Reading the Costanzo Obligation in the Light of the Pure Theory of Law

Ewa Fabian

doi:10.18778/0208-6069.110.08

Autor

Ewa Fabian Biblioteka Narodowa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3061-396X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.110.08

Słowa kluczowe:

Hans Kelsen, czysta teoria prawa, prawo Unii Europejskiej, administracja publiczna, prawo do ochrony sądowej (prawo do sądu), monistyczna teoria prawa międzynarodowego, stosowanie prawa

Abstrakt

W artykule omówiono obowiązki organów administracji państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej (UE) stosujących prawo UE – z perspektywy niektórych poglądów prezentowanych przez Hansa Kelsena w czystej teorii prawa. W szczególności odniesiono się do sprawy Fratelli Costanzo (Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 22 czerwca 1989 r., 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA przeciwko Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256). W wyroku wprowadzono zasadę zobowiązującą krajowe organy administracji do odmowy stosowania w określonych sprawach przepisów prawa krajowego jako niezgodnych z prawem unijnym (zasada ta znana jest również jako obowiązek Costanzo). Niekiedy jednak uznaje się, że od organów administracji nie można oczekiwać pominięcia obowiązujących przepisów prawa krajowego, które są jednoznaczne w swojej treści, i interpretowania ich w sposób prounijny, i wypełnienia powstałych w ten sposób luk wybranym przez siebie prawem krajowym. Zgodnie z tym poglądem, takiej interpretacji może dokonać jedynie krajowy wymiar sprawiedliwości, a nie organ administracji. W artykule zajmuję stanowisko przeciwne, odwołując się w trzech odrębnych argumentach do poglądów Hansa Kelsena. Omawiam te argumenty wskazując jednocześnie, że niezastosowanie przez organ administracji zasad prawa Unii Europejskiej może pozbawić wnioskodawcę prawa do ochrony sądowej.

Pobrania

Brak dostępnych danych do wyświetlenia.

Bibliografia

Avbelj, Matej. 2011. “Supremacy or Primacy of EU Law-(Why) Does it Matter?” European Law Journal 17: 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00560.x

Beck, Gunnar. 2012. The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Google Scholar

Bernstorff, Jochen von. 2015. “Hans Kelsen on judicial law-making by international courts and tribunals: theory of global judicial imperialism.” Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 14(1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341284
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341284

Bindreiter, Uta. 2000. Why Grundnorm? A Treatise on the Implications of Kelsen’s Doctrine. Lund: Springer.
Google Scholar

Chiassoni, Pierluigi. 1995. “Varieties of judge-interpreters.” In Cognition and interpretation of law. Edited by Letizia Gianformaggio Bastida, Stanley L. Paulson. 39–50. Torino: G. Giappichelli.
Google Scholar

Claes, Monica. 2015. “The primacy of EU law in European and national law.” In The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law. Edited by Damian Chalmers, Anthony Arnull. 178–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans, 1928a. “Der Begriff des Kompetenzkonflikte nach geltendem österreichischen Recht.” Juristische Blätter 57(6): 105–110.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1931. “Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein?” Die Justiz 6: 576–628.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1934a. “Pure Theory of Law, The – Its Method and Fundamental Concepts.” Law Quarterly Review 50(4): 474–498.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1934b. “Zur Theorie der Interpretation.” Internationale Zeitschrift für Theorie des Rechts 8: 9–17.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1942. “Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and the American Constitution.” The Journal of Politics 4(2): 183–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2125770
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2125770

Kelsen, Hans. 1943. “Compulsory Adjudication of International Disputes.” The American Journal of International Law 37(3): 397–406. https://doi.org/10.2307/2192721
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2192721

Kelsen, Hans. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1952 (1959). Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company Inc.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1962 (1998). “Sovereignty” (Souvernänität). In Normativity and Norms. Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Edited by Stanley L. Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski-Paulson. Translated by Stanley L. Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski-Paulson. 525–536. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1967. Pure theory of law. Translated from the Second (Revised and Enlarged) German Edition by Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2005 reprint by Clark, New York: The Lawbook Exchange.
Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans. 1973. “Law and Morality.” In Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy. Synthese Library 57: 83–94. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2653-6_4
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2653-6_4

