doktorska disertacija
Denis Baghrizabehi (Author), Aleš Ferčič (Mentor), Vesna Rijavec (Co-mentor)

Abstract

Doktorska disertacija obravnava nacionalne, primerjalnopravne in nadnacionalne vidike zasebnega uveljavljanja prava državnih pomoči v pravdnem postopku. Pravo EU ne določa procesnih pravil za zasebno uveljavljanje prava državnih pomoči, čeravno posameznikom daje pravico, da pred nacionalnimi sodišči zahtevajo odpravo negativnih učinkov ukrepov nezakonite pomoči. Pri nezakoniti pomoči gre za državno pomoč, ki je podeljena v nasprotju s t. i. klavzulo o mirovanju. V skladu z načelom nacionalne procesne avtonomije se takšni postopki vodijo pred nacionalnimi sodišči in v skladu z nacionalnim procesnim pravom. Ker evroavtonomno tolmačenje pojma »procesno« pravo zajema tudi pravila, ki jih v kontinentalnih sistemih praviloma razumemo kot materialnopravna, je treba v sklopu zasebnega uveljavljanja prava državnih pomoči uporabljati tudi nacionalna pravila materialnega prava. Kadar je bila nezakonita pomoč podeljena z aktom zasebne oziroma civilnopravne narave, pride v poštev uporaba institutov civilnega prava. Nacionalna pravila pravdnega postopka in civilnega materialnega prava niso prilagojena posebnostim prava državnih pomoči in se zaradi tega uresničuje riziko neučinkovitega izvrševanja subjektivnih pravic, izvedenih iz neposrednega učinka prava EU. V sklopu disertacije je opravljena holistična obravnava pravil in načel prava EU, ki naslavljajo področje zasebnega uveljavljanja prava državnih pomoči ter analiza medsebojnega delovanja prava EU in nacionalnega prava držav članic. Problem neučinkovitih pravnih sredstev je obravnavan kategorično, in sicer tako, da je najprej opredeljeno vprašanje civilnopravne neveljavnosti ukrepov nezakonite državne pomoči. Na podlagi primerjalnopravne analize med pravnimi redi Slovenije, Nemčije in Avstrije doktorska disertacija navaja zaključek, da bi se takšni ukrepi morali šteti za nične. Alternative, ki bi ukrep ohranjale v veljavi, iz pravnopolitičnih razlogov niso ustrezne. Predmetni zaključek predstavlja tudi premiso za nadaljnje ugotovitve v doktorski disertaciji. Učinkovito zasebno uveljavljanje prava državnih pomoči je kompleksen fenomen, ki je omogočen zgolj skozi souporabo številnih pravnih institutov nacionalnega prava ter je mestoma popolnjen s sodniškim pravom oziroma s posegi v smeri lojalne razlage ali neuporabe nasprotujočih določb nacionalnega prava. Rešitve, ki so se v tej zvezi razvile v primerjalnopravnem kontekstu, niso vedno neposredno prenosljive v slovenski pravni red. Tako na primer nemški model zasebnega uveljavljanja prava državnih pomoči sloni na kvazi-negatornem varstvu in konceptu klavzule o mirovanju kot varstvenega zakona, medtem ko avstrijska sodišča posameznikom nudijo varstvo zgolj na podlagi prava nelojalne konkurence. V tej zvezi doktorska disertacija vsebuje sklep, da bi veljalo zaradi posrednega učinka prava EU v slovenskem pravu tolmačiti določbo 133. člena Obligacijskega zakonika ekstenzivno, tako da bi zajemala finančno škodo in delovanje, ki ni usmerjeno zgolj v prostor oziroma okolje. Prav tako bi kazalo na področju prava nelojalne konkurence lojalno razlagati določbe o aktivni legitimaciji. S procesnega vidika je navkljub zapadlosti dajatvenega zahtevka treba dopustiti ugotovitvene tožbe, s katerimi se ugotavlja ničnost ukrepa nezakonite pomoči ter si prizadevati za fleksibilno uporabo pravil o odločanju po prostem preudarku, o informativnih dokazih ter (na podlagi načela vestnosti in poštenja) omogočiti uporabo pravil o stopničasti tožbi. V okviru možnosti preseganja informacijske asimetrije je bila opravljena analiza možnosti zakonodajne harmonizacije pravil o uveljavljanju odškodninskih zahtevkov zoper državo članico zaradi implementacije ukrepa nezakonite pomoči. Doktorska disertacija se končno opredeljuje tudi do meja pravnomočnosti v primeru ugotovitvenih sodb, ki zaradi zmotne uporabe materialnega prava vsebujejo (sanirajo) kršitev prava državnih pomoči. V tej zvezi je podan zaključek, da takšne sodbe nimajo učinka materialne pravnomočnosti.

