Prenos pravila de minimis iz konkurenčnega prava na področje svoboščin notranjega trga EU
Abstract
Transfer of the de minimis Rule from the Competition Law to the EU Internal Market Freedoms. The paper explores general characteristics and functions of the de minimis rule, its current application within the EU competition law and in the field of public procurement and discusses the application of this rule in the field of the internal market freedoms. It points out internal market cases in which the application of the de minimis rule was turned down as well as the growing number of EU Court's decisions ruling quite to the opposite. On the basis of theoretical commentaries of this rule the paper discusses advantages and disadvantages of the potential application of this rule in the internal market field. The authoress concludes that in the field of the EU internal market law the de minimis rule increases autonomy of the national authorities and hence strengthens democratic decision-making in the EU as a multi-level governance system. Through this rule the Member States preserve their competences in the market law field in respect of the rules that do not formally discriminate among domestic and imported goods, people and services, the aim of which is not to regulate trade between the Member States and the restrictive effect of which for the internal market is too uncertain and indirect for the measure to present a breach of the TFEU.
Prenos pravila de minimis iz konkurenčnega prava na področje svoboščin notranjega trga EU. Prispevek raziskuje splošne značilnosti in funkcijo pravila de minimis, njegovo obstoječo uporabo v okviru konkurenčnega prava EU in na področju javnega naročanja, nato pa presoja uporabo tega pravila na področju ekonomskih svoboščin notranjega trga. Izpostavlja tako primere, iz katerih izhaja, da pravilo de minimis ni združljivo z notranjim trgom, kot naraščajočo množico odločitev Sodišča EU, iz katerih izhaja ravno nasprotno. Na tej osnovi prispevek na osnovi teoretičnih komentarjev tega pravila diskutira o prednostih in slabostih potencialne uvedbe tega pravila na področje notranjega trga. Avtorica zaključuje, da v okviru notranjega trga EU pravilo de minimis povečuje avtonomijo nacionalnih oblasti in tako krepi demokratičnost odločanja v EU kot sistemu večstopenjskega vladanja. Preko tega pravila namreč države članice ohranijo pristojnosti na področju tržnega prava, kar zadeva pravila, ki formalno ne diskriminirajo med domačim in uvoženim blagom, osebami in storitvami, katerih namen ni urejati trgovine z drugimi državami članicami in katerih omejujoči učinki na delovanje notranjega trga so preveč nedoločljivi in posredni, da bi lahko obveznost iz te zakonodaje predstavljala kršitev PDEU.
Downloads
References
Adler M.A., Why De Minimis?, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Public Law Research Paper, No. 07-26, dostopno na:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=992878 ali http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.992878.
Astrachan J.B., De Minimus Copyright Infringement, The Daily Record, Baltimore, MD, 2008, dostopno na:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1625037 ali http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1625037.
Bovis, C. H. (2007), EU Public Procurement Law (Elgar European Law Series, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Brammer S., Horizontal aspects of the decentralisation of EU competition law enforcement, dostopno na:
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/1881/2/doctoraatbrammer.pdf.
Chalmers, D., Davies, G., Monti, G. (2010) European Union Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Coronna, M. (2002) Konkurenčno pravo EU in mala in srednja podjetja, Podjetje in delo, 5, str. 745–772.
Davies, G. (2003) Nationality discrimination in the European Internal Market (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
Ferčič, A. (2011) Državne pomoči podjetje, Teorija, praksa in predpisi (Ljubljana: Uradni list RS).
Frese, M.J. (2011) Decentralised Enforcement of EU Competition Law and the Institutional Autonomy of the Member States: a Case Commentary, Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics, Working Paper No. 2011-04.
Gormley, L.W. (2002) Competition and Free Movement: Is the Internal Market the Same as a Common Market?, European Business Law Review, 13(6), str. 517–522.
Greaves, R. (2006) A Commentary on Selected Opinions of Advocate General Jacobs, Fordham International Law Journal, 29(4), str. 690–715.
Grilc, P. (2001) Pravo EU (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba).
Jann, P., Interview with the judge Jann, Trybunal Sprawiedliwosci i integracija. Radca Prawny, 12.2.2002, str. 100.
Johnson, E., O'Keeffe D. (1994) From Discrimination to Obstacles to Free Movement: Recent Developments Concerning the Free Movement of Workers 1989-1994, Common Market Law Review, 31(6), str. 1313–1340.
Kagan, S. (1998) Normative Ethics (Boulder: Westview Press).
Knez, R. (2007) Prosto opravljanje storitev in razvoj sodne prakse do leta 2006 – ali je zadeva Säger še pomembna?, Revizor, 2, str. 107–117.
Kranjc, J. (2006) Latinski pravni reki (Ljubljana: GV Založba).
Kranjc, V. (2004) Javna naročila po vstopu Slovenije v EU, Lex localis, 2(3), str. 1–11.
Kranz, A. O. (1999) The Bosman case: the relationship between European union law and the transfer system in European football, Columbia Journal of European Law, 5(3), str. 431–460.
Krenn, C. (2012) A missing pieace in the horizontal effect »jigsaw«: Horizontal direct effect and the free movement of goods, Common Market Law Review, 49(1), str. 177–215.
McCreevy, C. (2007) The future of the Single Market, Sofia University, Sofia, 14 May 2007, dostopno na: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/308&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (22.7.2011).
Meulman, J., Waele, H. de (2006)) A Retreat from Säger? Servicing or Fine-Tuning the Application of Article 49 EC, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 33(3), str. 207–228.
Monti, G. (2004) New directions in EC competition policy, v: Tridimas T., Nebbia P., European Union Law for the Twenty-first Century: Internal market and free movement community policies (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing).
Mortelmans, K. (1991) Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and legislation relating to market circumstances: Time to consider a new definition, Common Market Law Review, 28(1), str. 115–136.
Mortelmans, K. (2011) Towards convergence in the application of rules on free movement and on competition?, Common Market Law Review, 38(3), str. 613–649.
Oliver, P. (2003) Free Movement of Goods (London: Swett and Maxwell).
Oliver, P. (1999), Some further reflections on the scope of Articles 28-30, Common Market Law Review, 36(4), str. 783–806.
Perišin, T. (2008), Free Movement of Goods and Limits of Regulatory Autnomy in the EU and WTO (Haag: T.M.C. Asser Press).
Quigley, C. (2009) European State Aid Law and Policy (Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing).
Repas, M. (2010) Ekonomski pristop določanja upoštevnega trga v konkurenčnem pravu EU, LeXonomica, II(1), str. 35–65.
Snell, J. (2002) Goods and services in EC law: a study of the relationship between the freedoms (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Snell, J. (2000) True Proportionality and Free Movement of Goods and Services, European Business Law Review, 11(1), str. 50–57.
Steiner, J. (1992) Drawing the Line: Uses and Abuses of Article 30 EEC, Common Market
Law Review, 29(4), str. 749–774.
Weatherill, S. (1996) Comment on Case C-415/95, Bosman, Common Market Law Review, 33(5), str. 993–1035.