Kelsen, Hans. 1990. “On the Theory of Interpretation.” Legal Studies 10(2): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00595.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00595.x

Łętowska, Ewa. 2005. “Multicentryczność współczesnego systemu prawa i jej konsekwencje.” Państwo i Prawo 4: 3–10.
Google Scholar

MacCormick, Neil. 1997. “Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the ‘European Commonwealth’.” In Constructing Legal Systems: “European Union” in Legal Theory. Edited by Neil MacCormick. 1–26. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1152-4
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1152-4_1

Paulson, Stanley L. 1990. “Kelsen on Legal Interpretation.” Legal Studies 10(2): 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00596.x
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1990.tb00596.x

Paulson, Stanley L. 2019. “Hans Kelsen on legal interpretation, legal cognition, and legal science.” Jurisprudence 10(2): 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2019.1604887
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2019.1604887

Paunio, Elina. 2013. Legal Certainty in Multilingual EU Law: Language, Discourse and Reasoning at the European Court of Justice. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Syrpis, Phil A.J. 2015. “The relationship between primary and secondary law in the EU.” Common Market Law Review 52(2): 461–487. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2015029
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2015029

Techet, Peter. 2024. “The role of the judiciary: Interpreting vs creating law – or how Hans Kelsen justified ‘judicial activism’.” Oñati Socio-Legal Series. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1919
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1919

Verhoeven, Maartje Joke Margot. 2011. The Costanzo Obligation. The obligations of national administrative authorities in the case of incompatibility between national law and European law. Cambridge: Intersentia.
Google Scholar

Widdershoven, Rob. 2019. “National procedural autonomy and general EU law limits.” Review of European Administrative Law 12(2): 5–34. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819X15840066091222
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819X15840066091222

Widłak, Tomasz. 2018. Teoria i filozofia prawa międzynarodowego Hansa Kelsena. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Google Scholar

Wróbel, Andrzej. 2010. “Sądy administracyjne jako sądy Unii Europejskiej.” Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego 5–6: 474–496.
Google Scholar

Zirk-Sadowski, Marek. 2009. “Soft Kelsenism versus Multicentrism: Some Remarks on Theoretical Foundations of European Law.” In Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory. Edited by Marek Zirk-Sadowski, Mariusz Jerzy Golecki, Bartosz Wojciechowski. 51–68. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963, 26–62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1964, 6–64, Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9112/15/3/009

Judgment of the Court of 17 December 1970, 11–70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 21 June 1974, 2–74, Jean Reyners v Belgian State, ECLI:EU:C:1974:68.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 8 April 1976, 43–75, Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena, ECLI:EU:C:1976:56.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, 45–76, Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, ECLI:EU:C:1976:191.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, C-45/76, Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, ECLI:EU:C:1976:191.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, 33–76, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1976, C-33/76, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 9 March 1978, 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1989, 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 1990, T-51/89, Tetra Pak Rausing SA v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:1990:41.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1990, C-188/89, A. Foster and others v British Gas plc, ECLI:EU:C:1990:313.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court of 22 October 1998, Joined cases C-10/97 to C-22/97, Ministero delle Finanze v IN.CO.GE.’90 Srl, Idelgard Srl, Iris’90 Srl, Camed Srl, Pomezia Progetti Appalti Srl (PPA), Edilcam Srl, A. Cecchini & C. Srl, EMO Srl, Emoda Srl, Sappesi Srl, Ing. Luigi Martini Srl, Giacomo Srl and Mafar Srl, ECLI:EU:C:1998:498.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 1999, C-224/97, Erich Ciola v Land Vorarlberg, ECLI:EU:C:1999:212.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2010, C-149/10, Zoi Chatzi v Ypourgos Oikonomikon, ECLI:EU:C:2010:534.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 September 2014, C-562/12, Liivimaa Lihaveis MTÜ v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007–2013 Seirekomitee, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2229.
Google Scholar

Judgment of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court – wyr. NSA 2.02.2017, II FSK 506/16, Legalis 1578653.
Google Scholar

Order of the Court of 6 December 1990, 2/88 Imm, J. J. Zwartveld and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1990:440.
Google Scholar

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 1995, T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa v Commission of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:T:1995:219.
Google Scholar