Thesis (doctoral)--Université de Lausanne. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 317-339).

<p>Abstract</p><p>This thesis show how the European Community, through legislation and case law, is addressing the problem of multiple discrimination and what the possible solutions to it are.</p><p>Multiple discrimination describes a situation where an individual experiences discrimination on more than one ground. This can occur in two different ways; additive or intersectional. Additive discrimination describes a situation where an individual is discriminated against on more than one ground and these grounds are added on top of each other. Intersectional discrimination explains how an individual’s multiple identities may be the cause of discrimination in such a way that the grounds for discrimination cannot be considered separately.</p><p>Expanding the list of grounds in Article 13 EC could help multiple discrimination claims but cannot be seen as the exclusive solution to such a complex problem. Many more problems surround multiple discrimination claims. One is to find an adequate comparator in order to prove discrimination. Another is that the case law shows a higher rate of success for plaintiffs claiming only one ground of discrimination even if they have experienced multiple discrimination, causing a disparity between the facts of the case and the reality experienced by the plaintiffs.</p><p>In conclusion, such a complex matter cannot be solved by one simple solution but the Community would benefit from an explicit prohibition as well as a common definition of multiple discrimination.</p>

Abstract This thesis show how the European Community, through legislation and case law, is addressing the problem of multiple discrimination and what the possible solutions to it are. Multiple discrimination describes a situation where an individual experiences discrimination on more than one ground. This can occur in two different ways; additive or intersectional. Additive discrimination describes a situation where an individual is discriminated against on more than one ground and these grounds are added on top of each other. Intersectional discrimination explains how an individual’s multiple identities may be the cause of discrimination in such a way that the grounds for discrimination cannot be considered separately. Expanding the list of grounds in Article 13 EC could help multiple discrimination claims but cannot be seen as the exclusive solution to such a complex problem. Many more problems surround multiple discrimination claims. One is to find an adequate comparator in order to prove discrimination. Another is that the case law shows a higher rate of success for plaintiffs claiming only one ground of discrimination even if they have experienced multiple discrimination, causing a disparity between the facts of the case and the reality experienced by the plaintiffs. In conclusion, such a complex matter cannot be solved by one simple solution but the Community would benefit from an explicit prohibition as well as a common definition of multiple discrimination.

This research engages critically with major public sector accountability theories in relation to the development of law centres in Aotearoa/New Zealand (and comparative international examples) focusing on the two centres in Otago, the Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre and the Dunedin Community Law Centre. Definitions of accountability are argued to be embedded within theoretical discourses which produce definable models of accountability corresponding to these theoretical statements. Case studies of the discourses of both law centres and their funding bodies are described and contrasted in terms of their views of the role of law centres, interaction with various interest groups and their accountability relationships. The data identifies a desire of both community law centres to engage with a communitarian, �bottom-up�, model of accountability, in contrast to the former social democratic-bureaucratic and current liberal �stakeholder� and �contract� models of the official funding agencies. The current dominance of the liberal �stakeholder� discourse is seen as based on professional power, hierarchical legal structure and control of funding. It is argued that any shift in the dominance of power relationships surrounding community law centres in Aotearoa/New Zealand would entail a strengthening of ties and links with the community, through seeking alternative power supports, a participatory structure and locally controlled funding. Keywords: accountability; power relationships; community law centres; dominance; community.

This research engages critically with major public sector accountability theories in relation to the development of law centres in Aotearoa/New Zealand (and comparative international examples) focusing on the two centres in Otago, the Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre and the Dunedin Community Law Centre. Definitions of accountability are argued to be embedded within theoretical discourses which produce definable models of accountability corresponding to these theoretical statements. Case studies of the discourses of both law centres and their funding bodies are described and contrasted in terms of their views of the role of law centres, interaction with various interest groups and their accountability relationships. The data identifies a desire of both community law centres to engage with a communitarian, �bottom-up�, model of accountability, in contrast to the former social democratic-bureaucratic and current liberal �stakeholder� and �contract� models of the official funding agencies. The current dominance of the liberal �stakeholder� discourse is seen as based on professional power, hierarchical legal structure and control of funding. It is argued that any shift in the dominance of power relationships surrounding community law centres in Aotearoa/New Zealand would entail a strengthening of ties and links with the community, through seeking alternative power supports, a participatory structure and locally controlled funding. Keywords: accountability; power relationships; community law centres; dominance; community.

Law of corporate groups deals with legal issues arising from the economic unity of the corporate group as a whole and the separate legal personalities of its individual members. This leads to a conflict between the interests of a parent company and the interests of its subsidiary. By using a comparative method, I analyzed in this thesis the laws of Germany, France, Great Britain and the U.S. to see how these countries regulate corporate groups and how they deal with the problems associated with them. Generally, legal approaches to the regulation of corporate groups can be divided into two groups - the German model that creates a complex system of special rules regulating corporate groups, and a model that regulates only specific aspects of corporate groups and leaves the solution of all other problems to the general regulation of corporations and judicial decisions. In the German model, it is possible to prefer the interests of the whole group at the expenses of the interests of a subsidiary under certain conditions, whereas the majority of legal systems adhere to the duty of loyalty. Moreover, the majority of legal systems prefer to provide instruments for the direct protection of subjects endangered by the creation of a corporate group, while German law focuses mainly on protection of the subsidiary....

