TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

1

Eden glavnih mehanizmov za zagotovitev enotne uporabe prava Evropske unije je postopek predhodnega odločanja pred Sodiščem Evropske unije. Avtorja prikažeta, kako Vrhovno sodišče kot najvišje sodišče v državi obravnava vprašanja uporabe prava Evropske unije v različnih fazah revizijskega postopka in kako se ta obravnava odraža v sodni praksi, s poudarkom na upravnem sporu. Predstavljen je najnovejši razvoj sodne prakse (in odprta vprašanja), tudi ob upoštevanju stališč nedavne precedenčne odločitve Sodišča Evropske unije v zadevi C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management z dne 6. oktobra 2021. Poudarjene so tudi dileme in pomisleki, ki jih odpira nedavna odločitev Ustavne- ga sodišča v zadevi Up-1133/18 z dne 31. marca 2022, ki nalaga Vrhovnemu sodišču, da v primerih, ko revizije ne dopusti, obrazloži, zakaj zadeve na podlagi predloga stranke ni predložilo v predhodno odločanje. Glede na obstoječo ustaljeno sodno prakso Vrhovnega sodišča, da se v postopku odločanja o dopustitvi revizije ne more postaviti predhodnega vprašanja Sodišču Evropske unije, je v prispevku zastopano stališče, da je bila utemeljena odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča, ki je v danih okoliščinah Sodišču Evropske unije postavilo predhodno vprašanje glede skladnosti veljavne ureditve dopustitve revizije z zahtevami prava Evropske unije.

The preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the main mechanisms for ensuring the uniform application of European Union law. The article examines how the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country, deals with issues of application of European Union law at various stages of the revision process and how is this consideration reflected in case law with a focus on administrative dispute cases. The article discusses the latest developments in case law (and open questions), also taking into account the recent precedential judgement of the CJEU in the case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management of 6 October 2021. It also highlights dilemmas and concerns raised by the recent decision of the Constitutional Court in the case Up-1133/18 of 31 March 2022. In its decision the Constitutional Court instructs the Supreme Court, in cases where revisions are not admissible, to give reasons as to why it did not refer a case for a preliminary ruling based on a party’s motion. According to the existing established Supreme Court case law, a preliminary question cannot be referred to the CJEU in the decision-making process on the admissibility of revision. The article represents the point of view that in the given circumstances the decision of the Supreme Court to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU regarding the compatibility of the existing regulation of admissibility of revision with the requirements of European Union law was well founded.

Obligation of the Supreme Court to Refer Questions for a Preliminary Ruling