| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Stalno in običajno prebivališče kot kriterija za določitev mednarodne pristojnosti po Bruseljski uredbi I bis in Bruseljski uredbi II bis : diplomsko delo
Authors:Pintar, Anja (Author)
Repas, Martina (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UN_Pintar_Anja_2019.pdf (463,47 KB)
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Bachelor thesis/paper (mb11)
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:V diplomskem delu obravnavam pojem stalnega ter običajnega prebivališča kot kriterija za določitev mednarodne pristojnosti po Bruseljski uredbi I bis in II bis. Razumevanje omenjenih pojmov se po posameznih državah in pravnih virih razlikuje. Stalno prebivališče toženca predstavlja v členu 4 Bruseljske uredbe I bis pojem, na katerem je utemeljena splošna mednarodna pristojnost. V nadaljevanju nas uredba v členu 62 napoti k uporabi nacionalnih pravil za opredelitev stalnega prebivališča fizične osebe, v členu 63 pa najdemo avtonomno razlago za opredelitev stalnega prebivališča pravne osebe. Pravila v Bruseljski uredbi II bis primarno temeljijo na državljanstvu in konceptu običajnega prebivališča, ki ga uredba ne definira. V diplomskem delu sem skušala primerjati ter najti povezave med opredelitvijo pojma običajnega prebivališča otroka in običajnega prebivališča odrasle osebe. Številne smernice, ki so se izoblikovale skozi sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije, je mogoče upoštevati pri opredelitvi obeh običajnih prebivališč, nekatere izmed smernic pa so primerne le za opredelitev enega izmed pojmov. V uredbi Rim I in Rim II so opredeljeni pojmi običajnega prebivališča za družbe in druge subjekte, s pravno osebnostjo ali brez nje ter fizične osebe, ki opravljajo poslovno dejavnost. Ne podajata pa opredelitvi za fizične osebe, ki ne opravljajo svoje poslovne dejavnosti. Zato bi se ta pojem moral razlagati smiselno v skladu s sodno prakso glede običajnega prebivališča v okviru drugih pravnih virov, predvsem Bruseljske uredbe II bis.
Keywords:stalno prebivališče, običajno prebivališče, Bruseljska uredba I bis, Bruseljska uredba II bis, uredba Rim I, uredba Rim II, dedna uredba
Year of publishing:2019
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:[A. Pintar]
Number of pages:22 f.
Source:Maribor
UDC:341.2(043.2)
COBISS_ID:5816875 Link is opened in a new window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:473NRVWS
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:79
Downloads:15
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:Domicile and habitual residence as jurisdictional criteria in the Brussels I bis and II bis regulation
Abstract:This thesis, introduces the notion of domicile and habitual residence as criteria for determining international jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis and II bis Regulation. The understanding of these concepts varies from country to country and from different legal sources. General jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation is based on the defendant's domicile, determined by Article 4. In the case of an individual, Article 62 of the Regulation directs the Member States to apply their internal law. Article 63 on the other hand provides an autonomous interpretation approach. The rules in the Brussels II bis Regulation are primarily based on citizenship and the concept of habitual residence, which is not defined by the Regulation. One of the purposes of the thesis is to compare and connect the concept of child's habitual residence and habitual residence of an adult. The guidelines of Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) are essential for defining both of the notions, however some of them are suitable only for one of the habitual residences. Rome I and Rome II Regulation define the concept of habitual residence for companies and other bodies, corporate or unincorporated and natural persons acting in the course of their business activity. Definition for natural persons who are not acting in the course of their business activity is not provided. Therefore, the concept of the habitual residence should be interpreted in accordance with the case law on habitual residence in the context of other sources of law, especially Brussels II bis Regulation.
Keywords:domicile, habitual residence, Brussels I bis Regulation, Brussels II bis Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation, Succession Regulation


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