Sports used to be the only way to enjoy oneself and to spend free time. Today it rather represents business and an important part of all economies around the world. That is why the European community law includes the sports indirectly in three areas: - the community market of the European union, - the economic competition of the EU, - coordinated policies of the EU. The key role of the entire diploma thesis plays the decision of the European Court in the case Bosman in 1995.

Advertisement plays an important role in the life of companies and it is understandable that there can be advertisements created, which will try to gain benefits for the company in various ways, causing damage to other competitors or to consumers included. A logical reaction is the creation of legal and ethical regulation in order to prevent this. Advertisement regulation exists on national level and in the course of the european integration development also a regulation on the community level has been created, especially in form of directives that have to be incorporated into member states' national legislation. Some of the directives allow the states to preserve stricter provisions, unless they are in conflict with the Treaty establishing the European Community, whereas in others the principle of maximal harmonisation is applied, forbidding stricter regulation. This diploma thesis describes legal regulation in the Czech Republic and the European Union as well as ethical regulation on the domestic and european level. It introduces the most important statutes and directives. One part is completely focused on self-regulation in the area of advertising. The last chapter then outlines possibilities of protection against advertisements that violate the mentioned legal and ethical standards by means of judicial or other authorities and self-regulation.

CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit. The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification. An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment. The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.

<p>CFC legislation has become an instrument to protect national tax bases and minimize the abusive effects of international tax planning. The Swedish CFC legislation is found in chapter 39a of the ITA whereas it is established under what circumstances CFC taxation can arise. If a shareholder of a foreign legal entity is liable of CFC taxation in Sweden such a holder is also entitled to deduct tax paid by the CFC abroad. The purpose of the granted tax credit is to avoid double taxation, although if foreign tax is paid by another entity than the foreign entity in question such CFC-tax cannot be credited. The situation at hand can result in that the holder is liable of paying double CFC tax, contrary to the purpose of tax credit.</p><p>The freedom of establishment is part of the fundamental freedoms concluded in the EC Treaty. The general goal of the Community is to establish an internal market. The freedom of establishment, stated in Article 43 EC stipulates that restrictions on the freedom of establishment on nationals shall be prohibited. However, restrictions on the freedom of establishment can be justified under certain circumstances. The ECJ has developed a rule of reason test which can justify prohibited restrictions if certain criterias are fulfilled. Concerning tax matters the grounds of justification that have been accepted by the ECJ are the cohesion of the tax system, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the counteraction of tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and a combination of grounds of justification.</p><p>An exemplification scheme serves as a mean to illustrate in what instance double CFC taxation can arise. The scheme concerns a corporate group whereas a Swedish parent company owns a subsidiary in the U.K. through which the parent company plans to establish another subsidiary in the UAE. Swedish tax legislation provides that the Swedish parent company is subject to corporation tax on its worldwide profits in Sweden. However, the parent company is generally not taxed on the profits of its subsidiaries as they arise nor is it taxed on dividends distributed by a subsidiary established in Sweden. Although, when subsidiaries are not resident in Sweden and CFC legislation applies tax exempt according to the intercorporate share holding legislation will not be applicable. Therefore, in order for double CFC taxation to arise it is established that CFC legislation will be applicable to the exemplified scheme. Profits accrued in the UAE will be subject to CFC taxation in both the U.K. and Sweden and double taxation relief will not be granted in Sweden for the CFC tax paid in the U.K. It is questionable if double CFC taxation and the lack of tax relief in such a situation is in compliance with the freedom of establishment.</p><p>The analysis, whereas the purpose of this thesis is concluded, follows the reasoning of the ECJ in accordance with the rule of reason. The purpose is to examine if the lack of double CFC tax relief is in compliance with Community law. It is established that since relief is not granted for double CFC taxation, national legislation hinders the freedom of establishment by forcing a parent company to avoid or modify an intra group structure which leads to the unfavorable consequences in taxation. The tax disadvantage must be seen as making it less attractive for Sweden’s own resident to establish in another Member State and the hindering nature of the lack of double CFC taxation relief constitutes a prohibited restriction to the freedom of establishment. The grounds of justification previously accepted by the ECJ are examined in order to establish if such grounds can justify the lack of double CFC tax relief as a prohibited restriction on the freedom of establishment. None of the acknowledged grounds of justification are able to justify the lack of double CFC tax relief and such a restricted measure is therefore not found to be in compliance with Community Law. Lastly, potential adjustments to CFC legislation, regarding the lack of double CFC tax relief, are discussed to enable compliance with Community law.</p>