| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:NOVEJŠA SODNA PRAKSA DOPUSTNOSTI NIČNOSTNIH TOŽB PO PDEU
Authors:Zorec, Anja (Author)
Knez, Rajko (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UNI_Zorec_Anja_2014.pdf (798,58 KB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Undergraduate thesis (m5)
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Tožba za razveljavitev določenega akta EU (ničnostna tožba) predstavlja osrednjo tožbo zoper institucije EU; hkrati je tudi kompleksna in predmet pravnih diskusij že desetletja. Med drugim je znana po svoji nedostopnosti posameznikom. Daleč najbolj sporni pogoj za procesno upravičenje (aktivno legitimacijo oz. locus standi) posameznikov je test za posamično nanašanje. Razvit je bil v zadevi Plaumann v začetku šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja in se je nadaljeval vse do današnjih dni pri presoji dopustnosti. Striktna razlaga Sodišča EU določenih pojmov iz četrtega odstavka člena 263 PDEU in omejitve, ki jih nalaga PDEU glede možnosti izpodbijanja aktov EU s strani posameznikov, so pogosto kritizirane kot v nasprotju z načelom učinkovitega sodnega varstva in posledično v mnogih primerih vodijo do odrekanja sodnega varstva posameznikom. V kasnejših letih se je izoblikovala bogata, a neenotna sodna praksa glede dopustnosti ničnostne tožbe. Kljub omiljenemu problemu razlikovanja med odločbo in uredbo v zadevi Codorníu, bi tožeča stranka še vedno morala dokazati individualno nanašanje po načelu formule Plaumann. Niti kasnejši primeri poskusov razširitve kroga posameznikov, ki lahko vložijo ničnostno tožbo - najbolj odmevna sta bila Unión de Pequeños Agricultores in Jego-Quéré - niso prinesli milejših pogojev pri uveljavljanju aktivne legitimacije. Pred Lizbonsko pogodbo so fizične in pravne osebe morale dokazati neposredno in posamično nanašanje za izpodbijanje aktov EU, ki niso bili naslovljeni na njih. Kot rezultat je Lizbonska pogodba revidirala člen, ki se nanaša na procesno upravičenje individualnih strank, ostale določbe člena pa so nove. Vseeno pa problem neenotne razlage pojmov še vedno ostaja. Posredna možnost za posameznike je postopek predhodnega odločanja, vprašanje pa je, ali je to res zadostna alternativa za izpodbijanje veljavnosti aktov EU. Ker trenutno ni možno najti optimalne rešitve za večjo dostopnost Sodišča EU za posameznike, situacija kar kliče po spremembah. EU namreč zavezujejo druge pogodbe, ki jim je skupno načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
Keywords:ničnostna tožba, sodna praksa, aktivna legitimacija, posamezniki in EU, Sodišče EU, člen 263 PDEU, učinkovito sodno varstvo
Year of publishing:2014
Publisher:[A. Zorec]
Source:Maribor
UDC:347.933:061.1(043.2)
COBISS_ID:4789547 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:C0ZW16KJ
Views:1725
Downloads:366
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:AddThis
AddThis uses cookies that require your consent. Edit consent...

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:RECENT CASE-LAW ON ADMISSIBILITY OF ACTION FOR ANNULMENT UNDER THE TFEU
Abstract:The action brought for annulment of a certain EU act (action for annulment) represents the central action against EU institutions; at the same time it is also complex and has been subject to legal discussions for decades. It is also known by its inaccessibility of individuals. By far the most disputable condition for standing right (locus standi) of individuals is the test for individual concern. It was developed in the Plaumann case during the early sixties of the last century and has continued until present day to be applied in assessing admissibility. The strict interpretation by the European Court of Justice of certain notions from the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and the restrictions imposed by the TFEU itself on the possibility of challenging European acts by individuals are often criticized as being against the principle of effective judicial protection and in many cases they are leading to the denial of justice. In later years the European Court has developed a rich, but non-unified case-law on the admissibility of an action for annulment. Despite the mellowed problem of distinguishing between a decision and a regulation in the Codorníu case, the applicant would still be required to establish individual concern according to the Plaumann formula. Not even in later cases, attempts to extend the circle of individuals who may bring an action for annulment - most notable were Unión de Pequeños Agricultores and Jego-Quéré – were unable to bring changes regarding standing rights. During the time before the Treaty of Lisbon natural and legal persons had to prove direct and individual concern in order to challenge any EU acts that were not addressed to them. As a result, the Treaty of Lisbon revised the article relating to the standing rights of private parties and the rest of the provision is new. However, the problem of disunited interpretation of terms still remains. For individuals the indirect option is the preliminary ruling procedure, although the question is whether this is really a sufficient alternative to challenge the validity of EU acts. Since it is not possible to find optimal solutions to increase access to the European Court of Justice for individuals, a situation is calling for change. EU is bound by other treaties as well, which have in common the principle of effective judicial protection.
Keywords:action for annulment, case-law, standing right, individuals and the EU, European Court of Justice, Article 263 TFEU, effective judicial protection


Comments

Leave comment

You have to log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica