diplomsko delo
Barbara Markežič (Author), Janja Hojnik (Mentor)

Abstract

Temeljni mehanizem za zagotavljanje ucinkovite in enotne uporabe ter razlage zakonodaje Unije predstavlja sodelovanje, ki se med nacionalnimi sodišci držav clanic in Sodišcem Evropske unije vzpostavi v okviru postopka predhodnega odlocanja. Casovno obdobje, ki ga Sodišce v tem postopku potrebuje za izdajo predhodne odlocbe, je zlasti zaradi velikega števila udeležencev, ki lahko v postopku sodelujejo, in obveznosti povezanih s prevajanjem stališc, ki jih imajo možnost predložiti vse države clanice, relativno dolgo in zato velikokrat problematicno z vidika zagotavljanja ucinkovitega sodnega varstva. Poleg tega je bilo na podrocjih obmocja svobode, varnosti in pravice sodno varstvo po prej veljavni Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbi o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti še dodatno oslabljeno zaradi omejenih pristojnosti, ki so bile za Sodišce dolocene v zvezi s predhodnim odlocanjem o pravnih aktih institucij Unije, sprejetih na teh podrocjih. Tako so bili posamezniki ravno na teh podrocjih, ki so del obmocja svobode, varnosti in pravice, kjer so njihove pravice še posebej obcutljive, prikrajšani za bolj ucinkovito sodno varstvo. Slednje se je nekoliko izboljšalo z uvedbo hitrega postopka leta 2001. Z njegovo uporabo ima namrec Sodišce možnost, da v izjemno nujnih primerih predhodno odlocbo sprejme v krajšem roku kot tistem, ki ga potrebuje pri uporabi rednega postopka predhodnega odlocanja. Pospešitev odlocanja z uporabo hitrega postopka pa je rezultat absolutne prednosti, ki jo imajo vse stopnje predloga za sprejetje predhodne odlocbe po hitrem postopku glede na vse ostale predložene zadeve. Glede na to, da Sodišce z uporabo hitrega postopka zaradi njegove izjemne narave ni moglo in ne more zagotavljati ucinkovitega sodnega varstva v vseh primerih, je bil posebej za obmocje svobode, varnosti in pravice leta 2008 uveden še nujni postopek predhodnega odlocanja. Z uveljavitvijo tega postopka je Sodišce pridobilo možnost, da v bistveno skrajšanih rokih obravnava najobcutljivejša vprašanja s podrocij tega obmocja. Bistvene znacilnosti, ki nujni postopek odražajo in se od rednega postopka predhodnega odlocanja razlikujejo ter s tem zagotavljajo hitrejše odlocanje Sodišca, opredeljujejo zlasti obravnava predloga za sprejetje predhodne odlocbe v okviru senata petih sodnikov, vi posebej dolocenem za to, odvijanje pisnega dela postopka predvsem po elektronski poti, izjemno skrajšanje rokov ter omejeno število udeležencev, ki lahko sodelujejo v pisnem delu postopka. V praksi je okrepljeno sodno varstvo, ki je posledica uvedbe nujnega postopka predhodnega dolocanja, mogoce razbrati iz sodne prakse Sodišca, ki je bila izid uporabe tega postopka. Nenazadnje je bil v luci krepitve sodnega varstva tudi sprejem in uveljavitev Lizbonske pogodbe, s katero so bile odpravljene omejitve pristojnosti Sodišca za predhodno odlocanje o zadevah, ki se nanašajo na obmocje svobode, varnosti in pravice.

Keywords

Lizbonska pogodba;sodno varstvo;diplomska dela;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Source: Maribor
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [B. Markežič]
UDC: 34(043.2)
COBISS: 4075819 Link will open in a new window
Views: 2598
Downloads: 181
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: URGENT PRELIMINARY RULING PROCEDURE, A TOOL FOR INCREASED JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE
Secondary abstract: The cooperation that is under the preliminary ruling procedure established between the courts and tribunals of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union represents the key tool to ensure effective and uniform application and interpretation of the Union legal order. In this case, the time taken upon Court of Justice to answer to the questions posed in the preliminary ruling procedure, is often unreasonable, particulary on account of the number of players involved and the inherent constraints of translating the observations which every Member State is afforded to make, and thus often questionable in terms of ensuring an effective judicial protection. Moreover, the judicial protection in the areas covered by area of freedom, security and justice under the previously existing Treaty on European Union and Treaty establishing the European Community was further weakened, because of the limited jurisdiction imposed upon Court of Justice to issue a preliminary ruling on legal acts which had been adopted by the institutions of the Union in those areas. This inflicted out that individuals in the area of freedom, security and justice, where their vii rights are particulary vulnerable, were deprived of an effective judicial protection. With the introduction of an accelerated procedure in 2001, that enables the Court of Justice to deal with references for a preliminary ruling in certain exceptional cases more quickly than what normally applies under the use of ordinary preliminary ruling procedure, the situation has improved. The acceleration is achieved by giving absolute priority to the reference for a preliminary ruling in question over all other pending cases at all stages of the proceedings. Because of its exceptional nature the accelerated procedure turned out to be inadequate for greater use and thus insufficient to provide effective legal protection in all cases. That caused the establishment of an urgent preliminary ruling procedure in 2008 for matters relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. As regards the implementation of this procedure, the Court of Justice has been given the possibility to deal far more quickly with the most sensitive issues relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. The important features, which distinguish the new procedure from the ordinary preliminary ruling procedure and thus ensure the desired expeditiousness of the procedure, represent in particular more frequent use of the electronic means in the written stage of the procedure, consideration of the proposal for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber of five judges, specifically designated for this purpose, shorter time-limits and the limited number of persons, who are entitled to participate in the written stage. Enhanced judicial protection emerges in practice from the case law of the Court of Justice, in which the Court applied urgent preliminary procedure. The judicial protection has been further strengthened by the adoption and entrance into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that removed restrictions imposed upon the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on issues that arise from the area of freedom security and justice.
Secondary keywords: Accelerated preliminary ruling procedure;area of freedom;security and justice;effective judicial protection;jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings;Treaty of Lisbon;urgent preliminary ruling procedure.;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta
Pages: Vii, 95 f.
Keywords (UDC): social sciences;družbene vede;law;jurisprudence;pravo;pravoznanstvo;
ID: 1011241