1. Scientific objective The book’s scientific objective is to answer the question as to whether the scope and methods of budget procedure regulation in EU Member States’ constitutions sufficiently ensure the optimal, formal conditions...
more1. Scientific objective
The book’s scientific objective is to answer the question as to whether the scope and methods of budget procedure regulation in EU Member States’ constitutions sufficiently ensure the optimal, formal conditions for carrying out this regulation. Answering this question requires explaining the following, more detailed, issues:
1) How should the notion of ‘budget procedure’ be understood, and, within that scope, how should the particular stages and phases of the procedure be understood?
2) What premises determine the existence and form of a budget procedure, and how can it be optimized?
3) Is a budget procedure shaped by budget principles, the form and status of budget acts, and participants in the budget procedure? If yes, to what extent?
4) How are scopes of activities and competences divided among participants in the budget procedure? How far may one participant interfere in the sphere reserved for another participant?
5) Are the constitutional rules concerning the stages of projecting, passing, executing and supervising the execution of a state budget precise? Do they correspond to the present conditions and constitutional practice?
The research assesses extant legal regulations for budget procedure by adopting and implementing the following detailed goals: 1) reconstructing the notion of budget procedure and its elements, as well as determining the regulations involved within that scope; 2) identifying and systemising theoretical and practical problems resulting from the present regulation of budget procedure; 3) presenting the legal regulations that are currently in force and indicating which of them can and should be included in each contemporary constitution (de lege fundamentale ferenda).
The study concentrates on budget procedure regulations in the constitutional laws of the EU Member States. As of 1 January 2016, the EU Member States have been included in comparative research. Therefore, the constitutional provisions of the 28 EU Member States will be analysed, with particular reference given to the specificity of the British constitutional system, where there is no typical, written constitution and where numerous procedures and institutions, which cannot be found in continental Europe, have developed.
The basis for this study’s hypothesis and particular theses is the assumption that budget procedures must be created to provide efficient, effective passing of the state budget. Referring to that assumption, the author built the following research hypothesis (H): ‘Constitutional regulation of budget procedures among EU Member States does not ensure the optimal, formal conditions necessary for passing state budgets. Moreover, their partiality and lack of precision result in practical problems. In this situation, it is worth considering the possibility of constitutionalising some elements of budget procedures – applying the achievements (constitutional regulations) of other EU Member States – as well as implementing new legal solutions, which could eliminate issues. It is, therefore, necessary to give new consideration to constitutional regulations regarding budget procedures. How these issues are regulated generally determines correct substantial development, and, when detailed legal constructions function together, they further guarantee that budget procedures are carried out efficiently and effectively. Because EU requirements must be met by Member States, they should (and, perhaps, they shall) be implemented in national legislation’.
2. Structure
This dissertation is comprised of an introduction, four substantive chapters and a section defining the paper’s conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates. Chapter 1, entitled ‘Notions, phases and determinants of a budget procedure’, contains Subchapter 1, entitled ‘Characteristics of definition conditions for budget procedure and budget process’, in which the author distinguishes between the following notions: ‘procedure’, ‘process’ and ‘proceedings’. He draws attention to different approaches to these notions in particular legal areas (administrative, civil, financial, criminal and constitutional law). Then, he specifies the meaning of the term ‘budget procedure’, creating a definition fitting the basic condition of definition correctness, which is specified in the principle definition: fit per genus et differentiam specificam. He also defines differentia specifica for the notion ‘budget procedure’, which should be included in the content of definiens explaining definiendum. Thus, the author conceptualises ‘budget procedure’. He also considers the scope and content of procedural regulations and characterises budget procedure strategies (top-down, bottom-up and top-down/bottom-up). Then, in Subchapter 2, ‘Stages of budget procedure, phases of budget process, budget cycle’, he states that significant complication in budget procedures necessitates making crucial distinctions, so the proceedings governing the budget procedures may be classified as logically and substantially correct parts, stages or sections. The author also holds that the basic mean of division is obviously a dichotomous division made according to opposite features, which enable distinguishing the stage of budget passing from the stage of state budget execution (dichotomous division). However, considering the subjective criterion, the author distinguishes between three budget procedure stages: projecting, passing and executing (trichotomous division). He also delineates phases of budget processes (behavioural approach), which take place in particular stages. Following this discussion, in Subchapter 3, ‘Determinants of budget procedure, as well as notions of ‘budget procedure’ and ‘state budget’ in the constitutions of EU Member States’, the author describes budget procedure determinants, which are: budget principles, form and significance of the budget act and participants in the budget procedure. At the end of this section, the author references constitutional regulation of budget procedures, as well as constitutional frames of the notion of state budgets. Building from this, in Subchapter 4, ‘Conclusions’, eight partial conclusions could be drawn regarding the theoretical aspects of budget procedures.
After having delineated the three budget procedure stages, the author, logically, chose to include three chapters discussing those stages. Chapter 2, entitled ‘Projecting a state budget’, considers: 1) rules of proceedings aimed at elaborating a budget proposal; 2) entities’ competences in state budget projecting; 3) the legal effects of failing to provide a budget proposal; and 4) conclusions, which provide eleven points summarising the previously outlined issues. Chapter 3, which is dedicated to ‘Passing a state budget’, discusses: 1) rules of proceedings aimed at passing state budgets; 2) entities’ competences in state budget passing; 3) the legal effects of failing to pass a state budget; and 4) conclusions, which provide nine points summarising the described issues. Chapter 4, the final chapter, covers the scope of ‘State budget execution’ and is comprised of: 1) rules of proceedings aimed at executing a state budget (i.e., introductory remarks, characteristics of proceedings’ objects, rules of execution in a substantive approach, entities’ competences in state budget passing); 2) the control of state budget execution (i.e., the governmental or ministerial responsibility for budgetary affairs within the scope of preparing reports concerning state budget execution, the role of supreme audit bodies and parliament’s hearing the report and either granting or refusing to grant discharge); 3) independent bodies, which monitor the state’s financial stability (i.e., fiscal councils, parliamentary budget offices); and 4) conclusions, which provide eight points summarising the discussed issues.
