Full metadata record
DC poleHodnotaJazyk
dc.contributor.authorRampas, Jan
dc.contributor.editorKnoll, Vilém
dc.contributor.editorHablovič, Jakub
dc.contributor.editorHanzlová, Karolína
dc.contributor.editorKotroušová, Denisa
dc.contributor.editorMach, Ondřej
dc.contributor.editorMifek, Jan
dc.contributor.editorSchwarzová, Aneta
dc.contributor.editorVrba, Vojtěch
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-06T17:13:16Z
dc.date.available2024-04-06T17:13:16Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationKNOLL, Vilém, HABLOVIČ, Jakub a kol (eds.). Naděje právní vědy 2022: Právní věda v praxi, Plzeň 25. listopadu 2022, s. 540-550.cs
dc.identifier.isbn978-80-261-1217-4
dc.identifier.isbn978-80-261-1216-7 (brožovaná vazba)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11025/55451
dc.format11 s.cs
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isocscs
dc.publisherZápadočeská univerzita v Plznics
dc.rights© Západočeská univerzita v Plznics
dc.subjectpředběžná otázkacs
dc.subjectSoudní dvůrcs
dc.subjectKöblerova doktrínacs
dc.subjectúčinná soudní ochranacs
dc.subjectodpovědnost za škoducs
dc.titleVztah mezi nepoložením předběžné otázky Soudnímu dvoru Evropské unie a porušením práva na účinnou soudní ochranu v právu EUcs
dc.typekonferenční příspěvekcs
dc.typeconferenceObjecten
dc.rights.accessopenAccessen
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen
dc.description.abstract-translatedThis article focuses on the evaluation of the current state of the EU regula tion of the responsibility of a member state for damage caused by the viola tion of the obligation to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 paragraph 3 of the TFEU. In addition to evaluating the current legislation, it also analyzes the practical ap plicability of the so-called Köbler doctrine and comes up with suggestions on how to increase its usability and effectiveness. This is primarily because, in the author‘s opinion, the failure to refer a preliminary question by a Court of a member state, among other things, also constitutes a violation of the right to effective judicial protection (as one of the general legal principles that are part of primary EU law) in relation to participants in national court proceedings. This article presents options for streamlining the decision-making process of the national court on whether or not to refer a preliminary question in relation to the success of later recovery of damages by an individual according to the Köbler doctrine. This is done with the help of a comparative analysis of primary EU law, relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of the thesis is to describe the procedure for applying the responsibility of a member state for damage caused to individuals in cases where a violation of EU law results from the decision of a court of a member state, which decides in the last instance, specifically in the event that a preliminary question is not submitted to the Court of Justice by this court, and further to outline the possibilities for the full effectiveness of this institute in practice, taking into account current jurisprudential developments within the EU.en
dc.subject.translatedpreliminary questionen
dc.subject.translatedCourt of Justiceen
dc.subject.translatedKöbler's doctrineen
dc.subject.translatedeffective judicial protectionen
dc.subject.translatedmaterial responsabilityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.24132/ZCU.NADEJE.2022.540-550
dc.type.statusPeer revieweden
Vyskytuje se v kolekcích:Naděje právní vědy 2022
Naděje právní vědy 2022

Soubory připojené k záznamu:
Soubor Popis VelikostFormát 
978-80-261-1217-4-1uvod.pdfPlný text571,65 kBAdobe PDFZobrazit/otevřít
978-80-261-1217-4-554-564.pdfPlný text123,74 kBAdobe PDFZobrazit/otevřít


Použijte tento identifikátor k citaci nebo jako odkaz na tento záznam: http://hdl.handle.net/11025/55451

Všechny záznamy v DSpace jsou chráněny autorskými právy, všechna práva vyhrazena.