L’utilisation par les contribuables et leurs conseils des dispositions relatives aux droits de l’homme, en général, et de la Convention EDH, en particulier, n’a plus rien d’étonnant aujourd’hui. Les juridictions nationales se référent de plus en plus souvent à la Convention dans l’ensemble du contentieux fiscal. Certes, le sujet n’est pas facile à aborder car il se trouve à la croisée des chemins du droit public et du droit privé et, de par son champ d’application, se relève très vaste. L’étude a pour objectif d’identifier la position de la Cour EDH sur la matière fiscale lorsqu’elle joue un rôle spécifique dans la défense des droits fondamentaux du contribuable. L'accent sera mis sur l’influence que les dispositions conventionnelles ont pu exercer sur la protection des droits du contribuable et sur les évolutions matérielles et procédurales du droit fiscal dans certains pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe. L’étude présente un intérêt certain de fournir les moyens d'une meilleure appréciation de l'apport véritable de la jurisprudence de la Cour EDH à la protection des droits du contribuable, propulsée par l’évolution de l’interprétation de la Convention EDH à la lumière des conditions de la vie actuelle. À cet égard, son originalité tient à ce qu'elle s'appuie sur une analyse large des affaires rendues en matière fiscale et, par conséquent, sur les décisions jurisprudentielles les plus récentes. Une comparaison avec la jurisprudence de la CJUE est également effectuée dans la mesure du possible. / Nowadays, the use of different provisions intended to protect human rights in general, and the ECHR, in particular, by taxpayers and their counsel does not surprise with many domestic jurisdictions increasingly making reference to the Convention in any type of tax litigation. However, it is still a difficult topic to address as it simultaneously crosses across both public and private law. The main aim of this study is to identify the position of the Court on taxation matters, when it assumes a specific role in the protection of the taxpayer’s fundamental rights and freedom. Emphasis is given to the impact that the provisions of the Convention can exert on the evaluation of substantive and procedural tax rules that are applied in several countries of the Council of Europe and the protection of the taxpayer’s rights. The study has a specific interest to provide the means for a better understating of the real value of the European Convention on Human Rights for the protection of the taxpayer’s rights propelled by its dynamic interpretation over the past years. In this regard, the originality of the study is based on a broad analysis of cases recently decided by the Court. As far as possible, a comparison with the case law of the CJEU is also undertaken.

Pendant longtemps, le droit international des investissements et le droit de l'Union européenne se sont ignorés. Leur rencontre en matière d'investissement a eu lieu dans le cadre des rapports entre les États membres de l'Union européenne, d'une part, et entre les États membres et les États tiers, d'autre part. Cette rencontre a donné lieu à de riches discussions sur l'interaction entre le droit de l'Union européenne et le droit international des investissements. Depuis l'entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, l'Union européenne dispose d'une compétence exclusive dans le domaine de la politique commerciale commune incluant les investissements directs étrangers en application de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, point e), du TFUE. L'étude analytique des aspects procéduraux de l'Union Européenne dans l'arbitrage international des investissements démontre la transition de son statut bien établi de I'«amicus curiae» vers le statut de « partie défenderesse» dans le contentieux international des investissements. / For a long time, international investment law and EU legislation were developing independently from each other. ln the field of international investment, both met as the EU countries interacted, either with each other or with non-member governments. This led to broad-ranging discussions on how the EU legislation should interact with international investment law. As per the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is the exclusive authority for the common trade policy, including direct foreign investments under Article 3, subsection le) of the TFEU. The system analysis of the European Union procedural aspects relating to investment international arbitration demonstrates the transition from the well-established "amicus curiae" status to the status of "defendant".

L’effectivité de l’accès aux instances de l’asile dépend de la réunion de plusieurs facteurs qui ne viennent pas uniquement du droit national. La condition sine qua non de l’effectivité d’un tel accès est une réception harmonieuse par les différents Etats, des garanties procédurales indispensables à celui-ci et définies au niveau européen, ce qui suppose toutefois une relation équilibrée entre le droit conventionnel et le droit de l’Union, construite dans un esprit de dialogue. Dans l’établissement de ce dialogue, le législateur de l’Union, tout comme la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne jouent un rôle primordial, et si ce dialogue s’avérait dissonant, le droit national pourrait encore corriger les insuffisances ainsi constatées. Certes, à cette fin, il est nécessaire d’établir un dialogue également au niveau national, et ce, non seulement avec les instances européennes mais aussi à l’intérieur de l’Etat entre les autorités administratives et juridictionnelles. In fine, l’effectivité de cet accès est tout autant indispensable dans une dimension transfrontalière afin de rapprocher davantage les législations nationales et de proposer une solution européenne aux problèmes structuraux et systémiques caractérisant cet accès. / The effectiveness of access to asylum bodies depends on a combination of several factors which are not derived solely from national law. The sine qua non of the effectiveness of such access is a harmonious reception by the various Member States of the procedural guarantees essential to it and defined at European level, which presupposes, however, a balanced relationship between ECHR law and Union law built in a spirit of dialogue. In establishing this dialogue, the EU legislator, like the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, plays an essential role, and if this dialogue were to prove dissonant, national law could still correct any shortcomings thus noted. To this end, it is certainly necessary to establish a dialogue also at national level, not only with the EU legislator and the European courts but also between the administrative and judicial authorities at State level. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this access is also essential in a cross-border dimension in order to further approximate national legislation and to propose a European solution to the structural and systemic problems characterizing this access.

