Primerjava svetovalnega mnenja ESČP in predhodne odločbe Sodišča EU

Lubi, Doroteja

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Primerjava svetovalnega mnenja ESČP in predhodne odločbe Sodišča EU
Authors:	ID Lubi, Doroteja (Author) ID Hojnik, Janja (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Lubi_Doroteja_2018.pdf (1,42 MB) MD5: 30D1A7F7391CB53288C5594975699F9E PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/18ad5663-864c-47af-8120-9f59afb2dd1d
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Magistrska naloga preučuje postopek predhodnega odločanja Sodišča EU in njegov vpliv na razvoj prava EU ter svetovalnega mnenja ESČP, katero je bilo korenito spremenjeno s sprejemom Protokola št. 16 k EKČP. Postopek predhodnega odločanja, ki ima pomembnejšo vlogo med postopki pred Sodiščem EU, se je skozi leta izkazal kot dober instrument sodelovanja med Sodiščem EU in nacionalnimi sodišči ter instrument, ki pred Sodiščem EU nudi posredno varstvo tudi posameznikom, kljub začetni zadržanosti nacionalnih sodišč določenih držav članic do postavljanja vprašanj za predhodno odločanje. Brez nacionalnih sodišč v postopku predhodnega odločanja ne gre, saj je pristojnost za postavitev vprašanja za predhodno odločanje prav v njihovih rokah. Le nacionalna sodišča so tista, ki lahko oziroma morajo postaviti vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, kadar v postopku pred njimi naletijo na vprašanje razlage ali veljavnosti prava EU. Postopek predhodnega odločanja ima tako pomemben vpliv na razvoj prava EU. Podobno vlogo svetovalnega mnenja ESČP je Svet Evrope želel doseči tudi s sprejetjem Protokola št. 16 k EKČP, leta 2013, ki je na novo uredil svetovalno mnenje, kateremu je vzor postopek predhodnega odločanja. Cilj svetovalnega mnenja je prav tako okrepiti sodelovanje med ESČP in sodišči držav pogodbenic. ESČP na prošnjo najvišjega sodišča države pogodbenice izda nezavezujoče svetovalno mnenje, s katerim nacionalnim sodiščem držav pogodbenic nudi smernice glede razlage EKČP. V magistrski nalogi ugotavljam, da kljub temu, da je cilj obeh instrumentov okrepiti sodelovanje med nacionalnimi in evropskimi sodišči, svetovalno mnenje ESČP čaka še dolga pot, da bo njegov učinek vsaj v majhni meri takšen, kot ga ima predhodna odločba Sodišča EU.
Keywords:	pravo EU, Svet Evrope, Sodišče EU, ESČP, svetovalno mnenje, predhodno odločanje, Protokol št. 16
Place of publishing:	[Maribor
Publisher:	D. Lubi]
Year of publishing:	2018
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-69815
UDC:	341.231.14(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	5569835
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:KIEP3CBS
Publication date in DKUM:	28.03.2018
Views:	2740
Downloads:	396
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.

Licences

License:	CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Link:	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:	The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:	28.02.2018

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Comparison between advisory opinion of the European Court of human rights and preliminary ruling of the European court of Justice
Abstract:	Master's thesis examines preliminary ruling procedure of Court of Justice of the EU and its impact on the development of the EU law and advisory opinion of ECtHR, which has been thorougly amended by the Protocol No. 16 to ECHR. Preliminary ruling procedure thus being one of the important procedures in Court of Justice of the EU, has been a good instrument in cooperation between Court of Justice of the EU and national courts. It has also been an instrument providing protection indirectly to individuals despite the initial reluctance of national courts of certain member states in preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU. National courts are the first in competence of preliminary ruling procedure. They are able to ask for preliminary ruling, when there is a question of interpretation or validity of the EU law. Preliminary ruling procedure has an important impact on the development of the EU law. Similar role of advisory opinion of ECtHR has Council of Europe tried to achieve with adoption of Protocol No. 16 to ECHR in 2013 when the advisory opinion was reorganised according to the preliminary ruling procedure. The goal of advisory opinion is to strengthen cooperation between ECHR and the Courts of Contracting States. ECHR issues non-binding advisory opinion upon request of the Court of Contracting State, with which offers national courts guidelines in regards with ECHR. Master's thesis notes that although the goal of both instruments is to strengthen cooperation between national and EU courts, advisory opinion still has a long way ahead in terms of effective decisions as they are currently in Court of Justice of the EU.
Keywords:	EU law, Council of Europe, Court of Justice of the EU, ECtHR, advisory opinion, preliminary ruling, Protocol no. 16.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back