RAZMERJE MED PRAVOM EU IN PRAVOM DČ – 03.11.2005

1. RAZMERJE MED PRAVOM EU IN PRAVOM DČ – 03.11.2005 Literatura: Ilešič, Grilc: Pravo Evropske unije, I. knjiga, str. 101-131 Craig, deBurca: EU Law, str. 112-117, 178-229 in 275-316 značilnosti prava ES 3 načela: 1. NAČELO AVTONOMNOSTI 2. NAČELO PRIMARNOSTI 3. NAČELO NEPOSREDNE UPORABNOSTI in NAČELO NEPOSREDNE UČINKOVITOSTI

2. 1. NAČELO AVTONOMNOSTI PRAVA ES • pravo ES = avtonomno, samostojno, neodvisno od nacionalnih pravnih redov DČ • od kje črpajo veljavnost pravila, ki jih sprejemajo organi ES? • NA je podlaga za NP in NNUp/NNUč

3. case26/62 Van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastigen: “…THE OBJECTIVE OF THE EEC TREATY, WHICH IS TO ESTABLISH A COMMON MARKET, THE FUNCTIONING OF WHICH IS OF DIRECT CONCERN TO INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE COMMUNITY, IMPLIES THAT THIS TREATY IS MORE THAN AN AGREEMENT WHICH MERELY CREATES MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING STATES. THIS VIEW IS CONFIRMED BY THE PREAMBLE TO THE TREATY WHICH REFERS NOT ONLY TO GOVERNMENTS BUT TO PEOPLES. IT IS ALSO CONFIRMED MORE SPECIFICALLY BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTIONS ENDOWED WITH SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, THE EXERCISE OF WHICH AFFECTS MEMBER STATES AND ALSO THEIR CITIZENS. FURTHERMORE, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE NATIONALS OF THE STATES BROUGHT TOGETHER IN THE COMMUNITY ARE CALLED UPON TO COOPERATE IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THIS COMMUNITY… …THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THIS IS THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSTITUTES A NEW LEGAL ORDER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE BENEFIT OF WHICH THE STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, ALBEIT WITHIN LIMITED FIELDS, AND THE SUBJECTS OF WHICH COMPRISE NOT ONLY MEMBER STATES BUT ALSO THEIR NATIONALS…”

4. case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle fuer Getreide- und Futtermittel “ …THE VALIDITY OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY CAN ONLY BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMUNITY LAW.THE LAW STEMMING FROM THE TREATY, AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW,…” ____________________________________________________________________________ • case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L “ …BY CONTRAST WITH ORDINARY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, THE EEC TREATY HAS CREATED ITS OWN LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH, ON THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY, BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND WHICH THEIR COURTS ARE BOUND TO APPLY . BY CREATING A COMMUNITY OF UNLIMITED DURATION, HAVING ITS OWN INSTITUTIONS, ITS OWN PERSONALITY, ITS OWN LEGAL CAPACITY AND CAPACITY OF REPRESENTATION ON THE INTERNATIONAL PLANE AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, REAL POWERS STEMMING FROM A LIMITATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OR A TRANSFER OF POWERS FROM THE STATES TO THE COMMUNITY, THE MEMBER STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND HAVE THUS CREATED A BODY OF LAW WHICH BINDS BOTH THEIR NATIONALS AND THEMSELVES.” .

5. 2. NAČELO PRIMARNOSTI ang. precedence, supremacyfr. primautenem. Vorrang • pravo ES prevlada nad vsem pravom DČ (v primeru konflikta) • ali velja pravilo lex posterior (DČ) derogat legi priori (ES)? NE! • določene izjeme • razvoj: - PES: 249, 10 ? - case-law !!!

