Načelo lojalne razlage: razlaga nacionalnega prava v luči prava EU

Fajdiga, Mohor (author), Zagorc, Saša (mentor), Pavčnik, Marijan (comentor)

Načelo lojalne razlage je na prvi pogled najmanj invaziven način učinkovanja prava EU v pravnih redih držav članic. Pravo EU se za razliko od neposrednega učinka pri lojalni razlagi ne uporablja neposredno, ampak je pravna podlaga nacionalno pravo, ki so ga državni organi dolžni razlagati v skladu z besedilom in namenom direktive. Toda obveznost lojalne razlage se ne nanaša le na sodišča, ampak na vse državne organe in na nacionalno pravo kot celoto ter nastopi s potekom roka za implementacijo direktive. Sicer jo najpogosteje povezujemo z direktivami, a obstaja tudi v zvezi z drugimi viri prava EU. Čeprav drži, da SEU lojalne razlage ne zahteva za vsako ceno, so organi držav članic dolžni izčrpati vse možnosti, ki jim jih daje nacionalno pravo, da bi sprejeli lojalno razlago. Gre torej za izjemno intenzivno obveznost, ki od držav članic zahteva veliko več, kot se morda sprva zdi. Mejo lojalni razlagi postavljajo predvsem splošna pravna načela EU: načelo pravne varnosti, načelo prepovedi retroaktivnosti, načelo zakonitosti v kazenskem pravu itd. SEU prepoveduje tudi razlago contra legem, a je ne opredeli. Tako kot nekateri drugi nejasni vidiki doktrine lojalne razlage je definicija contra legem interpretacije prepuščena državnim organom in se med državami članicami lahko razlikuje. V Sloveniji jo razumemo kot razlago, do katere se z uveljavljenimi interpretativnimi metodami ne da priti. Lojalna razlaga je pomembna predvsem zaradi zagotavljanja enotnejše uporabe prava EU in njegove učinkovitosti, še posebej nasproti posameznikom, kjer v skladu z doktrino Marshall I velja prepoved neposrednega učinka direktiv. SEU je tako prek lojalne razlage na prefinjen način razširilo domet direktiv na posameznike, ne da bi pri tem »dvignilo preveč prahu«.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: Lojalna razlaga, posredni učinek, Evropska unija, von Colson, direktiva, contra legem, Sodišče EU, država članica.
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2018
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-102724
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16317265
• Publication date in RUL: 07.09.2018

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: The Principle of Consistent Interpretation: Interpretation of National Law in the Light of EU Law

Abstract

At first glance, the principle of consistent interpretation seems to be the least intrusive way of giving effect to EU law in legal orders of Member states. Unlike direct effect, consistent interpretation does not entail direct application of EU law. The legal basis is national law, which national authorities are bound to interpret in accordance with the wording and the purpose of the directive. However, the obligation of consistent interpretation does not relate only to courts, but applies to all national authorities and to the national law as a whole. It applies from the moment of expiry of the deadline for transposition of the directive. In general, it is most commonly linked with directives, but it exists in relation to other sources of EU law as well. Even though it is true that the CJEU does not demand the consistent interpretation at any cost, the Member states’ authorities are nevertheless bound to exhaust all possibilities under national law, in order to ensure a consistent interpretation. Therefore, it is an extremely intensive obligation, requiring much more from the Member States than it may seem on the surface. The principle of consistent interpretation is limited especially by general principles of EU law: the principle of legal certainty, the principle of prohibition of retroactivity, the principle of legality in criminal law etc. Furthermore, the CJEU prohibits the interpretation contra legem, but does not define it. Like some other vague aspects of the doctrine of consistent interpretation, the definition of the contra legem interpretation is left to the state authorities and may therefore vary among Member states. In Slovenia, it is understood as an interpretation which cannot be reached with the use of established methods of statutory construction. Consistent interpretation is particularly important for ensuring the uniform application of EU law and its efficiency, especially with respect to individuals, where direct effect of directives is prohibited according to the Marshall I doctrine. The CJEU has thus extended the scope of application of directives to individuals in a very refined manner and without causing too much of a stir.

• Keywords: Consistent interpretation, indirect effect, European Union, von Colson, directive, contra legem, CJEU, Member state.