| KRATKA VSEBINA | Ker "pravni sistem" EU nedvomno boleha za pomanjkanjem konsistentnosti, vključno z različnimi tradicijami, sistemi pravniškega izobraževanja in družbenimi razmerami, je razlaga teh pravil posebej zahtevno opravilo. To je že pred desetletji ugotovilo Sodišče EU v klasični sodbi CILFIT, v kateri pravi, da je treba upoštevati značilnosti prava ES in posebnih težav, ki jih prinaša njegova razlaga. Trditev, da lahko SEU razlaga in uporablja le pravo EU, nikakor pa ne nacionalnega prava, ne drži vedno. Že v primerih postopkov predhodnega odločanja, v katerih se SEU dosledno - vsaj besedno - izogiba izjavljanju o razumevanju nacionalnih predpisov, se včasih temu preprosto ne more izogniti. Pogodbi oEU se na več mestih sklicujeta na pravna pravila, ki naj bi bila nekako "skupna" državam članicam: EU sama teh področij pač ne ureja. V teh primerih mora SEU s preučitvijo "skupnih" elementov ugotoviti, kdaj ti lahko dosežejo tako stopnjo, da jih je mogoče uporabiti na podlagi omenjenega napotila. Najdemo tudi primere, ko se pozitivno pravo EU neposredno sklicuje na nacionalno pravo, pač na tisto, ki je ustrezno gledena okoliščine primera. Tudi pogodbeni stranki, od katerih je ena EU, si lahko izbereta pravo, ki se bo uporabljalo za njuno pogodbeno razmerje. Kadar je v takem primeru pristojno SEU, bo moralo neposredno uporabiti (in torej razlagati) ustrezno nacionalno pravo. Razmerje prava EU do pravil mednarodnega prava je prav posebej zapleteno. Pogosto namreč pride do paralelnega ali komplementarnega urejanja istih razmerij, kar včasih povzroča komaj rešljive probleme, še zlasti, ker razna mednarodna sodišča, ki o tem odločajo, pripadajo različnim mednarodnim organizacijami in med njimi ni hierarhije, utegne pa biti konkurenca. Prispevek se omejuje na ugotovitev, da je situacija glede interpretacije mednarodnih konvencij, ki so jih sklenile posamezne ali vse države članice med seboj in/ali s tretjimi državami in katerih pogodbena stranka je ali ni tudi EU sama, zelozapletena in je pogostopotrebna precej kazuistična razlaga. // Due to the fact that the "legal system" of the EU lacks coherence due to different traditions, legal education and social surrounding, the interpretation of these rules is quite a difficult task. As the Court of Justice ruled some decades ago in its classical CILFIT judgment, it is necessary to take into account the characteristics of the EU law and special difficulties concerning its interpretation. The statement that the ECJ can only interprete and apply the EU law, and not the national law, is not correct in all cases. Already in the preliminary ruling procedures in which the ECJtries not to express - in its wording, at least - any opinion concerning the comprehension of national legislation, sometimes it simply can not avoid it. The EU Treaties refer, at several points, to the rules "common" to Member States. In these cases the ECJ has to analyse these "common" elements in order to establish their level sufficient to allow that such rules can be applied on the basis of the mentioned reference. There are also situations where the valid EU law refers directly to a certain national law. The applicability of a certain national law can also be chosen by the parties of a contract, one of them being the EU. If in such cases the ECJ has the competence, it will have to apply (and thus interpret) the corresponding national law. The relationship between the EU law and the international law is extremely complicated. It happens often that the same legal relations are governed by different rules in a parallelor complementary way which causes that a good solution can hardly be found,also due to the variety of international courts belonging to various international organisations and deciding without any hierarchy, but rather some competition between them. Finally, the situation concerning the interpretation of international treaties, concluded by some or all of the Member States between them or/and with third countries, the EU itself being(or not) the contracting party, is highly complicated and the interpretation often demands a very casuistic approach. |