Položaj državnih podjetij pred ICSID razsodišči : magistrsko delo

Beranič, Špela

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Položaj državnih podjetij pred ICSID razsodišči : magistrsko delo
Authors:	ID Beranič, Špela (Author) ID Tratnik, Matjaž (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Beranic_Spela_2022.pdf (2,16 MB) MD5: 80C1D2FA16CAB534325EC59BDF3FACEF PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/124a42a8-6ce6-4c15-b499-e3e51fe76b2c
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Položaj državnih podjetij pred ICSID razsodišči povzroča največ težav v okviru presoje personalne pristojnosti razsodišč. Upoštevajoč člen 25 Konvencije ICSID, mora ena stranka predstavljati državo pogodbenico Konvencije ICSID, druga pa investitorja, katerega domača država je njena podpisnica. Nadalje se od investitorja dodatno zahteva pogoj nacionalnosti druge države. Pravne osebe so tako pasivno kot aktivno legitimirane pred ICSID razsodišči, državna podjetja pa so zaradi tesnih povezav z domačo državo podvržena kriterijem Broches testa. Slednji omogoča dostop do ICSID razsodišč državnim podjetjem, ki ne ravnajo kot zastopnik domače države in ne izvajajo javnih funkcij. Najbolj odmevna razlaga obeh vej testa poteka skladno s členom 5 in 8 ARSIWA. Vprašanje ravnanja državnega podjetja kot zastopnika države sovpada s členom 8 ARSIWA, ki določa pripisljivost ravnanja državi, kadar subjekt deluje po navodilih, z usmeritvami ali pod nadzorom države. Situacije, v katerih subjekt ravna po navodilih države, v praksi niso sporne, saj se pripiše ravnanje, ki ga je država dejansko zapovedala. Več težav povzroča ravnanje, opravljeno pod nadzorom države. Pri tem konkurirata dva testa, in sicer effective control test, razvit s strani Meddržavnega sodišča, in overall control test, razvit s strani Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča za nekdanjo Jugoslavijo. Za overall control test zadostuje vpletenost države pri organiziranju, usklajevanju ali načrtovanju ravnanj, poleg financiranja, usposabljanja in opremljanja ali zagotavljanja podpore subjektu. Effective control test pa predstavlja strožji standard, saj brez dodatnih konkretnih dokazov zgoraj navedeno ne rezultira v pripisljivosti, razen če ima država možnost nadzora nad začetkom operacije, načinom njenega izvajanja in njenim koncem. Druga veja Broches testa sovpada s členom 5 ARSIWA, ki določa pripisljivost ravnanja subjekta, katerega nacionalno pravo njegove domače države pooblašča za izvajanje javnih funkcij. Za izpolnitev tega standarda se na prvem mestu zahteva formalni prenos pooblastila za izvajanje funkcij na določen subjekt. Kot drugo pa je pomembno vprašanje narave javnih funkcij. Temeljni kriterij razlikovanja javnih od nejavnih funkcij kot nepripisljiva opredeljuje dejanja gospodarske narave. Kot takšna so razsodišča spoznala svetovanje, zagotavljanje informacij podjetjem, računovodske storitve in nudenje tehnične pomoči. Kot izvajanje javnih funkcij pa je bilo spoznano izvajanje pooblastil, ki vključujejo uporabo prisile ali pravico do omejevanja oz. nadzora dejavnosti zasebnikov in izdajanje predpisov. Kljub morebitni izpolnitvi obeh opredeljenih pogojev je pripisljivost še zmeraj pogojena s predpostavko, da je pooblaščena funkcija dejansko bila izvršena v konkretnem primeru. Poleg tega je ICSID razsodišče v smoter člena 5 ARSIWA vključilo tudi ultra vires ravnanja, ki so predmet člena 7 ARSIWA. Pri oblikovanju Broches testa je bilo izrecno izpostavljeno, da se državna podjetja ne izključijo iz pojma nacionalnosti za potrebe Konvencije ICSID, zato se lahko pojavi dvom o uporabljivosti testa v postopkih, podvrženih ICSID AFR. Ta namreč nudi dostop do ICSID razsodišč, če materialna ali personalna pristojnost nista v celoti izpolnjeni. Možnost uporabe Broches testa izhaja iz člena 4(2) ICSID AFR, ki neposredno napoti na ostale pogoje personalne pristojnosti po členu 25 Konvencije ICSID. To stališče je podprto tudi z arbitražno in sodno prakso. Navsezadnje, čeprav ICSID arbitražne odločbe nimajo precedenčnega učinka, so razsodišča zavzela stališče, da lahko služijo kot usmeritev arbitrom pri sprejemanju odločitev.
Keywords:	Konvencija ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility Rules, nacionalnost druge države, Broches test, zastopnik vlade, izvajanje javnih funkcij, člen 5 ARSIWA, člen 8 ARSIWA, effective control test, overall control test
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Place of performance:	Maribor
Publisher:	[Š. Beranič]
Year of publishing:	2022
Number of pages:	1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (70 str.))
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-81834
UDC:	341.98(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	114771971
Publication date in DKUM:	08.07.2022
Views:	947
Downloads:	103
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:	06.06.2022

