DOLŽNOST POSTAVITI VPRAŠANJE  ZA PREDHODNO ODLOČANJE SODIŠČU EU

Veingerl, Mateja

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	DOLŽNOST POSTAVITI VPRAŠANJE ZA PREDHODNO ODLOČANJE SODIŠČU EU
Authors:	ID Veingerl, Mateja (Author) ID Tratnik, Matjaž (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	UNI_Veingerl_Mateja_2013.pdf (706,37 KB) MD5: 9C350D1C88EBE2E68A4E442B8EA5874A
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Sodišče EU je na predlog nacionalnih sodišč pristojno za predhodno odločanje glede razlage Pogodb, ter glede veljavnosti in razlage aktov institucij, organov, uradov ali agencij EU. Postopek predhodnega odločanja je mehanizem dialoga med nacionalnimi sodišči in Sodiščem EU. Po splošnem pravilu imajo nacionalna sodišča pravico, da predlagajo predhodno odločanje. Vendar, če se vprašanje EU postavi pred nacionalnim sodiščem, zoper odločitve katerega po nacionalnem pravu ni pravnega sredstva, potem je slednje dolžno predložiti zadevo Sodišču EU. Poleg tega, če se pred nacionalnim sodiščem postavi vprašanje glede veljavnosti prava EU, se dolžnost postaviti vprašanje za predhodno odločanje v skladu z doktrino Foto-Frost razširi tudi na nižja sodišča. Obstajajo določeni razlogi, ko nacionalno sodišče, zoper odločitve katerega po nacionalnem pravu ni pravnega sredstva, ni vselej dolžno vložiti predlog za predhodno odločanje Sodišču EU. To je Sodišče EU odločilo v zadevi CILFIT. Če nacionalno sodišče opusti svojo dolžnost postaviti vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču EU, so možne različne posledice: Komisija lahko vloži tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti v skladu s členom 258 PDEU; država članica je lahko odgovorna za plačilo škode, ki je nastala posameznikom; posameznik lahko vloži ustavno pritožbo zaradi kršitve pravice do zakonitega sodnika; in država članica je lahko odgovorna za kršitev Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. Slovenija je do konca novembra 2013 vložila pet predlogov za predhodno odločanje. Slovenska sodišča so v preteklosti bila velikokrat deležna kritike, da niso aktivna pri vlaganju predlogov za predhodno odločanje. Še več, slovenska sodišča so bila pravzaprav zadnja, ki so postavila vprašanje za predhodno odločanje. Torej, ali slovenska sodišča res negativno odstopajo od sodišč drugih držav članic pri postavljanju vprašanj za predhodno odločanje? Izmed vseh faktorjev presoje, ki lahko vplivajo na število postavljenih vprašanj za predhodno odločanje, je treba izpostaviti število prebivalcev posamezne države članice: večje število prebivalcev, pomeni večje število sodnih sporov in več potencialnih zadev, ki vsebujejo pravo EU. Vendar, četudi uporabimo slednji faktor pri primerjavi števila predlogov posameznih držav članic, so rezultati še vedno nesklepčni.
Keywords:	postopek predhodnega odločanja, dolžnost predložiti vprašanje, sodišča v smislu člena 267(3) PDEU, pravno sredstvo, izjeme od dolžnosti, doktrina Foto-Frost, posledice neupoštevanja dolžnosti, število predlogov
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[M. Veingerl]
Year of publishing:	2013
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-43320
UDC:	339.923:061.1EU(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	4618283
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:BEEF7GW6
Publication date in DKUM:	06.02.2014
Views:	6950
Downloads:	1292
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	DUTY TO REFER A QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU
Abstract:	The Court of Justice of the EU has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings at the request of national courts, concerning both the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the EU. The preliminary reference procedure is a mechanism of dialogue between national courts and The Court. As a general rule, national courts and tribunals have discretion to request preliminary rulings. However if an issue of EU law is raised before a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, then the latter is obliged to request a preliminary ruling. Moreover, if an issue arises before a national court regarding the validity of EU law, the duty to refer a question for a preliminary ruling, according to the Foto-Frost doctrine, also extends to lower courts. There are particular reasons where a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, is not always obliged to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court. This was decided by the Court in the case of CILFIT. Different consequences are possible, if the national court disregards its duty to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court: the Commission can initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU; a Member State can be liable to pay compensation for the loss caused to individuals; an individual can file a constitutional complaint for the breach of the right to a lawful judge; and a Member State may be held liable for the infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Up to the end of November 2013 Slovenia has referred five questions for a preliminary ruling. In the past Slovenian courts have been criticized for their lack of activity when referring to the Court. Moreover, Slovenian courts were actually last to refer a question for a preliminary ruling. So, do Slovenian courts really negatively differ from courts of other Member States when it comes to referring questions for a preliminary ruling? The factor, that stands out as almost certainly affecting the number of preliminary references is the population size of each country: higher number of population equals higher number of court disputes and therefore more potential cases involving EU law. However, if we use the latter factor when comparing the number of referrals from particular Member States, the results are still inconclusive.
Keywords:	preliminary ruling procedure, duty to refer a question, courts covered by Article 267(3) TFEU, judicial remedy, exceptions to the duty, Foto-Frost doctrine, consequences for disregarding the duty, number of references

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back