izbrani vidiki
Aljaž Kralj (Author), Petra Weingerl (Mentor), Miha Šepec (Co-mentor)

Abstract

Kazensko materialno pravo zaradi povezave s suverenostjo držav članic sprva ni bilo del Rimske pogodbe, z oblikovanjem tretjega medvladnega stebra in vplivom sodne prakse SEU pa je v času Maastrichtske in Amsterdamske pogodbe pridobilo vidnejšo vlogo. Lizbonska pogodba, v skladu s temeljnim načelom prenosa pristojnosti, glede kazenskega materialnega prava predvideva deljeno pristojnost med EU in državami članicami. EU pa mora pri izvrševanju svoje pristojnosti upoštevati načeli subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, kar preprečuje pretiran poseg v nacionalne kazenske sisteme. 83. člen PDEU natančneje opredeljuje pristojnost EU in predstavlja osrednjo določbo za približevanje kazenskega materialnega prava držav članic, v zvezi z njegovo uporabo pa je več nejasnosti in nerešenih vprašanj. V skladu s prvim odstavkom lahko zakonodajalec EU z direktivami določi minimalna pravila glede opredelitve kaznivih dejanj in sankcij na področju posebno hudih oblik kriminala s čezmejnimi posledicami zaradi narave ali učinkov teh dejanj ali zaradi posebne potrebe po skupnem boju proti njim. Našteta področja kriminala, ki predstavljajo zaprt sistem, se lahko glede na razvoj kriminala tudi razširijo. V skladu z drugim odstavkom lahko zakonodajalec EU z direktivami določi minimalna pravila glede opredelitve kaznivih dejanj in sankcij na že harmoniziranem področju, za katerega se je izkazalo, da je približevanje določb kazenske zakonodaje in drugih predpisov držav članic nujno zaradi zagotovitve učinkovitega izvajanja politike EU. Medtem ko je prvi odstavek namenjen preprečevanju posebno hudega kriminala s čezmejnimi posledicami, služi drugi odstavek zagotavljanju učinkovitosti prava EU. Tretji odstavek ureja postopek zasilne zavore in možnost okrepljenega sodelovanja med državami članicami. 83. člen PDEU se zaradi strogih pogojev in omejitev kaže kot edina primerna pravna podlaga za kazenske materialne ukrepe EU, kar še posebej velja za opredelitev kaznivih dejanj in sankcij. Pristojnost EU za kazensko materialno pravo je učinkovita, celovita in primerna trenutni stopnji integracije evropskih držav. Primerno je zasnovana, tako za vzpostavitev sistematičnega boja zoper posebno hude oblike kriminala s čezmejnimi posledicami, kot za zagotovitev učinkovitega izvajanja politike EU na področjih, kjer veljajo harmonizacijski ukrepi. Kljub nekaterim pomanjkljivostim pa ustavna načela in dovolj široka opredelitev 83. člena PDEU omogočajo celovit pristop in učinkovite rešitve, vendar hkrati tudi nevarnost pretiranega razmaha kazenske zakonodaje EU. V prihodnjih letih bo veliko odvisno od usmeritev, ciljev in delovanja Komisije ter odločitev SEU, ki lahko pojasni nedoločene pojme in zariše okvire 83. člena PDEU.

Keywords

Lizbonska pogodba;kazensko pravo EU;območje svobode;varnosti in pravice;pravosodje in notranje zadeve;deljena pristojnost EU;načelo prenosa pristojnosti;subsidiarnost;sorazmernost;približevanje kazenske zakonodaje držav članic;83. člen PDEU.;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: A. Kralj]
UDC: 343.1:341.1(043.3)
COBISS: 26420483 Link will open in a new window
Views: 738
Downloads: 235
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: EU competence in substantive criminal law
Secondary abstract: Substantive criminal law was not initially recognized in the Treaty of Rome due to its link to the sovereignty of the Member States, however, with the creation of the third intergovernmental pillar and the influence of the CJEU, substantive criminal law gradually acquired its position in the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties. The Lisbon Treaty provides for shared competence between the EU and the Member States in the area of substantive criminal law. When exercising its powers, the EU must comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which can prevent excessive interference with the national criminal legal systems. Article 83 TFEU specifically clarifies the competence of the EU and represents a central provision for the approximation of the substantive criminal law of the Member States, however there are several ambiguities and unresolved issues regarding its application. Pursuant to the first paragraph, the EU legislator may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis. The listed areas of crime, which represent a closed system, may also be expanded on the basis of developments in crime. Pursuant to the second paragraph, the EU legislator may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of EU policy. While the first paragraph is intended to prevent particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, the second paragraph serves to ensure the effectiveness of EU law. The third paragraph regulates the emergency brake procedure and the possibility to establish enhanced cooperation between Member States. Article 83 TFEU, due to its strict conditions and restrictions, seems to be the only appropriate legal basis for EU substantive criminal measures, which applies in particular for the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. Overall, the EU's competence for substantive criminal law is effective, comprehensive and appropriate to the current level of integration of European countries. It is well structured, both to establish a systematic fight against particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension and to ensure the effective implementation of an EU policy in areas which have been subject to harmonisation measures. Despite some imperfections, constitutional principles and a sufficiently broad Article 83 TFEU allow the EU to take a comprehensive approach and effective solutions, but at the same time run a risk of an excessive expansion of EU criminal law. In the years to come, much is expected to depend on the directions, objectives and functioning of the Commission, along with the decisions of the CJEU, which can clarify vague concepts and outline the boundaries of Article 83 TFEU.
Secondary keywords: Treaty of Lisbon;EU criminal law;area of freedom;security and justice;justice and home affairs;shared competence of the EU;principle of conferral;subsidiarity;proportionality;approximation of criminal laws of the Member States;Article 83 of the TFEU.;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 78 str.
ID: 11968907