The analysis of the integrity of the judicial protection system of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Zasnovani sistem varstva pravic prava EU je, kljub velikim spremembam na gospodarsko ekonomskem področju in tudi na socialnem področju, saj se je družba in posameznikov položaj v njej v tem času zelo spremenil, dolga leta deloval brezhibno. Odrekanje pravnega varstva oziroma pomanjkanje učinkovitega pravnega sredstva kot pomanjkljivost sistema ni bilo zaznano vse do zadeve Jégo-Quéré. Po opravljeni analizi pravnih sredstev, ki so v okvirih varstva pravic v zasebnem interesu, javnem interesu in v okviru ustavnega varstva pravic na voljo posamezniku, je zaključiti, da je za posameznika daleč najprimernejše varstvo pravic v zasebnem interesu. Direktna ničnostna tožba na podlagi četrtega odstavka 263. člena Pogodbe o delovanju EU pa je tisti institut varstva pravic EU, ki je za posameznika, če le izpolnjuje stroge legitimacijske pogoje, ki so po spremembi z Lizbonsko pogodbo upoštevaje interpretacijo pojma predpis, ki jo je Sodišče EU poudarilo v zadevi C-583/11 P, postali za posameznika, ki želi izpodbijani splošne akte, z izjemo zakonodajnih aktov, manj strogi, daleč najprimernejši. Kljub vsem možnostim varstva pravic, ki so posamezniku neposredno ali posredno na voljo, da bi lahko učinkovito zavaroval svoje pravic, ki izvirajo iz prava EU, se postavlja vprašanje ali se lahko vseeno znajde v situaciji, ko mu ustrezno oziroma učinkovito varstvo pravic (po načelu effet utile) ni zagotovljeno? Odgovor je pritrdilen. Varstvo pravic posameznika preko Sodišča EU je kljub namenu spremembe četrtega odstavka 263. člena PDEU, da se posameznikom omogoči, da pod manj strogimi pogoji vložijo ničnostno tožbo zoper predpise, omejeno in ni opaziti interesa, ne s strani Sodišča EU, kot tudi ne s strani držav članic (sodeč po Lizbonski pogodbi), da bi v prihodnje prišlo do širitve tega obsega na tak način, da bi posameznikom v okviru pojma predpis bila dana možnost izpodbijanja splošnih zakonodajnih aktov. Naloga je sestavljena iz treh poglavij. Prvo poglavje predstavlja kratek uvod v sisteme varstva pravic. V drugem poglavju sledi opis značilnosti posameznega sistem varstva pravic, s pregledom bistvenih lastnosti pravnih sredstev, znotraj vsakega izmed sistemov varstva pravic. Tretje poglavje je jedro magistrske naloge. V njem so najprej predstavljene možnosti, kako lahko posameznik zaščiti svoje pravice, ali se lahko odloči za uveljavljanje varstva pravic le znotraj enega sistema varstva pravic, na primer zasebnopravnega, ali pa lahko hkrati uporabi tudi pravna sredstva, ki mu jih nudi sistem javnega varstva pravic. Sledi analiza podobnosti in razlik ter medsebojne povezanosti posameznih pravnih sredstev, ki daje podlago za pregled prednosti in slabosti za posameznika, pri uveljavljanju varstva pravic. Magistrska naloga doseže svoj vrh pri presoji, ali je posamezniku, glede na novo ureditev po Lizbonski pogodbi in kljub pomanjkljivostim sistema varstva pravic, zagotovljeno učinkovito varstvo pravic prava EU. Temu pa sledijo še sklepne misli.System designed to protect the rights of EU law has for many years, despite significant changes in the commercial economic field and in the social sphere, as the society and individuals position in it in the meantime changed a lot, worked flawless. Denial of justice or the lack of an effective remedy as a weakness of the system was not detected until the Jégo-Quéré case. After an analysis of legal remedies, which are under the protection of private interests, public interests and constitutional protection, available to individuals, it can be concluded that for the individual far most appropriate the protection of the rights of private interest. Direct action for annulment under the fourth paragraph 263 Article TFEU is the institute of protection of the rights of the EU, which is for an individual, if he complies with the strict legitimation conditions which, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty considering the interpretation of the concept Regulatory act by the EU Court of Justice in Case C-583/11 P became for the individual who wants contested general acts, with the exception of Legislative acts, less stringent, by far the best. Despite all the possibilities of protection of the rights which are to an individual directly or indirectly available for effective protection of their rights deriving from EU law, the question arises whether there is still a possibility, for an individual to remain without effective legal judicial protection (on the principle of effet utile)? The answer is affirmative. Protection of individual rights through the European Court of Justice is despite the intention of amanding the fourth paragraph 263 Article TFEU in order to enable individuals under less stringent conditions to bring an action for annulment against Regulatory acts, limited and there is no interest by the EU Court of Justice, nor by the Member States (judging by the Lisbon Treaty) to perceive that in the future expansion of this range in a way that the individuals within the context of the Regulatory act would be given the opportunity to contest the general legislative acts would occur. The master degree consists of three chapters. The first chapter presents an introduction to the court system of rights protection. The second chapter follows a description of the characteristics of each system of protection of the rights, scrutiny of the essential qualities of the remedies within each of the systems of protection of rights. The third chapter is the essence of the master degree\u27s thesis. At first the options are presented, how the individual can protect his rights, whether he chooses to enforce the protection of rights only within a private law remedies system, or may he also use the remedies from the public law remedies system. Analysis of similarities and differences and interrelation of individual remedies gives rise to the advantages and disadvantages for the individual in the exercise of legal remedies. Thesis culminates in assessing whether an individual, according to a new arrangement under the Lisbon Treaty, and despite the shortcomings of the protection of the rights, is provided with effective protection of EU law. This is followed by the conclusion