diplomsko delo
Vanessa Marcola (Author), Ernest Petrič (Mentor)

Abstract

Postopek predhodnega odločanja je nedvomno eden izmed temeljnih gradnikov delovanja Evropske unije, saj z dialogom med avtonomnimi pravnimi redi držav članic in pravnim redom Evropske unije skrbi za enotno uporabo in razlago prava in s tem omogoča doseganje ciljev evropske integracije.V prvem delu diplomskega dela je predstavljena teoretična analiza razmerja med pravom Unije in nacionalnim pravnim redom držav članic, sledi ji analiza vloge nacionalnega sodnika v EU ter pomen in namen postopka predhodnega odločanja. V nadaljevanju so predstavljene nekatere postopkovne posebnosti in pravila glede uporabe instituta predhodnega odločanja. Predstavljena je razlika med pravico in dolžnostjo uporabe instituta predhodnega odločanja ter negativne posledice, ki zadenejo državo, ki ne sproži referenčnega vprašanja, čeprav bi ga morala. V zadnjem delu naloge pa so predstavljeni še učinki odločbe sodišča EU,s katero slednje odgovori na referenčno vprašanje.Veliko postopkovnih pravil oziroma njihovih izjem ni določenih s pozitivno zakonodajo, temveč so se oblikovala s pomočjo sodne prakse Sodišča EU. Tako tudi za postopek predhodnega odločanja veljajo določene izjeme glede pravice in dolžnosti uporabe instituta. Razpršenost pravil in velik vpliv sodne prakse lahko štejemo za eno večjih ovir pri soočanju nacionalnih sodnikov z uporabo instituta predhodnega odločanja, predvsem tistih, ki izhajajo iz mlajših držav članic in prava EU niso toliko vešči. Navedeno lahko predstavlja velik problem v smislu zagotavljanja pravne varnosti in kršenja temeljnih pravic državljanov EU. Poleg tega nacionalnemu sodišču, ki opusti dolžnost uporabe instituta predhodnega odločanja,grozijo različne negativne sankcije.Čisto na koncu diplomskega dela je predstavljena uporaba instituta predhodnega odločanja s strani slovenskih sodišč. Slovenija je do konca leta 2016 vložila skupaj 16 referenčnih vprašanj, od tega dve s predlogom za obravnavanje po nujnem postopku. Največ predlogov je bilo Sodišču EU posredovanih na podlagi tretjega odstavka 267. člena PDEU, kar jasno kaže, da nacionalna sodišča,vsaj sodišča nižje instance,niso naklonjena uporabi instituta predhodnega odločanja. Enak trend lahko zasledimo pri vseh mlajših državah članicah. Elementov, ki vplivajo na aktivnost nacionalnih sodišč pri sprožanju predhodnih vprašanj,je veliko in niso vsi v enaki meri izraženi v vseh državah članicah, zato je odnos med njimi in številom postavljenih predhodnih vprašanj težko dokazati. Vsekakor pa je treba predstavljene elemente ozavestiti in njihov vpliv kar se da omejiti.

Keywords

enotna razlaga prava;predhodno odločanje;Evropska Unija;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: EVRO-PF - European Faculty of Law, Nova Gorica
Publisher: [V. Marcola]
UDC: 340.132.6(4)(043.2)
COBISS: 2053159350 Link will open in a new window
Views: 2711
Downloads: 226
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 abstract: The procedure for preliminary rulings is undoubtedly one of the key components of the European Union (EU) because it enables dialogue between respective legal orders of the Member States and the EU acquis and ensures uniform application and interpretation of the law, thereby helping the achieve the goals of European integration.The first part of this thesis analyses the relationship between EU law and national legal orders of the Member States. It discusses the role of national judges in the EU and the purpose of the procedure for preliminary rulings. Furthermore, it presents several procedural characteristics and rules pertaining to theuse of the institution in question and touches on the difference between the right and duty to apply the institution of preliminary rulings, including the negative consequences for the country that fails to raise the reference question when it should. Thefinal theoretical part of the thesis discusses the effects of the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU, which answers the reference question.A number of procedural rules and/or their exceptions are not regulated by positive law because they were based on case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Therefore the procedure for preliminary rulings features certain exceptions concerning the right and duty to use the institution. Diversified rules and a strong impact of case law can be seen as serious obstacles to acquainting national judges with the use of the procedure for preliminary rulings, especially those coming from smaller Member States who are less familiar with EU law. This can be very problematic in the sense of ensuring legal certainty and violating the fundamental rights of EU citizens. In addition, any national court that waives its duty to use the institution may face various negative sanctions. The final part of the thesis presents the use of the procedure for preliminary rulings in Slovene courts. Slovenia lodged 16 reference questions by the end of 2016, of which 2 contained a request for application of the urgent procedure. The majority of requests to the Court of Justice of the EU were lodged on the basis of paragraph 3, Article 267 of TFEU, which is a clear indication that lower national courts are less inclined to use the procedure for preliminary rulings. A similar trend can be observed in all younger Member States. There are numerous factors affecting the activity of national courts in terms of raising preliminary questions and they vary from one Member State to another, which is why it is difficult to confirm a correlation between the factors and the number of raised preliminary questions. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to increase awareness of these factors and limit their impact as much as possible.
Type (COBISS): Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Evropska pravna fak.
Source comment: Dipl. delo 1. stopnje bolonjskega študija;
Pages: VI, 72 str.
ID: 10949422