| Popis: |
Cilj diplomske naloge je razdelati člen 7 Rimske uredbe II na posamezne problemske sklope znotraj te določbe ter vsak sklop preučiti. S tem se doseže jasna razmejitev uporabe člena 7 Rimske uredbe II od drugih relevantnih členov, pod katere lahko subsumiramo konkretno dejansko stanje, da ugotovimo, katere okoliščine so tiste, ki v takšnih primerih določajo uporabo ustrezne določbe. Pogosto prihaja do dilem ravno pri členu 7 Rimske uredbe II in členu 5 Rimske uredbe II o odgovornosti za proizvode, saj je veliko primerov, ko okoljska škoda nastane ravno zaradi napake izdelka. Z analizo koncepta okoljske škode znotraj določbe člena 7 Rimske uredbe II se doseže boljše razumevanje same določbe, ker se omeji domet situacij, ki spadajo pod okoljsko škodo. S pomočjo sodnih odločb Sodišča EU s področja mednarodne pristojnosti v Bruseljski uredb I, ki se uporabljajo tudi pri razlagi pojmov iz Rimske uredbe II, ugotovimo, da posredna škoda ni pomembna pri določanju kraja, kjer je škoda nastala in skladno s tem pravo države, kjer je škoda nastala. Skladno s tem posredne škode iz člena 7 Rimske uredbe II ne smemo preširoko razlagati, saj bi to vodilo v absurdnost. The aim of this bachelor thesis is to study Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation concerning its problematic parts and to further analyse each of those parts. With that, we can establish a clear division of application of Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation from other articles and determine the actual state in order to find out, which conditions are those that require the application of an adequate provision. Many questions have been raised regarding Article 7 and Article 5 from the Rome II Regulation about the product liability because there are many cases where the damage is caused due to product defects. Analysis of the concept of environmental damage pursuant to Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation gains us a better understanding of the provision as it limits the scope of situations that are considered as environmental damage. The judicial decisions of the European Court of Justice in the field of international jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation, that is also used for interpretation of terms, helped us establish that indirect damage alone is not important in determining the place where the damage occurred and in accordance to that also the law of the county where the damage occurred. Therefore, the indirect damage as described in Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation should not be interpreted too broadly, as it would lead into an absurdity. |
