- citati u SCIndeksu: [1]
- citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:24
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:11
|
|
2018, vol. 66, br. 3, str. 108-128
|
Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije - načelo poverenih ovlašćenja
The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral
Ključne reči: nadležnost EU; načelo poverenih ovlašćenja; implicirana ovlašćenja; klauzula fleksibilnosti; isključiva i neisključiva ovlašćenja
Keywords: EU competence; principle of conferral; implicit powers; flexibility clause; exclusive and non-exclusive powers
Sažetak
Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije određene su načelom poverenih ovlašćenja koje predstavlja temeljni princip prava međunarodnih organizacija. Prema tom načelu, EU nema opštu i neograničenu nadležnost već raspolaže samo onim ovlašćenjima koja su joj poverile države članice osnivačkim ugovorom. Iako nikada osporavano i dovođeno u pitanje prilikom regulisanja nadležnosti, to načelo se dosta teško i sporo probijalo u osnivačke ugovore ranijih Evropskih zajednica i sadašnje EU. U početnoj fazi evropskih integracija tvorci tih ugovora nisu smatrali da je potrebno da u tekst unose principe o razgraničenju nadležnosti između EZ i država članica, odnosno načela vertikalne podele vlasti. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja našlo je prvi put svoj eksplicitni izraz u Ugovoru kojim je osnovana EU. Tom prilikom ono postaje princip komunitarnog prava, ali ne i načelo celokupnog prava EU. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja konstitucionalizovano je tek reformom izvršenom Lisabonskim ugovorom kada je preraslo u ustavni princip čitave EU. Posle pregleda odredaba u kojima se izričito pominje ili razrađuje to načelo, predmet pažnje autora rada su koncept impliciranih ovlašćenja i klauzula fleksibilnosti. Prvi od njih, preuzet iz jurisprudencije Suda pravde, omogućio je EU da, osim ovlašćenja koja su joj izričito poverena, vrši i ona ovlašćenja koja se mogu izvesti dovođenjem u vezu osnivačkog ugovora sa nekom pravno relevantnom činjenicom, kao što su cilj i korisno dejstvo njegovih odredaba. Kod klauzule fleksibilnosti, pak, reč je o rezidualnom ovlašćenju koje se može koristiti u slučaju da ne postoji specifičan pravni osnov kada među državama članicama i institucijama EU postoji saglasnost o potrebi delovanja radi ostvarivanja nekog od ciljeva propisanih osnivačkim ugovorom. Rasprava o granicama nadležnosti EU završava se razmatranjem vrsta njenih ovlašćenja na osnovu klasifikacije usvojene u Lisabonskom ugovoru. Prema toj podeli, koja se oslanja na dosadašnju praksu delovanja EU, razlikuju se isključiva i neisključiva ovlašćenja, pri čemu ova druga kategorija obuhvata podeljena, komplementarna i koordinirajuća ovlašćenja.
Abstract
The limits of EU competencies are determined by the principle of conferral, which is a fundamental principle of the law of international organizations. According to this principle, the Union has no general and unlimited competence, but disposes only of the powers entrusted to it by the Member States according to the founding treaty. Although it has never been disputed and challenged, this principle entered the founding treaties of the former European Communities and the current EU at a very slow pace and with considerable difficulty. In the initial stage of European integration, the treaty framers did not consider it necessary to incorporate the principles on the delimitation of competencies between the EC and the Member States, i.e. the principle of vertical division of power. As the basic principle for determining the limits of competencies of these organizations, the principle of conferral was for the first time explicitly mentioned in the Treaty establishing the EU. Thus, it became the basic principle of communitarian law, but not of the entire EU law. The constitutionalization of the principle of conferral ensued within the reform implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, when it has become a constitutional principle of the entire EU. After reviewing the provisions explicitly referring to or elaborating on this principle, the authors focus on the concept of implied powers and the flexibility clause, which have been modelled in the post-Lisbon era. The former, taken from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, has enabled