Le moyen d’ordre public joue un rôle fondamental dans le contentieux relevant de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Ce moyen peut être défini comme celui qui tend à la garantie des règles et valeurs essentielles de l’ordre juridique européen. Il poursuit une finalité résolument objective et tend à la garantie des répartitions des compétences juridictionnelles et décisionnelles, au respect des formes essentielles de toutes procédures, au respect de certains droits fondamentaux d’ordre essentiellement procédural, voire à la sauvegarde de certaines règles substantielles. Dans l’intérêt objectif de la collectivité des justiciables, ce moyen tend ainsi à garantir les équilibres constitutionnels inhérents à la construction européenne en assurant le rôle de chaque acteur dans le déroulement régulier des procédures. Le moyen d’ordre public joue de manière variable dans l’ensemble des procédures contentieuses relevant de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Il est impératif et s’impose tant au juge qu’aux parties. Il doit être examiné et relevé d’office par le juge dès lors qu’il est de nature à influencer la solution du litige. L’obligation du juge s’accommode néanmoins d’une certaine souplesse. Ce moyen peut être invoqué par les parties en dehors des règles de droit commun régissant la recevabilité des moyens. Relevé d’office par le juge ou invoqué par une partie, le moyen d’ordre public doit être soumis au débat contradictoire entre les parties. Un courant jurisprudentiel récent tend ainsi à subjectiviser le régime du moyen d’ordre public au vu des exigences du procès équitable. / Grounds of public policy are of fundamental importance in legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). They may be defined as grounds intended to safeguard the fundamental rules and values of the European legal order. They pursue a resolutely objective aim and are intended to maintain the allocation of judicial and decision-making powers, to uphold the procedural requirements of all proceedings, to uphold fundamental rights which are essentially procedural in nature, and even to protect the substance of certain legal norms. In the objective interest of the general public, they are intended to safeguard the constitutional balances forming an integral part of European construction by ensuring the participation of every party in the lawful conduct of proceedings. Grounds of public policy play a variable part in proceedings before the CJEU. They are imperative and binding upon both the Court and the parties. They must be examined and, where they determine the outcome of the proceedings, raised ex officio by the judge. However, the Court’s obligation is subject to some flexibility. Grounds of public policy may be raised by the parties regardless of general admissibility requirements. Whether they are raised ex officio by the Court or put forward by a party, such grounds must be subject to an exchange of argument between the parties. Thus, a recent line of case-law seeks to reconcile the rules governing grounds of public policy with the requirements of the right to a fair trial.

Harmonization of tax systems of the European Union member states has been going on since 1950s. This trend is followed to this day in order to achieve one of the primary objectives of the European Union, single domestic market. The harmonization of tax systems allows free movement of capital, goods, and services. Value added tax is harmonized through the EU Directives that have unified tax object, tax base and partly tax rates. The Court of Justice of the European Union also plays a vital role in the harmonization, because the European case law complements the interpretation of the directives and creates a comprehensive impact throughout the harmonization. This thesis analyses the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have been implemented in the VAT Act, and examines at the same time impact of the implementation. The first implementation took place in the amendment of the VAT Act in 2006. The biggest changes occurred in the amendment of the VAT Act in 2012 and it was mainly in the realm of the conditions for exemption from VAT without deduction and the possibility of claiming a deduction. Finally, time frame of the implementation was also researched, judging from the outcomes of the research, one can say that the Czech Republic responds quite flexibly to the publication of the European case of law and the implementation takes place shortly following verdict of The Court of Justice of the European Union.

The diploma thesis regarding The Legal Aspects of Mandatory Vaccination and its European Context was created in order to map the legal regulations of mandatory vaccination in the Czech Republic and to describe the repressions of unvaccinated children in the Czech Republic and in other member states of the European Union. Part of the thesis consists of a jurisprudence research of The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights and The Court of Justice of the European Union related to the field of mandatory vaccination. Special focus is given to the comparison of the number of mandatory vaccinations in the member states of European Union as well as to the comparison of their legislations. The fundamental question reflected in the diploma thesis is the one of the human rights of individuals guaranteed by the European Union, international conventions and national legislations of the states and the possibility for them to be limited in order to protect the public health. In the thesis, there are listed and described the human rights affected by the whole concept of vaccination and also the conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to allow the human rights to be restricted. For this purpose the cases from legal practise serve as a support. In addition, there is a chapter regarding the promotion of newly developed vaccines for voluntary vaccinations, which reveals the marketing tools used for this purpose. For a better understanding of the field of mandatory vaccination, there is included a chapter titled The Insight of Expertise Necessary for the Interpretation and Application of Law. This chapter completes the aspects of mandatory vaccination from the medical point of view, lists the mandatory vaccinations in the Czech Republic and member states of the European Union and the vaccines used for performing the vaccinations. Keywords: human rights, mandatory vaccination, jurisprudence of The European Court of Human Rights and The Court of Justice of the European Union, repressions of unvaccinated children

This thesis aims to identify divergent interpretations of particular ECHR's articles in jurisdiction of the CJEU and the ECtHR using methods of analysis and comparison. An interim target is to define the scope and powers of the CJEU and the ECtHR in relation to the ECHR. Initial hypothesis states: "The EU accession to the ECHR would help to eliminate inconsistencies in interpretation of the ECHR and to define a clear relationship between the CJEU and the ECtHR."

