he Constitutional Council of France is a body of constitutional control established by the Constitution of 1958. The ConstitutionalCouncil is not the only body that carries out the control over constitutionality. The peculiarity of constitutional control in France consistsin the fact that it has a dual nature and goes beyond well-known models of constitutional control. The constitutionality of acts, issuedby the Parliament, is considered by the Constitutional Council, and after the executive bodies do that, it is passed on to the State Council.Despite the fact that the Constitutional Council is not nominated by a court, its decisions, by their essence, are judicial acts and,likewise the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, are endowed with the property of binding force. They are obligatory forall administrative and judicial bodies and are not subjected to revision (the Paragraph 3 of the Article 62 of the French Constitution).However, it should be taken into account that in addition to binding decisions, the Constitutional Council “expresses opinions” that areadvisory in their nature.In addition to carrying out constitutional control, the Constitutional Council has a number of other functions, such as political,advisory and acts as a court to assess the results of elections of deputies to the National Assembly and the Senate, and elections of thePresident of the Republic. Perhaps that is why the Constitutional Council classifies its decisions due to the types of its own powers.Herewith, the noted specific peculiarities are denoted by the Constitutional Council with the help of fixed letter combinations, which are included in the numbers of decision: REF, enacted on referendum issues; ORGA, enacted on issues of the organization of the Cons -titutional Council, etc.Since, despite all the diversity of functions of the Constitutional Council of France, therefore, its main purpose remains the cons -titutional control. Therefore, using the criterion of powers, under which decisions are made, in terms of initial graduation one shouldpoint out the decisions on issues, which are connected with providing compliance of the Constitution with regulatory acts (assuring thepriority of the Constitution), and decisions passed while carrying out other powers.Decisions of the Constitutional Council outstand with being formal and brief. A decision can take literally a few paragraphs. Themost frequently, the Constitutional Council merely refers to a constitutional norm or is limited to the phrase “these provisions do notcontradict the Constitution”, giving guidance and justifying its position in the least.

No abstract

Метою статті є детальний аналіз особливостей реформування Верховної Ради України в сучасних реаліях. Наукова новизна полягає у дослідженні шляхів реформування українського парламенту в умовах формування конституційної демократії, вивчення його ролі в системі державної влади України. Висновки. Одним із головних напрямків змін у нашій державі є парламентська реформа, що передбачає посилення інституційної спроможності Верховної Ради України та забезпечення реалізації її основних функцій: законодавчої, контрольної та представницької. Завданням парламентської реформи в Україні є не тільки побудова раціональної системи законодавчої діяльності, формування оптимальної структури Верховної Ради України як єдиного органу законодавчої влади, єдиного представницького органу Українського народу, а й удосконалення його правового статусу. Під час парламентської реформи має бути розв’язане широке коло питань, пов’язаних зі становленням Верховної Ради України, передусім як професійного парламенту. Водночас, слід займатися і створенням науково обґрунтованої комплексної системи управління законодавчим процесом, яка забезпечувала б планомірність, послідовність і системність у здійсненні законодавчої діяльності в Україні. У лютому 2016 року Європейською комісією була запропонована «Дорожня Карта реформ щодо внутрішньої реформи та підвищення інституційної спроможності Верховної Ради України». Цей документ містить рекомендації щодо реформування українського парламенту, метою яких є вирішення вищенаведених проблем, підвищення якості законів, забезпечення прозорості та відкритості ВР України, дотримання народними депутатами етичних норм і стандартів та підвищення рівня адміністративної спроможності парламенту. Ефективність виконання зазначених напрямків безпосередньо вплине на якість законодавства, дієвість контролю за імплементацією законів та представництво інтересів як загалом держави, так і безпосередньо конкретних виборців.

The article analyzes peculiarities of formation of a two-house parliament in the conditions of constitutional democracy. It has been established that parliamentarism, which theoretical origins date back into the doctrines about folk and national sovereignty, is logically connected with the establishment of principles of the supremacy of law and democracy in society and the state, with the implementation of effective mechanisms to guarantee constitutional human rights, as well as with the formation of such institutions that would ensure the most complete and comprehensive conduction of its functions and meeting the needs of society. Ukrainian parliamentarism has long-standing historical roots. Modern legal scholars consider that there are a few precursors of national parliamentarism. These are Viche democracy and feudal congresses in Kyievan Rus, Cossack councils and Cossack democracy in general, the activities of the Central Rada and even to some extent the “parliamentarism” of the Soviet era. However, the establishment and development of full-fledged national parliamentarism became possible only after Ukraine’s independence in 1991. It has been summarized that nowadays, comprehensive outspread of the theory and practice of bicameralism should be recognized as one of the most distinctive tendencies of genesis of modern constitutionalism. In the last decades, many countries around the world, regardless their state form of government, have intensified processes of transition to a bicameral structure of a parliament. Even if in the early 70’s of XX century two-house parliaments functioned in 45 countries in the world, in 2008 their number reached 70. Yet, another ten more countries are preparing to switch to the bicameral structure of their parliaments. Currently, two-house parliaments have ceased to be a tribute of historical traditions of constitutionalism or some “anomaly” of the state legal development of countries, which are united by one legal system. Bicameralism has become a daily political and legal phenomenon for a large number of population of our planet. These are the most economically developed countries of the world that have chosen such a system of parliamentarism at present. Therefore, out of fifteen countries that have the highest indicators of the gross domestic product in the world, only two, that is China and South Korea, have one-house national legislative bodies. It has been recapitulated that the European Union and its member states are gradually asserting bicameralism both in the constitutional theory and in practice. Particularly, two-house parliaments are successfully functioning in such unitary member states of the European Union as Austria, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, France, the Czech Republic, Switzerland and others.