Genom inträdet i Europeiska Unionen fick Sverige ett helt nytt ansvar. Den nationella lagstiftningen ska lämna företräde till EU-rätten och de nationella domstolarna ska tolka och tillämpa EU-rätten korrekt i den svenska lagstiftningen. För att detta ska kunna uppnås ska lojalitetsprincipen tillämpas i medlemsstaterna för att säkerställa att EU-rätten har ett effektivt genomslag på nationell nivå. Då de nationella domstolarna har svårigheter med tolkningen och tillämpningen av EU-rätten ska man rådfråga EU-domstolen genom artikel 267 FEUF, begäran om förhandsavgörande för vägledning, detta för att EU-rätten ska tolkas och tillämpas enhetligt. EU-domstolen är det rättskippande organ som ska säkerställa att lag och rätt följs samt skapa och uveckla prejudikat som bidrar till rättsutvecklingen i unionen. Sverige har fått kritik från Europeiska kommissionen som anser att Sverige har varit mycket återhållsamma med att begära förhandsavgörande samt att de svenska reglerna om prövningstillstånd inte var förenliga med artikel 267 FEUF. Kommissionen ansåg att Sverige inte uppfyllde sina skyldigheter enligt fördraget och inledde därför ett överträdelseförrande mot Sverige. Syftet för uppsatsen har varit att redogöra för artikel 267 FEUF och betydelsen av den och svenska domstolars tillämpning av artikeln. Kommissionens överträdelsetalan mot Sverige och dess motiverade yttrande kommer även att tas upp, samt om det var att anse som motiverat. En jämförelse har även skett mellan Sverige och Österrike som båda inträde i EU 1995, eftersom Österrike är ett av de länder som begär flest förhandsavgörande per år.

No description available.

The purpose of this degree project was to examine which remedies are available to individuals when the State has violated their right to a fair trial as stated in article 6 in the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the aim was to, in cases where the remedy is determined to money, to clarify the indemnity rates that apply in determining the non-pecuniary damages. The starting point was a review of the European Court practice, domestic Swedish practice and relevant literature. The outcome of the review is that the remedies available to the individual’s disposal can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary remedies. Primary remedies mean compensation not consisting of money, and must be exhausted first. If the primary remedies are inadequate to compensate for the breach of the European Convention, a secondary remedy may be realised, i.e. pecuniary compensation. The primary remedies may include any legal measure, as long as it complies with the national traditions of the country and do not contradict the principle of legality. As for the non-pecuniary damage levels, it was found that the so-called Tariffs stated in the Zullo-case are not binding, but offer some guidance to be found from its flat rate. Each Convention State may decide upon the amount that it considers to be appropriate compensation for the Convention violations, as long as the levels are not significantly lower than what the European Court would decide.

States have sovereignty in deciding how to tax business profits. If two states wish to tax the same profit that belongs to the same taxpayer, double taxation will arise. The increasing number of multinational companies gives rise to double taxation problems and the states have to co-operate to find out how to avoid such problems. The OECD Model Tax Convention includes an article in how to determine the rights to tax business profits. This article has been a subject of discussion and a committee of the OECD has been working to develop a new article 7. The work in proposing this new article has had as its aim to reassure that the interpretations of this regulation is made in the same way. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the current article 7 in the Model Tax Convention as well as the revised discussion draft of the new article 7. This will be done through a comparison of the articles and it will also investigate the reasons for and the consequences of the proposed new article.

<p>States have sovereignty in deciding how to tax business profits. If two states wish to tax the same profit that belongs to the same taxpayer, double taxation will arise. The increasing number of multinational companies gives rise to double taxation problems and the states have to co-operate to find out how to avoid such problems. The OECD Model Tax Convention includes an article in how to determine the rights to tax business profits. This article has been a subject of discussion and a committee of the OECD has been working to develop a new article 7.</p><p>The work in proposing this new article has had as its aim to reassure that the interpretations of this regulation is made in the same way. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the current article 7 in the Model Tax Convention as well as the revised discussion draft of the new article 7. This will be done through a comparison of the articles and it will also investigate the reasons for and the consequences of the proposed new article.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Zugl.: Jena, Univ., Diss., 2009