6. case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L “ …THE INTEGRATION INTO THE LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE OF PROVISIONS WHICH DERIVE FROM THE COMMUNITY AND MORE GENERALLY THE TERMS AND THE SPIRIT OF THE TREATY, MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATES, AS A COROLLARY, TO ACCORD PRECEDENCE TO A UNILATERAL AND SUBSEQUENT MEASURE OVER A LEGAL SYSTEM ACCEPTED BY THEM ON A BASIS OF RECIPROCITY . SUCH A MEASURE CANNOT THEREFORE BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT LEGAL SYSTEM. THE LAW STEMMING FROM THE TREATY, AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW, COULD NOT BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL NATURE, BE OVERRIDDEN BY DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS, HOWEVER FRAMED, WITHOUT BEING DEPRIVED OF ITS CHARACTER AS COMMUNITY LAW AND WITHOUT THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION. THE TRANSFER BY THE STATES FROM THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM TO THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE TREATY CARRIES WITH IT A PERMANENT LIMITATION OF THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS…”

7. case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle fuer Getreide- und Futtermittel “… THE LAW STEMMING FROM THE TREATY, AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF LAW, CANNOT BECAUSE OF ITS VERY NATURE BE OVERRIDDEN BY RULES OF NATIONAL LAW, HOWEVER FRAMED, WITHOUT BEING DEPRIVED OF ITS CHARACTER AS COMMUNITY LAW AND WITHOUT THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMMUNITY ITSELF BEING CALLED IN QUESTION. THEREFORE THE VALIDITY OF A COMMUNITY MEASURE OR ITS EFFCT WITHIN A MEMBER STATE CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY ALLEGATIONS THAT IT RUNS COUNTER TO EITHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS FORMULATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT STATE OR THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE .( JUDGMENT OF 15 JULY 1964, CASE 6/64 ( 1964 ) E . C . R ., P . 594 ) RESPECT FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FORMS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW PROTECTED BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE. THE PROTECTION OF SUCH RIGHTS, WHILST INSPIRED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS COMMON TO THE MEMBER STATES, MUST BE ENSURED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY.(JUDGMENT OF 12 NOVEMBER 1969, CASE 29/69, REC . 1969, P . 425)…”

8. case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA “… IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRECEDENCE OF COMMUNITY LAW, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE MEASURES OF THE INSTITUTIONS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE MEMBER STATES ON THE OTHER IS SUCH THAT THOSE PROVISIONS AND MEASURES NOT ONLY BY THEIR ENTRY INTO FORCE RENDER AUTOMATICALLY INAPPLICABLE ANY CONFLICTING PROVISION OF CURRENT NATIONAL LAW BUT - IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF, AND TAKE PRECEDENCE IN, THE LEGAL ORDER APPLICABLE IN THE TERRITORY OF EACH OF THE MEMBER STATES - ALSO PRECLUDE THE VALID ADOPTION OF NEW NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEASURES TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY PROVISIONS. ANY RECOGNITION THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEASURES WHICH ENCROACH UPON THE FIELD WITHIN WHICH THE COMMUNITY EXERCISES ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER OR WHICH ARE OTHERWISE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW HAD ANY LEGAL EFFECT WOULD AMOUNT TO A CORRESPONDING DENIAL OF THE EFFECTIVENESSOF OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRREVOCABLY BY MEMBER STATES PURSUANT TO THE TREATY AND WOULD THUS IMPERIL THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY. .

9. … A NATIONAL COURT WHICH IS CALLED UPON, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS JURISDICTION, TO APPLY PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW IS UNDER A DUTY TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THOSE PROVISIONS, IF NECESSARY REFUSING OF ITS OWN MOTION TO APPLY ANY CONFLICTING PROVISION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION, EVEN IF ADOPTED SUBSEQUENTLY, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO REQUEST OR AWAIT THE PRIOR SETTING ASIDE OF SUCH PROVISIONS BY LEGISLATIVE OR OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS…” • glej tudi: • case C-118/00 Larsy v. INASTI • Case C-213/89 R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. and others

10. neveljavnost ali neuporabnostakta DČ, ki ni skladen s pravom ES? • cases C-10-22/97 Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE’90 Srl “… It cannot therefore, contrary to the Commission's contention, be inferred from the judgment in Simmenthal that the incompatibility with Community law of a subsequently adopted rule of national law has the effect of rendering that rule of national law non-existent. Faced with such a situation, the national court is, however, obliged to disapply that rule, provided always that this obligation does not restrict the power of the competent national courts to apply, from among the various procedures available under national law, those which are appropriate for protecting the individual rights conferred by Community law (see Case 34/67 Lück v Hauptzollamt Köln-Rheinau [1968] ECR 245)…”