5 Abstract This dissertation examines the standing of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which was formally included under the umbrella of the European Union as a result of the Maastricht Treaty in the early nineties. Yet this area was excluded from the Community framework, which had a significant impact on the jurisdiction and competencies of the Court of Justice. Despite limitations arising from the construct of the third pillar, the Court of Justice took an opportunity through case law to overcome some of these limitations. The most recent milestone in the development of this area is the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty which removed the so-called pillar structure and further limitations disappeared with the end of the transitional period. Further, existing case law of the Court of Justice in this area has been closely linked to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, which is based upon the principle of mutual recognition and mutual trust between the EU Member States, and thus became an important part of the case law of the Court of Justice. Given the scope of this framework decision, the Court of Justice has also been frequently dealing with the issue of fundamental rights, the protection of which plays an...

Le Traité sur l’Union Européenne assigne à la Cour de Justice la mission de veiller au respect du droit dans l’application et l’interprétation des traités. A ce titre, elle interprète le droit de l’Union de manière à garantir une application uniforme du droit dans tous les Etats membres. De même, la Cour Commune de Justice et d’Arbitrage (CCJA) est chargée, conformément au Traité relatif à l’Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (OHADA), d’assurer dans les Etats Parties, l'interprétation et l'application communes du droit uniforme. Ces cours de justice partagent avec les juridictions nationales l’application judiciaire du droit né des traités. Mais les traités n’ont pas réalisé une fusion du système juridictionnel qu’ils ont créé avec celui des Etats membres et, une hiérarchie juridictionnelle n’a pas été établie entre la Cour de justice et les juridictions nationales. Se pose alors la question des moyens par lesquels ces cours de justice arrivent à imposer une application uniforme du droit dans les Etats membres. Après analyse, on relève qu’à travers l’attribution des pouvoirs juridictionnels, les traités ont conféré une autorité supranationale à la Cour de justice européenne et la Cour de justice de l’OHADA. En plus de cette autorité conférée qu’elles ne se contentent pas d’entretenir à l’égard des juridictions nationales, elles génèrent aussi de l’autorité dans le cadre de leur activité juridictionnelle. Ainsi, ces cours œuvrent pour une meilleure intégration régionale. De leur propre gré, elles n’hésitent pas à adopter des positions impérieuses de plus en plus conquérantes. Ce phénomène fait donc évoluer la conception classique des sources de l’autorité de ces cours. La CCJA bénéficie des prérogatives les plus offensives d’origine textuelle, au contraire de la Cour de justice européenne qui, quant à elle, apparaît plus conquérante dans sa jurisprudence. / According to the treaty on the European Union, the Court of justice ensures that, in the interpretation and application of the treaties the law is observed. As such, it interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries. In the same way, the treaty of the Organization for the Harmonization of the Business Law in Africa (OHBLA) has conferred to the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) the power to rule on, in the contracting states, the interpretation and enforcement of the treaty. Both regional courts share with national courts the power to apply the law resulting from the treaties.But there has not been a fusion of the judicial system of the member states and the community judicial system. No judicial hierarchy has been established between community courts and national courts. This brings the question of by which means the regional courts can enforce the uniform application of the law in the member states. After analysis, it appears that by granting jurisdictional power, the treaties gave a supranational authority to the European Court of Justice and the CCJA. In addition to the power granted to them, the courts also generate authority through their jurisdictional activities. Thus, the courts work for a better integration of the judicial systems by adopting more and more conquering authoritarian positions. This phenomenon has led to a change in the classical conception of the sources of power of the courts. The CCJA enjoys more power from treaties than the European Court of Justice which is more offensive in case law setting.

JUDGE-MADE LAW COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Keywords: judge-made law; the European Union; the Court of Justice of the European Union; the Supreme Court of the United States; judicialization of governance; Kelsenian court; European constitutional space; European constitution; normativity; constitutional pluralism; sovereignty; federalism; post-communist states; new Member States of the European Union. Standard page (that is 1800 characters per page) and word count (including footnotes; without the contents, bibliography and annexes): 327 standard pages; 82 795 words. The Ph.D. thesis offers a complex reconceptualization of the constitutional system in the European Union. The constitutional systems of the Member States have been substantially transformed during the 20th century. Meanwhile a new constitutional system functioning in the Member States alongside their own systems has emerged - the constitutional system of the European Union. These two fundamental changes are difficult to grasp through an existing theoretical framework. That is because the framework is based on a set of outdated concepts: (i) Rousseau's concept of volonté générale that forms the basis of the parliamentary supremacy in a constitutional system; (ii)...