Meje nacionalne procesne avtonomije

magistrsko delo

Denis Baghrizabehi (Author), Aleš Ferčič (Mentor)

Abstract

Avtor se v magistrskem delu ukvarja z ugotavljanjem meja nacionalne procesne avtonomije, s tem pa posledično začrta tudi njen obseg. Gre za v veliki meri nerazjasnjeno področje prava EU, ki odreja razmerje med (materialnim) pravom EU in nacionalnim (procesnim) pravom. Nacionalna procesna avtonomija je načelo prava EU, ki v svoji vsebini državam članicam omogoča, da samostojno določajo in urejajo postopke, s katerimi posamezniki uveljavljajo pravice, ki jim jih daje pravo EU, v kolikor pravo EU samo ne ureja tega področja. Pri tem države članice niso povsem avtonomne, saj bi jim povsem liberalna interpretacija obravnavanega načela omogočila, da preprečijo ali otežkočijo položaj posameznika, kadar si slednji prizadeva realizirati pravice, ki izhajajo iz prava EU. Sodišče Evropske unije je to nevarnost prepoznalo v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja in posledično razvilo dve poglavitni omejitvi procesne avtonomije - načelo učinkovitosti in načelo enakovrednosti. Tekom nadaljnjih desetletij je sodna praksa omenjenega Sodišča izvrgla dodatne omejitve procesne avtonomije, že obstoječe pa nadgradila. Vendar se ves ta čas ni izoblikoval enoten pravni okvir, ki bi nacionalnim organom in zakonodajalcu posamezne države članice vnaprej in razmeroma določno znal predočiti in začrtati meje nacionalne procesne avtonomije. Še več, omejitve so se drobile na posamezne fragmente, ki so zgolj poudarjali potrebo po venomer vnovičnem ad hoc presojanju meja oz. obsega procesne avtonomije. Avtor poskuša z analizo širšega spektra pravnih razmerij predstaviti ozadje nedodelanega nabora pravnih načel, ki botrujejo omejitvam procesne avtonomije. Magistrsko delo se ne ogiba partikularne narave sodniškega drobirja, ki ga je ustvarila nestanovitna praksa Sodišča, temveč ga poskuša prikazati na kar se da sistematično ubran način. Po predstavitvi temeljnih načel, ki urejajo razmerje med pravom EU in nacionalnim pravom, se avtor osredotoči na omejitvi načel učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti. V nadaljevanju je pozornost posvečena načelu učinkovitega sodnega varstva kot (dodatni) omejitvi procesne avtonomije, na kratko pa je predstavljeno tudi razmerje med omenjenim načelom in načelom učinkovitosti. Drugi del magistrskega dela je namenjen krajši analizi izbranih kategorij pravnih sredstev in avtonomnosti (ali manku le-te), ki jo države članice načeloma posedujejo pri določanju in urejanju taistih pravnih sredstev, s katerimi posamezniki uveljavljajo pravice iz pravnega reda EU. V zadnjem delu magistrskega dela, avtor zaokroži dognanja predhodnih poglavij in poskuša bralcu naslikati celostno podobo načela procesna avtonomije (in njenih meja).

Keywords

nacionalna procesna avtonomija;učinkovitost;enakovrednost;učinkovito sodno varstvo;izvrševanje prava EU;pravna sredstva;magistrska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2015
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[D. Baghrizabehi]
UDC:	347.9(043.3)
COBISS:	5037611
Views:	2663
Downloads:	1075
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY
Secondary abstract:	This thesis is concerned with the determination of existing limits to the principle of national procedural autonomy and in affect - with acknowledging the scope of said principle. The herein presented issue is a largely ambiguous one in terms of EU law, even though (or perhaps - precisely because) it concerns itself with subjects of such fundamental nature as defining the relationship between EU (substantial) law and national (procedural) law. National procedural autonomy is a principle of EU law that enables member states to independently determine the procedures that provide concerned individuals with a remedy for the enforcement of their respective rights, stemming from EU law, inasmuch EU law does not in itself regulate the afore topic. However, member states are not fully autonomous in these matters. An absolute liberal interpretation of procedural autonomy could render the enforcement of EU law impossible or difficult and present a hardship for concerned individuals when indulging to enforce their EU rights. The Court of Justice has recognized the potential of such obstacles in the seventies and has, in response, formulated two paramount limitations to procedural autonomy – the principle of effectiveness and the principle of equivalence. During the following decades the case law of the Court of Justice produced ever new limitations and further reinforced the existing ones. On the other hand, it has not yet provided us with a coherent legal framework, which would, in advance, present and establish national legislators and authorities with relatively definite limits of their autonomy. What is more, it is apparent that the principle of national procedural autonomy went through a process of gradual fragmentation, which only emphasized the need for perpetual ad hoc adjudications of the scope and limits of the discussed principle. The thesis does not avoid the particular nature of limitations. It rather pursues to encompass them in a somewhat systemic order. After presenting the fundamental principles which define the relationship between EU law and national law, the author shifts focus to the limitations in form of effectiveness and equivalence. In following, the focal point is centred on the principle of effective judicial protection and views it as an (additional) limit to procedural autonomy while also briefly stumbles upon the interplay of said principle with the principle of effectiveness. The second part of this thesis provides the reader with a compressed but concise analysis of particular remedies that enable individuals the option of enforcing EU rights and the autonomy (or therein lack of), which member states possess in regulating afore remedies. In the final part of the thesis, the author attempts to bring forth a holistic and comprehensive summarisation of national procedural autonomy (and its limits).
Secondary keywords:	national procedural autonomy;effectiveness;indirect collision;equivalence;effective judicial protection;enforcing EU law;remedies;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	VII, 96 f.
ID:	9059076