| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Neposredna tožba zoper državo članico zaradi kršitve obveznosti postavitve vprašanja v predhodno odločanje nacionalnih sodišč zadnje stopnje
Authors:Satler, Miha (Author)
Hojnik, Janja (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Satler_Miha_2018.pdf (1,00 MB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:V svoji magistrski nalogi se ukvarjam s postopkom predhodnega odločanja po 267. členu PDEU in neposredno tožbo Evropske komisije proti državi članici zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti njenega sodišča iz 267. člena PDEU na podlagi 258. člena PDEU. Na začetku obravnavam temeljne značilnosti predhodnega odločanja in izpostavim izjeme od obveznosti predložitve vprašanja v predhodno odločanje. Poseben poudarek dajem posledicam nespoštovanja obveznosti predložitve ali napačne odločitve nacionalnega sodišča. Najprej opisujem prvo, bolj pogosto uporabljeno sankcijo, in sicer možnost odškodninske tožbe stranke proti državi članici, katere sodišče ni izpolnilo svoje predložitvene obveznosti. Nato se lotim podrobne analize možnosti Evropske komisije, da proti državi članici sodišča zaradi omenjene kršitve vloži tožbo na podlagi 258. člena PDEU. V zadnjem delu obravnavam neposredno tožbo Evropske komisije v luči zadeve Komisija proti Franciji (C-416/17), v kateri je po več kot šestdeset letih prišlo do spremembe načina delovanja Evropske komisije, ki je ravno v tej zadevi prvič vložila tožbo proti državi članici zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi 258. člena PDEU, zaradi kršitve 267. člena PDEU, ki določa obveznost postavitve vprašanja v predhodno odločanje. Sama sodba Sodišča EU na prvi pogled izgleda precej tehnična, vendar pa v sebi skriva revolucionaren razvoj sodstva EU. S svojo odločitvijo je Sodišče EU poslalo močno sporočilo nacionalnim sodiščem zadnje stopnje (denimo vrhovnim sodiščem). S tem dopolnjuje svojo odločitev v zadevi Ferreira da Silva (C-160/14), ko je prvič razglasilo kršitev CILFIT doktrine acte claire. Tako lahko rečemo, da je CILFIT »nabrusil zobe, Sodišče pa je pripravljeno z njimi gristi.« V prihodnje bo zelo zanimivo opazovati nadaljnji razvoj odnosov in gradnjo zaupanja med najvišjimi sodišči držav članic in Sodiščem EU po tej prelomni odločitvi Evropske komisije. Končno odločitev za vložitev takšne tožbe bo še zmeraj na plečih Evropske komisije in posledično odvisna od njene (politične) volje. Zanimivo bo spremljati, glede katerih kršitev nacionalnih sodišč in še posebej proti katerim državam članicam, se bo Evropska komisija odločala za vlaganje tožb.
Keywords:Predhodno odločanje, dolžnost postaviti vprašanje v predhodno odločanje, doktrina acte clair, kršitev EKČP, tožba Evropske komisije proti državi članici
Year of publishing:2018
Publisher:M. Satler]
Source:[Maribor
UDC:347.957:341.645(043.3)
COBISS_ID:5694251 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:QYHKRDQ1
License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This work is available under this license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
Views:1887
Downloads:142
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:Direct action against a Member State for breach of mandatory reference for preliminary ruling by the national courts of last instance
Abstract:In my master’s thesis, I discuss the procedure of preliminary ruling according to the Article 267 TFEU and the direct action of the European Commission against the Member State because of the failure to fulfill obligations of its court from the Article 267 TFEU on the basis of the Article 258 TFEU. In the beginning, I discuss the concept of preliminary ruling, basic characteristics of the procedure and the exceptions from the duty to refer a question for the preliminary ruling. A special emphasis is put on the consequences of impairment of the bindings of the submission or of an erroneous decision of the national court. First, I present the first, more commonly used sanction, i.e. the option of action for compensation of the party against the Member State whose national court did not fulfill the referral duty. Then, I discuss the option of the European Commission to bring an action on the basis of Article 258 TFEU against the Member State of the court because of the mentioned violation. In the last part, I discuss the recent ruling in Commission v France (C-416/17) where there was a change of the way of the functioning of the European Commission for the first time after more than sixty years. Court of Justice condemned for the first time a Member State for a breach of Article 267(3) TFEU in the context of an infringement action, after the French administrative supreme court failed to make a necessary preliminary reference. The judgment of the Court of Justice at first glance seems rather technical, but it hides the revolutionary development of the EU judiciary. Through its decision, the Court sent a strong message to the national courts of the last instance (for example, the Supreme Courts). With this, it completes its decision in the Ferreira da Silva case (C-160/14), when it first declared the violation of the CILFIT doctrine acte claire. We can say CILFIT " has sharpened its teeth, and the Court of European Union is prepared to bite with them." In the future, it will be very interesting to observe the further development of relations and the building of trust between the highest courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice following this European Commission's groundbreaking decision. The final decision to bring such an action will still be on the shoulders of the European Commission and consequently dependent on its (political) will. It will be also interesting to monitor the breach of national courts and, in particular, against which Member States, the European Commission will decide to bring actions.
Keywords:Preliminary ruling, duty to pose a question regarding the preliminary ruling, acte clair doctrine, ECHR violation, action of the European Commission against the member


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