the EU to exercise competencies other than those it had been explicitly entrusted, which may stem from correlating the founding treaty to a legally relevant fact, such as the objective and effet utile of its provisions. The latter, however, implies a residual power that can be used in the absence of a specific legal basis when there is an agreement between the Member States and the EU institutions on the need for action in order to achieve one of the goals stipulated by the founding treaties. The authors' discussion on the limits of EU competencies is followed up by exploring the types of powers, based on the classification adopted in the Lisbon Treaty. This typology, which relies on the previous practice of the EU, distinguishes exclusive and non-exclusive powers. The second category includes shared, complementary and coordinating powers.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
Bermann, G.A. (2004) Competences of the Union. u: Tridimas T., Nebbia P. [ur.] European Union Law for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford: Hart Publishing
|
2
|
Blumann, C., Dubouis, L. (2010) Droit institutionnel de l'Union européenne. Paris: Litec LexisNexsis
|
|
Chalmers, D., Arnull, A., Schütze, R. (2015) EU Competences. u: Chalmers, Damian; Arnull, Anthony [ur.] The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, Oxford University Press (OUP)
|
1
|
Chalmers, D., Tomkins, A. (2009) European Union Public Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
|
|
Crage, P., Burca, G. (2003) European Union law: Texts, Cases and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press
|
|
Engström, V. (2010) How to Tame the Elusive: Lessons from the Revision of the EU Flexibility Clause. International Organizations Law Review, 7(2): 343-373
|
|
Geiger, R., Khan, D.E., Kotzur, M. (2015) European Union treaties: A commentary. Oxford: C.H. Beck-Hart
|
3
|
Hartley, T. (2014) The foundations of European community law. Oxford University press
|
1
|
Isaac, G., Blanquet, M. (2012) Droit général de l'Union européenne. Paris: Sirey
|
|
Jacqué, J.P. (2012) Droit institutionnel de l'Union européenne. Paris: Dalloz
|
2
|
Knežević-Predić, V., Radivojević, Z. (2009) Kako nastaje i deluje pravo Evropske unije. Beograd: Službeni glasnik
|
|
Knežević-Predić, V., Radivojević, Z. (2018) Ugovorna sposobnost evropske unije: šest decenija posle. Srpska politička misao, 59(1): 75-91
|
|
Konstadinides, T. (2012) Drawing the line between Circumvention and Gap-Filling: An Exploration of the Conceptual Limits of the Treaty's Flexibility Clause. Yearbook of European Law, 31(1): 227-262
|
3
|
Košutić, B., Rakić, B., Milisavljević, B. (2013) Uvod u pravo evropskih integracija. Beograd: Pravni fakultet
|
|
Lenaerts, K., i dr. (2011) European Union Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell
|
2
|
Meškić, Z., Samardžić, D. (2012) Pravo Evropske unije. Sarajevo: TDP, I
|
7
|
Misita, N. (2007) Osnovi prava Evropske unije. Sarajevo
|
2
|
Piris, J.C. (2006) The Constitution for Europe: A legal analysis. Cambridge
|
|
Radivojević, Z. (1989) O implicitnoj ugovornoj sposobnosti međunarodnih organizacija. Godišnjak Pravnog fakulteta u Sarajevu
|
4
|
Radivojević, Z. (1996) Ugovori međunarodnih organizacija u savremenom međunarodnom javnom pravu. Niš
|
11
|
Radivojević, Z., Knežević-Predić, V. (2008) Institucije Evropske unije. Niš
|
|
Rossi, L.S. (2012) Does the Lisbon Treaty Provide a Clearer Separation of Competences between EU and Member States?. u: Biondi, Andrea; Eeckhout, Piet; Ripley, Stefanie [ur.] EU Law after Lisbon, Oxford University Press (OUP), str. 85-106
|
|
Sauron, J.L. (2007) Comprendre le Traité de Lisbonne: Texte consolidé intégrale des traités, explications et commentaires. Paris: Gualino Editeur
|
|
Schutze, R. (2003) Organizad change towards an ‘Ever Closer Union': Article 308 and the limits to the community competences. Yearbook of European Law
|
|
Schutze, R. (2009) The European community's federal order of competence: A retrospective analysis. u: Dougan M., Currie S. [ur.] 50 Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward, Portland: Hart Publishing
|
|
Shermers, H.G., Blokker, N.M. (2003) International institutional law: Unity within diversity. Boston-Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
|
1
|
Show, M. (2008) International law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
|
|
|
|