Keywords

zasebno uveljavljanje prava državnih pomoči;priglasitev državnih pomoči;klavzula o mirovanju;nacionalna procesna avtonomija;načelo učinkovitosti;izterjava nezakonite državne pomoči;učinkovito sodno varstvo;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [D. Baghrizabehi]
UDC: 339.13.027(043.3)
COBISS: 177422339 Link will open in a new window
Views: 46
Downloads: 4
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: Private enforcement of state aid law in civil litigation
Secondary abstract: The doctoral dissertation deals with national, comparative and supranational aspects of private enforcement of State aid law in civil litigation. On the other hand, EU law does not regulate the procedural rules for the private enforcement of State aid law, even though it provides individuals the right to seek redress before national courts for the adverse effects of unlawful aid measures, i.e. State aid granted in breach of the so-called standstill clause. In accordance with the principle of national procedural autonomy, such proceedings take place before national courts and in accordance with national procedural rules. Since the (euro)autonomous understanding of “procedural” rules also covers certain rules that are in continental systems generally understood to adhere to substantive law, national rules of substantive law should also be applied in the context of private enforcement of State aid law. Where aid was granted through an act of a private law nature, the rules of civil law should be applied. The rules governing litigation and civil substantive law are not tailored to the specifics of State aid law and, as a result, the risk of ineffective enforcement of subjective rights derived from the direct effect of EU law comes into play. The dissertation provides an overview of the rules and principles of EU law that address the area of private enforcement of State aid law and an analysis of the interaction between EU law and the national law of the Member States. The problem of ineffective remedies is addressed categorically by first identifying the issue of the civil law invalidity of unlawful aid measures. Based on a comparative law analysis among Slovenia, Germany and Austria, the dissertation concludes that such measures should be considered null and void. Alternatives that uphold such a measure in force are not appropriate for reasons of State aid policy. This conclusion forms the premise for further findings of the dissertation. Effective private enforcement of State aid law is a complex phenomenon, only possible through a combined application of a number of legal rules of national law and is, in some places, complemented by judge-made law in the sense of utilising the principle of consistent interpretation or non-application of contradictory provisions of national law. Solutions developed in the comparative context are not always transposable to Slovenian law. German law is rooted on a quasi-negatory protection of rights and the concept of the standstill clause as a protective statute. In contrast, Austrian courts offer protection to individuals solely on the basis of unfair competition law. In this respect, the dissertation concludes that, under the precondition of applying the indirect effect of EU law, the provision of Article 133 of the Obligations Code should be interpreted extensively so as to cover financial damages and actions that are not merely intended to safeguard property and the environment. Similarly, in the area of unfair competition law, the provisions on standing should be interpreted extensively. Regarding procedural law “proper”, it is necessary to allow declaratory actions to establish the nullity of an unlawful aid measure, despite the maturity of the claim, and to seek a flexible application of the rules on allocating damages through discretion, rules on informative evidence and to allow the use of a multi-stage action (on the basis of good faith). In the context of the possibility of overcoming information asymmetries, an analysis has been made of the possibility of adopting harmonising legislative acts for damages claims against a Member State due to the implementation of unlawful aid measures. The doctoral dissertation also addresses the limits of res judicata in the case of declaratory judgments which, due to an error of substantive law, contain (affirm) an infringement of State aid law. The finding in this respect is that rules on substantive res judicata should not be applied.
Secondary keywords: private enforcement of State aid law;notification of state aid;standstill clause;national procedural autonomy;principle of effectiveness;recovery of unlawful state aid;effective judicial protection;
Type (COBISS): Doctoral dissertation
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 318 str.
ID: 20850926