472 KB0 KB201120252019Bardutzky, Samoštevilka:1letnik:79str. 35-48, 216-217COBISSID_HOST:17088849ISSN:1854-3839URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-G5ULUSBXenPravna fakultetaZbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)denarna kazenDirective 2006/24/ECDirektiva 2006/24/ESfinehrambainfringement of EU lawkršitev prava EUprometni podatkiretentiontraffic dataA constitutionalist critique of the objective character of the infringement proceedings and a case for a "constitutional defence"| a lesson from the non-implementation of the Data retention directive|The article explores the implications of the (non)implementation of Directive 2006/24/ EC, which regulated the compulsory retention of traffic data. The central problem is whether the Member States should suffer financial burdens because they have not implemented the directive due to constitutional concerns. In the case of mandatory retention of traffic data, this problem is especially severe, as the constitutional objection that has been developed in some Member States have proved to be justified. Despite the concerns, the Commission was consistent in ensuring the implementation of the Directive. The article presents the characteristics of the court procedure for violation of EU law in the event of non-implementation of a directive and its objective nature, which prevents the Member States from arguing legal, financial or practical obstacles to implementation. In cases where obstacles are of constitutional nature, the author proposes the creation of a constitutional defence, which would prevent the imposition of financial sanctions in the event of non-implementation of the directive, while preserving the duty of the Member States to comply with the acquisAvtor v članku raziskuje posledice implementacije Direktive 2006/24/ES, ki je urejala obvezno hrambo prometnih podatkov. Osrednji problem je vprašanje, ali naj države članice finančno bremenimo zato, ker zaradi ustavnopravnih pomislekov niso prenesle rešitev v direktivi. V primeru obvezne hrambe prometnih podatkov je ta problem še posebej zaostren, saj so se ustavnopravni očitki, ki so se oblikovali v nekaterih državah članicah, izkazali za utemeljene. Kljub pomislekom je bila Evropska komisija pri skrbi za prenos direktive dosledna. Avtor predstavi značilnosti sodnega postopka zaradi kršitve prava EU ob neimplementaciji direktive in njegovo objektivnost, ki onemogoča učinkovito uveljavljanje pravnih, finančnih ali praktičnih ovir pri implementaciji. Kot rešitev avtor ponuja vzpostavitev tako imenovane "ustavne" obrambe, ki bi preprečevala finančne sankcije ob neimplementaciji direktive, hkrati pa ohranila dolžnost držav članic, da spoštujejo pravni red EUTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta