| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document

Title:Presoja čezmejnega elementa pri svoboščinah notranjega trga EU : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Zemljič, Mia (Author)
ID Hojnik, Janja (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Zemljic_Mia_2022.pdf (836,62 KB)
MD5: 04B7FB241C2ECB1E0ACC97CFD771939D
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper (mb22)
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Magistrsko delo obravnava zahtevo po čezmejnem elementu pri svoboščinah notranjega trga. Določbe PDEU o svoboščinah notranjega trga se uporabljajo samo, če v dejanskih okoliščinah konkretne zadeve obstaja čezmejni element. Odsotnost čezmejnega elementa pomeni, da gre za povsem notranji položaj, ki je v skladu s povsem notranjim pravilom zunaj področja uporabe teh določb in posledično tudi zunaj pristojnosti Sodišča EU. Povsem notranji položaji ostajajo v pristojnosti držav članic in so v celoti podvrženi njihovemu nacionalnemu pravu. Za pravilno razumevanje pojmov čezmejnega elementa in povsem notranjih položajev je nujno poznavanje obstoječe sodne prakse Sodišča EU. Za izpolnitev zahteve po čezmejnem elementu se je tradicionalno zahtevalo dejansko čezmejno gibanje oz. dejanski čezmejni element, vendar so se negativne posledice takšnega pristopa kazale kot lažni negativi in obratna diskriminacija, ki jih je Sodišče EU v svoji novejši sodni praksi poskušalo odpraviti oz. vsaj omiliti s tem, da je s široko razlago razširilo pojem gibanja in s tem obstoj čezmejnega elementa, s tem pa hkrati omejilo primere, ko govorimo o povsem notranjih položajih, pri čemer je navedeno še posebej očitno na področju prostega gibanja oseb, ki danes ne pomeni več samo ekonomske svoboščine, saj pravo EU omogoča prosto gibanje tudi ekonomsko neaktivnim osebam, ki so varovane z določbami PDEU o državljanstvu Unije. Poleg tega pa je Sodišče EU oblikovalo tudi določene izjeme od zahteve po čezmejnem elementu in povsem notranjega pravila na področju prostega pretoka blaga in državljanstva Unije, ki omogočajo, da se pravo EU lahko uporabi tudi, kadar v dejanskih okoliščinah konkretne zadeve ne obstaja čezmejni element. Posledično je postalo vprašanje, ali neka zadeva spada na področje uporabe določb PDEU o svoboščinah notranjega trga, zelo zapleteno vprašanje, na katerega ni mogoče odgovoriti brez poznavanja obstoječe sodne prakse Sodišča EU. Logična postopkovna posledica dejstva, da povsem notranji položaji ne spadajo na področje uporabe določb PDEU o svoboščinah notranjega trga, je nepristojnost Sodišča EU na podlagi člena 267 PDEU in nedopustnost predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki izhajajo iz zadev, ki se nanašajo na povsem notranje položaje. Kljub temu pa je Sodišče EU večkrat odgovorilo tudi na predhodna vprašanja, ki so izhajala iz nacionalnega postopka, v katerem so bili vsi elementi omejeni na samo eno državo članico. Gre za tradicionalno zelo kaotično in nejasno področje sodne prakse Sodišča EU, pri čemer je korak v pravo smer pomenila novejša zadeva Ullens de Schooten, v kateri je Sodišče EU prvič sistematiziralo vse vrste zadev, v katerih lahko odstopi od splošnega pravila in tradicionalni trilogiji Dzodzi, Guimont, Oosthoek dodalo četrto – Libert. Zahteva po čezmejnem elementu je na prvi pogled jasen in neposreden koncept, ki logično sledi besedilu in ciljem določb PDEU o svoboščinah notranjega trga, vendar pa sodna praksa Sodišča EU kaže povsem drugačno sliko, zato so se pojavile ideje o spremembi in celo o odpravi zahteve po čezmejnem elementu.
Keywords:pravo EU, notranji trg, svoboščine notranjega trga, čezmejni element, povsem notranji položaji, sodna praksa Sodišča EU, povsem notranje pravilo, postopek predhodnega odločanja
Year of publishing:2022
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:[M. Zemljič]
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (56 str.))
Source:Maribor
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-82255 New window
UDC:339.13:061.1EU(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:122477827 New window
Publication date in DKUM:22.09.2022
Views:95
Downloads:24
Metadata:XML RDF-CHPDL DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Kopiraj citat
  
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.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:08.08.2022

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Assessment of the cross-border element within the EU internal market freedoms
Abstract:The master's thesis deals with the requirement for a cross-border element within the EU internal market freedoms. The provisions of the TFEU on internal market freedoms apply only if there is a cross-border element in the factual circumstances of the specific case. The absence of a cross-border element means that it is a purely internal situation, which, in accordance with the purely internal rule, is outside the scope of application of these provisions and, consequently, also outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU. Purely internal situations remain within the competence of Member States and are fully subject to their national law. Knowledge of the existing case law of the Court of Justice of the EU is essential for a correct understanding of the concepts of the cross-border element and purely internal situations. What was traditionally required was actual cross-border movement or an actual cross-border element. However, the negative consequences of this approach appeared as false negatives and reverse discrimination, which the Court of Justice of the EU tried to eliminate or at least mitigate in its recent case law. With a broad interpretation, it expanded the concept of movement and thus the existence of a cross-border element while at the same time limiting the cases of purely internal situations, and this is particularly evident in the area of free movement of persons, which today no longer means only economic freedom since EU law enables free movement even for economically inactive persons who are protected by the provisions of the TFEU on Union citizenship. In addition, the Court of Justice of the EU also created certain exceptions to the requirement for a cross-border element and a purely internal rule in the area of free movement of goods and Union citizenship, which enables EU law to be applied even when there is no cross-border element in the factual circumstances of a specific case. As a result, the question of whether a matter falls within the scope of application of the provisions of the TFEU on internal market freedoms has become a very complex question that cannot be answered without knowledge of the existing case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. The logical procedural consequence of the fact that purely internal situations do not fall within the scope of application of the provisions of the TFEU on internal market freedoms is the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU under Article 267 TFEU and the inadmissibility of requests for a preliminary ruling, arising from cases relating to purely internal situations. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the EU repeatedly answered preliminary questions arising from a national procedure in which all elements were limited to only one Member State. This is traditionally a very chaotic and unclear area of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. A step in the right direction was the more recent Ullens de Schooten case, in which the Court of Justice of the EU, for the first time, systematized all types of cases in which it can depart from the general rule and added a fourth to the traditional trilogy Dzodzi, Guimont, Oosthoek – Libert. The requirement for a cross-border element is, at first glance, a clear and straightforward concept that logically follows the text and objectives of the provisions of the TFEU on internal market freedoms. However, the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU shows an entirely different picture, which is why ideas about changing and even eliminating the requirement for a cross-border element have appeared.
Keywords:EU law, internal market, internal market freedoms, cross-border element, purely internal situations, case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, purely internal rule, preliminary ruling procedure


Comments

Leave comment

You must 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