 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
Commission Report (2002): Poland   
The parliamentAt a time when the probity of the political class is under close public scrutiny and following a parliamentary election campaign in which the comportment of elected representatives played an important role, developments over the past year have focused on measures to provide reassurance as to the nature of the political process.Following the last parliamentary elections, all political parties submitted campaign finance statements to the State Election Commission (PKW). Some 93 reports were submitted and the PKW, upon scrutiny of the statements, rejected a number of the reports. The most common infringement was irregularities in making payments (cash payments or payments by post) or exceeding the limit on contributions from individuals, set at PLN 11 400 (EUR 3 100). Another common problem was that many parties did not establish a separate election fund for the purpose of collecting money for the election campaign. The PKW's decisions have been upheld on appeal and the refund of parties' expenditure has been reduced as a result. It should be noted that this infringement rate compares favourably with that reported after the last presidential election (see below under The executive). While the rules for parliamentary and presidential elections are not identical, the fact that the majority of parties participating in the elections did respect the new standards is encouraging. Once elected, deputies must submit asset declarations. The declarations must contain a range of financial information, are published on the Internet and are assessed by the relevant Sejm and Senate Committees, which present the results to the Presidia of the Sejm and of the Senate respectively. A similar analysis is conducted by the tax offices, which, unlike the parliamentary committees, have at their disposal legal instruments that can be used to check the truthfulness of data included in the statements and tax declarations. The conclusions of this verification are also presented to the Sejm and Senate Presidia. At the time of writing, all deputies had submitted their declarations although around 50 deputies missed the deadline of 30 April. The sanction for non-submission of the declaration is immediate loss of the annual bonus and the suspension of their parliamentary salary until the declaration is submitted. The Sejm's Ethics Committee may further punish a deputy with an admonition or reprimand. Providing false information or concealing the truth may be punished by up to three years' imprisonment. In December 2001 the Sejm passed an amendment to the electoral law and the Act on Political Parties of April 2001. This lowered the budget subsidy to political parties for 2002 and 2003. The larger the party, the larger the cut in public finance. A party's exact subsidy entitlement will depend on the number of votes it received in the elections but also on the results of the State Election Commission's (PKW) examination of a party's financial statements. Where it is found that a political party has incorrectly filed a campaign financial statement, the subsidy can be cut by up to 75% of the amount allocated for the subsidy. In addition, falsification of financial statements can lead to imprisonment. The system of European Committees set up in the parliament to accelerate the adoption of the acquis, remains in place. This notwithstanding, there has been a certain loss of momentum in the process with a consequent impact on the pace of adoption of legislation. © European Commission |
|
||
 |
About FiFo Ost | Privacy | Legal Disclaimer | Contact | Forum |  |
 |
