Europos Sąjungos teisės įgyvendinimas valstybės narės teisme: netiesioginio direktyvų veikimo doktrinos taikymo ribos

Straipsnyje analizuojamas Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės teismo vaidmuo įgyvendinant Europos Sąjungos teisę, ypatingą dėmesį skiriant direktyvoms, vadovaujantis Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudencijoje įtvirtinta netiesioginio direktyvų veikimo doktrina. Straipsnyje atskleidžiamos šios doktrinos susiformavimo prielaidos, raida, turinys. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad netiesioginio direktyvų veikimo doktriną suformulavo ir išplėtojo Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas, straipsnyje pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas jo jurisprudencijai, doktrinos pritaikymo nacionaliniame teisme problematikai ir Lietuvos paskutinės instancijos teismų praktikai šioje srityje.

In addressing this problem, the author analyses relevant ECJ case-law, practice of Lithuanian courts and doctrine with a view to give guidelines on how to use the tools granted by the indirect effectiveness of the directives. The author suggests that justices shall firstly determine if the rights or obligations at stake fall within the scope of EU law; secondly, if national laws implement EU law; thirdly, if such implementation is proper or not. In the latest phase, judges shall employ the tools granted by the doctrine and apply national laws in compliance with a particular directive. However, in such a case, the judges shall stop shortly before possible violation of the general principles of law, such as legal certainty, lex retro non agit, etc. is committed; e.g. in cases where application of the doctrine would lead to interpretation of national laws contra legem. Regardless of structural simplicity of this concept and substantial case-law on the issue, it seems that the doctrine of the ECJ on the matter is far from being finally settled. In Mangold and Kücükdeveci cases, the ECJ was reluctant to declare irrelevance of indirect effect of the directive by giving green light to application of principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by the directive in the dispute vis-à-vis private parties. Though it is rather early to say that the notion of indirect effect was given a new shape, it looks like the ECJ, by “closing the door to direct effect of directives between private parties, leaves the window open”.