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	The position of State-owned enterprises before ICSID tribunals
Abstract:	The position of State-owned enterprises before ICSID tribunals raises major difficulties when assessing the ratione personae of tribunals. According to Article 25 ICSID Convention, one of the parties must constitute a Contracting State and the other a national of another Contracting State. The position of juridical persons before ICSID tribunals is generally undisputed, while the standing of State-owned enterprises is subject to the Broches test due to their close links with their home state. The test grants access to ICSID tribunals in instances when a State-owned enterprise is neither acting as an agent for the government nor is performing governmental functions. The most common interpretation of both elements of the test, is made in accordance with Articles 5 and 8 ARSIWA. The acting as an agent of the government prong of the Broches test mirrors Article 8 ARSIWA, which provides for attribution of conduct to a State, when an entity is acting under its instructions, direction or control. Overall, the first mentioned element is uncontested. On the contrary, the element of acting under the control of the State poses various problems, caused by the divided opinions of the applicability between the effective control test, developed by International Court of Justice, and the overall control test, developed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. For the fulfilment of the latter, the State's general role in organising, funding, equipping or providing the entity's operations is sufficient. The effective control test, however, sets a more stringent standard, as mere support to the entity does not result in attribution, unless the State has the capacity to control the start of the operation, the manner in which it is carried out and its termination. The second prong of the Broches test correlates with Article 5 ARSIWA, which attributes act of an entity, empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance. Primarily, for the attribution under this Article, a formal delegation of authority to perform governmental functions is necessary. Secondly, the recognition of public functions is of great importance. A predominant criterion for distinguishing public from non-public functions entails that strictly commercial acts are not attributable to the State. For example, the issuance of information to businesses, accounting services and technical assistance have been recognized as such. On the other hand, the exercise of governmental functions has been recognised as the exercise of powers involving the use of coercion or the right to restrict or control the activities of private parties and the enactment of regulations. Despite the possible fulfilment of both of the requirements, attributability is still dependent on the fact that the authorised function has in fact been performed in the specific instance. In addition, an ICSID tribunal has interpreted Article 5 ARSIWA as including ultra vires conduct, which is covered by Article 7 ARSIWA. Since the applicability of the Broches test explicitly covers proceedings under the ICSID Convention, uncertainty regarding its applicability in proceedings governed by ICSID AFR can arise. The first possibility of applying the test is granted by Article 4(2) ICSID AFR, which directly refers to personal jurisdiction as laid down by Article 25 ICSID Convention. Simultaneously, ICSID jurisprudence has taken the view that the test established under the ICSID Convention may also be applied in a case conducted under the ICSID AFR. Ultimately, although ICSID arbitral awards do not constitute precedent, tribunals have stated that they may serve as persuasive authority to arbitrators in making their decisions.
Keywords:	ICSID Convention, ICSID Additional Facility Rules, national of another State, Broches test, agent of the government, performing governmental functions, Article 5 ARSIWA, Article 8 ARSIWA, effective control test, overall control test

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back