<?xml version="1.0"?><rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:edm="http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/" xmlns:wgs84_pos="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:rdaGr2="http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2" xmlns:oai="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C/66b4fd64-6006-411c-8bf6-c4388e89e9ca/PDF"><dcterms:extent>213 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:WebResource rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C/70f66229-9371-47eb-9681-8fd0bb49a599/TEXT"><dcterms:extent>74 KB</dcterms:extent></edm:WebResource><edm:TimeSpan rdf:about="2011-2025"><edm:begin xml:lang="en">2011</edm:begin><edm:end xml:lang="en">2025</edm:end></edm:TimeSpan><edm:ProvidedCHO rdf:about="URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C"><dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:SPR-OSUSX1U0" /><dcterms:issued>2022</dcterms:issued><dc:creator>Kukovec, Damjan</dc:creator><dc:format xml:lang="sl">številka:letn. 82</dc:format><dc:format xml:lang="sl">str. 43-67, 397, 412</dc:format><dc:identifier>DOI:10.51940/2022.1.43-67</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISSID:132637699</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN:1854-3839</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language><dc:publisher xml:lang="sl">Pravna fakulteta</dc:publisher><dcterms:isPartOf xml:lang="sl">Zbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)</dcterms:isPartOf><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">človekove pravice</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Evropska unija</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">pravni sistemi</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">pravo</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Slovenija</dc:subject><dc:subject xml:lang="sl">Sodišče Evropske unije</dc:subject><dcterms:temporal rdf:resource="2011-2025" /><dc:title xml:lang="sl">Pomen meta-vizije Sodišča Evropske unije za Slovenijo|</dc:title><dc:description xml:lang="sl">The author examines how the concept of autonomy of EU law, which represents the organisational principle of the coherence of the CJEU, ensuring the unity and coherence of the European legal system and permeating the entire case law of the CJEU, has played a key role in high-profile cases before the CJEU in which Slovenia was directly involved. The author first discusses the Detiček case, the first Slovenian reference for a preliminary ruling, in which the Court of Justice addressed a controversial area of intersection of the principle of mutual trust and the protection of human rights, key elements of autonomy. In the second case concerning the archives of the Slovenian central bank, the Commission sought a declaration that Slovenia had violated the inviolability of EU archives, and thus the autonomy of the European institutions and the autonomous implementation of EU law, by unilaterally seizing documents from the Bank of Slovenia headquarters. In the third case, Slovenia v Croatia, the Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether Croatia had violated EU law by failing to enforce an arbitral award because the arbitration agreement never became part of the EU legal order. The author concludes that a deeper understanding of the role of autonomy in the CJEU’s legal reasoning could enable Slovenian lawyers to better predict the Court’s decisions, and thus to better articulate Slovenia’s interests in the language of EU law</dc:description><dc:description xml:lang="sl">Avtor preučuje, kako je pojem avtonomije prava Evropske unije, ki je organizacijsko načelo koherentnosti Sodišča EU, s katerim slednje zagotavlja enotnost in skladnost evropskega pravnega sistema ter prežema celotno sodno prakso Sodišča EU, imel ključno vlogo v odmevnih primerih pred Sodiščem EU, v katerih je bila neposredno vpletena Slovenija. Avtor najprej obravnava zadevo Detiček, prvi primer slovenskega predloga za predhodno odločanje, v kateri je Sodišče stopilo na najbolj sporno presečišče načela vzajemnega zaupanja in varstva človekovih pravic, sicer ključnih elementov avtonomije. V drugi, odmevni zadevi Arhivi je Komisija s tožbo zahtevala ugotovitev, da je Slovenija kršila nedotakljivost arhivov EU in s tem avtonomijo evropskih institucij ter izvajanja prava EU s tem, ko je enostransko zasegla dokumente na sedežu Banke Slovenije. V tretji, meddržavni zadevi Slovenija proti Hrvaški, pa je Sodišče ugotovilo, da ni pristojno za ugotovitev, ali je Hrvaška z neizvršitvijo arbitražne odločbe kršila pravo EU, ker arbitražni sporazum ni nikoli postal del pravnega reda EU. Avtor ugotavlja, da globlje razumevanje vloge avtonomije v pravnem razlogovanju Sodišča EU omogoča slovenskim pravnikom najboljše predvidevanje odločitev Sodišča, s tem pa tudi pravno razlogovanje, ki bo bolje artikuliralo interese Slovenije v jeziku prava EU</dc:description><edm:type>TEXT</edm:type><dc:type xml:lang="sl">znanstveno časopisje</dc:type><dc:type xml:lang="en">journals</dc:type><dc:type rdf:resource="http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785" /></edm:ProvidedCHO><ore:Aggregation rdf:about="http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C"><edm:aggregatedCHO rdf:resource="URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C" /><edm:isShownBy rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C/66b4fd64-6006-411c-8bf6-c4388e89e9ca/PDF" /><edm:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" /><edm:provider>Slovenian National E-content Aggregator</edm:provider><edm:intermediateProvider xml:lang="en">National and University Library of Slovenia</edm:intermediateProvider><edm:dataProvider xml:lang="sl">Univerza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta</edm:dataProvider><edm:object rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C/maxi/edm" /><edm:isShownAt rdf:resource="http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-A9CG020C" /></ore:Aggregation></rdf:RDF>