ULTRA VIRES ODLUKE SUDA EU-A: POČETAK SUDSKOG SUKOBA ILI SURADNJE

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Pravni Vjesnik Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.25234/pv/20189
Stjepan Novak
{"title":"ULTRA VIRES ODLUKE SUDA EU-A: POČETAK SUDSKOG SUKOBA ILI SURADNJE","authors":"Stjepan Novak","doi":"10.25234/pv/20189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at exploring the decisions of the highest national courts that had declared the decisions of the CJEU ultra vires, without binding effect in their countries. The same as the Czech, Danish and German courts, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC) could deliver such a decision according to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (CRC) and Article 104 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CACC). In the procedure, the CCRC should not only respect relevant provisions of CRC and CACC, but also the procedural rules of the CJEU, ensuring that the decision are indeed well founded and genuine. Although the CJEU’s reaction could easily be launching an infringement action against a member state whose court has delivered such a decision, the Union’s acceptance of these decisions seems to be a much more appropriate solution. Following the introductory considerations, the second part of the paper deals with the cases of the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany, where the highest national courts have delivered such decisions. The third part of the paper researches into the CCRC’s possibilities for delivering such decisions. The research into possible reactions of the CJEU to decisions of the highest national courts declaring the CJEU decisions ultra vires is the subject of the fourth part of the paper emphasizing the decision that stands out as the most adequate in the context of constitutional dialogues between these courts and CJEU. Concluding remarks are given in the final part of the paper.","PeriodicalId":41100,"journal":{"name":"Pravni Vjesnik","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pravni Vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/20189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper aims at exploring the decisions of the highest national courts that had declared the decisions of the CJEU ultra vires, without binding effect in their countries. The same as the Czech, Danish and German courts, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC) could deliver such a decision according to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (CRC) and Article 104 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CACC). In the procedure, the CCRC should not only respect relevant provisions of CRC and CACC, but also the procedural rules of the CJEU, ensuring that the decision are indeed well founded and genuine. Although the CJEU’s reaction could easily be launching an infringement action against a member state whose court has delivered such a decision, the Union’s acceptance of these decisions seems to be a much more appropriate solution. Following the introductory considerations, the second part of the paper deals with the cases of the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany, where the highest national courts have delivered such decisions. The third part of the paper researches into the CCRC’s possibilities for delivering such decisions. The research into possible reactions of the CJEU to decisions of the highest national courts declaring the CJEU decisions ultra vires is the subject of the fourth part of the paper emphasizing the decision that stands out as the most adequate in the context of constitutional dialogues between these courts and CJEU. Concluding remarks are given in the final part of the paper.
欧盟法院裁决:审判或审判的开始
本文旨在探讨国家最高法院的裁决,这些法院宣布欧盟法院的裁决越权,在其国家没有约束力。与捷克、丹麦和德国法院一样,克罗地亚共和国宪法法院可以根据《克罗地亚共和国宪章》第129条和《克罗地亚共和国宪法》第104条作出这样的裁决。在程序上,CCRC不仅要尊重CRC和CACC的相关规定,还要尊重CJEU的程序规则,确保该决定确实是有根据和真实的。尽管欧盟法院的反应很容易是对法院做出此类裁决的成员国提起侵权诉讼,但欧盟接受这些裁决似乎是一个更合适的解决方案。在介绍性审议之后,本文件第二部分涉及捷克共和国、丹麦和德国的案件,这些国家的最高法院作出了此类裁决。论文的第三部分研究了CCRC做出此类决策的可能性。研究欧盟最高法院宣布欧盟最高法院的裁决越权的可能反应是论文第四部分的主题,强调在这些法院与欧盟最高法院之间的宪法对话中,最充分的裁决。论文的最后部分给出了结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信