history, economic structure and geographic direction) 26 3.1. Baden-Württemberg - General Structure 28 3.1.1. Government and Public Administration 28 3.1.2. Reforms 30 3.2. Brandenburg - General Structure 32 3.2.1. Government and Public Administration 32 3.2.2. Reforms 33 3.3. Lower Saxony - General Structure 34 3.3.1. Government and Public Administration 35 3.3.2. Reforms 36 3.4. Saarland - General Structure 38 3.4.1. Government and Public Administration 38 3.4.2. Reforms 39 4. Strategic Planning and Public Budgeting 41 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Years of Research : a Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, Law Library Publications 1842-1992 1992 150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Linda K. Fariss Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography Part of the Legal Biography Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation Fariss, Linda K., "150 years of research : a bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992" (1992). 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992. 1. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/bibliography/1 This Brochure is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Library Publications at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 150 Years of Research: A Bibliography of the Indiana University School of Law Faculty, 1842-1992 compiled by: Keith A. Buckley Mitchell E. Counts Ralph F. Gaebler Michael M. Maben Marianne Mason F. Richard Vaughan Nona K. Watt edited by: Linda K.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliaments for Democracy: Towards More Ambitious Global Cooperation
    2 October 2013 MEETING OF THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THE COMMITTEES ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF PARLIAMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY Parliaments for democracy: towards more ambitious global cooperation 27-28 November 2013 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Vilnius DRAFT PROGRAMME Wednesday, 27 November Arrival of the participants 15.00–19.30 Registration at the hotels 19.30 Departure by bus from the hotels for the Museum of Applied Arts 20.00–22.30 Dinner hosted by Prof Benediktas JUODKA, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Venue: Museum of Applied Arts, Arsenalo g. 3, Vilnius 22.30 Return to the hotels by bus Thursday, 28 November 8.00 Departure by bus from the hotels for the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 8.00–8.30 Registration of participants (for those who have not registered yet) Venue: Lobby, Building II of the Seimas Gedimino pr. 53, LT-01109 Vilnius, LITHUANIA Tel. + 370 5 239 6762 E-mail [email protected] 2 OPENING SESSION Venue: Hall of the Act of March 11, Building I of the Seimas 8.30–8.40 Opening address by Prof Benediktas JUODKA, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania 8.40–8.50 Opening address by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Chair of the Parliamentary Forum for Democracy 8.50–9.00 Welcome address by Mr Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Adoption of the agenda SESSION 1 THE EUROPEAN UNION EASTERN PARTNERSHIP: TOWARDS MORE AMBITIOUS GLOBAL COOPERATION Chaired by
    [Show full text]