Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 5 Kontrola Państwowa

Authors help

  1. 5 Augustyniak Ł.

Years help

  1. 2 2024

  2. 2 2023

  3. 1 2014

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Postępowanie naruszeniowe jako forma kontroli – nadzór Komisji Europejskiej nad implementacją prawa Unii

100%
Augustyniak Ł.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2014
|
vol. 59
|
issue 5 (358)
26-38
EN
The European Commission oversees the implementation of the treaties and funds that institutions accept on their basis, as well as supervises the implementation of the EU law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. One of the most important tools that the Commission has at its disposal to force the Member States to comply with the European law is the contravention procedure. In his article, the author describes the mechanisms that provide for the effectiveness of the system for the implementation of the Community law and he presents the three stages of the contravention procedure: the informal proceedings, the formal administrative stage, and the court stage.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kompetencje KE do oceny środków pomocy publicznej - rola państw członkowskich Unii i sytuacja beneficjentów

100%
Augustyniak Ł.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2023
|
vol. 68
|
issue 1 (408)
8-30
EN
The article presents the scope of the European Commission’s competence regarding the examination of state aid measures. The provisions of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union were analysed as they were the basis for the clarification of the powers to review by this institution in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Despite the exclusivity of the Commission’s competence in matters of state aid, the Member States also play a significant role in this area, in particular when the obligation to notify new state aid measures and ensuring compliance with the standstill clause are concerned. Furthermore, certain functions, which are supplementary yet complementary at the same time, are performed by the national courts. The Commission’s measures to review, provided by Regulation 2015/1589 codifying the CJEU case-law in this field, is discussed in this study. It should be highlighted that, if review proceedings are performed in relation to the Member State concerned, the consequences of the infringements are mainly borne by the beneficiaries of the aid granted. The author also gives a brief reminder of the rights of the interested parties and the particularities of challenging the Commission’s aid decisions.
PL
Artykuł przedstawia kompetencje kontrolne Komisji Europejskiej (KE, Komisja) w zakresie badania środków pomocowych. Analizie poddano art. 107 i art. 108 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej, które stanowiły podstawę uszczegółowienia jej uprawnień w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (TSUE, Trybunał). Pomimo wyłączności kompetencji Komisji w tej dziedzinie, pewną rolę odgrywają państwa członkowskie, zwłaszcza jeśli chodzi o obowiązek notyfikacji nowej pomocy publicznej oraz przestrzegania klauzuli stand still. Uzupełniający charakter ma orzecznictwo sądów krajowych. W opracowaniu szczegółowo omówiono paletę środków kontrolnych Komisji określonych w rozporządzeniu 2015/1589, które kodyfikuje orzecznictwo TSUE. Postępowanie kontrolne jest prowadzone w odniesieniu do konkretnego państwa członkowskiego, jednak konsekwencje stwierdzonych uchybień ponoszą beneficjenci pomocy. Artykuł omawia w związku z tym uprawnienia strony oraz specyfikę zaskarżenia decyzji pomocowych Komisji.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The competence of the EC to Review State Aid Measures - Role of EU Member States and Situation of Beneficiaries

100%
Augustyniak Ł.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2023
|
vol. 68
|
issue 1 (408)
31-51
EN
State aid in the European Union has become one of the most important areas of competition law (perhaps it may even be regarded a separate area of law), although it is based only on a few provisions of primary EU law. These are Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)1 , which define the scope of the competence, substance and procedure in this area of law, as well as the institutions responsible for its implementation, including the review of granted state aid. This article focuses on the issues relating to the application of the rules on competence and procedure in order to determine the extent of the powers of the European Commission (‘EC’ or ‘Commission’) as regards the freedom to grant state aid and review the competences of EU Member States in that area.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Plea of Illegality as a Legal Remedy - Review of the Legality of EU Acts

100%
Augustyniak Ł.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2024
|
vol. 69
|
issue 1 (414)
88-110
EN
The article presents the conditions and principles developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union for raising the plea provided for in Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter TFEU or Treaty) for the review of the legality of acts of EU law. This objection commonly referred to in the legal writing as the plea of illegality allows challenging an act of general application which constitutes the basis for an individual act. This review may be carried out after the expiry of the (two-month) period provided for in Article 263 TFUE to declaration of acts of EU law as void, also by individual persons and entities that do not meet the conditions of the so-called Plaumann test. Unfortunately, this rule is subject to numerous limitations, especially in the view of the principle developed in case-law, according to which the admissibility of an plea of illegality depends on the prior submission of an action for annulment. The paper also analyses the conditions for the admissibility of raising the plea of illegality by Member States and EU institutions (so-called privileged applicants).
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Zarzut bezprawności jako środek ochrony prawnej - kontrola legalności aktów prawa UE

100%
Augustyniak Ł.
Kontrola Państwowa
|
2024
|
vol. 69
|
issue 1 (414)
64-87
EN
The remedy referred to in Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has not been extensively elucidated in Polish nor in foreign legal writings, remaining rather off the mainstream of academic discourse. This seems mainly due to the fact that it is an ancillary (incidental) remedy, and in order to successfully benefit from it, a series of formal and legal requirements should be met, which mostly do not originate directly from the Treaty provisions, but have been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The remedy, if it were formulated in a transparent and explicit manner in Article 277 TFEU, could play a key role as a model review for any type of implementing measures (i.e. for both individual decisions and acts based on legislative acts) which determine the legal position of private persons and entities. The inherent consequence of drafting the legislation in a general and abstract manner is that legal defects in legal provisions do not normally manifest themselves until after they have been applied in practice. The unclear legal structure of this measure determines its use in formulating an alternative plea in the form of an additional request in the pleadings, forming the basis of an action for annulment against an act of EU law (lodged on the basis of Article 263 TFEU). However, there are some grounds for the exception stipulated in Article 277 TFEU to be applied in all kinds of proceedings, therefore its limitation to the actions for annulment alone would run counter to the objective of that provision. This remedy also plays its specific role in employment cases involving elements of compensation as well as in intellectual property cases, but its use in actions for damages cannot be ruled out. In this regard the plea is being described as an indirect remedy. Indeed, from the beginning of its activity, the Court has held that a plea of illegality cannot be the basis of a new form of an autonomous action (does not constitute an independent right of action ) or an obligation for the national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling.
PL
Artykuł przedstawia przesłanki i zasady wypracowane w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (dalej TSUE lub Trybunał) podnoszenia zarzutu określonego w art. 277 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej (dalej TFUE lub Traktat) w celu przeprowadzenia kontroli zgodności z prawem aktów prawa unijnego. W literaturze powszechnie określa się go jako zarzut bezprawności. Pozwala na kwestionowanie aktu o zasięgu ogólnym, stanowiącego podstawę wydania aktu indywidualnego. Kontrola może być dokonywana po upływie (dwumiesięcznego) terminu przewidzianego w art. 263 TFUE na stwierdzenie nieważności aktów prawa unijnego, również przez podmioty indywidualne, które nie spełniają przesłanek tzw. testu Plaumanna. Zasada ta podlega jednak licznym ograniczeniom, zwłaszcza wobec wypracowanej w orzecznictwie zasady, zgodnie z którą dopuszczalność zarzutu bezprawności zależy od uprzedniego złożenia skargi o stwierdzenie nieważności. W artykule podjęto też kwestię dopuszczalności podnoszenia zarzutu bezprawności przez państwa członkowskie i instytucje unijne (tzw. skarżących uprzywilejowanych).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.