Europos Bendrijos ir nacionaliniai teisės aktai gina sąžiningą konkurenciją, kuriai neigiamą poveikį gali daryti tarp įvairių ūkio subjektų sudaryti susitarimai, atitinkantys draudžiamų susitarimų požymius. Tokių susitarimų pavyzdiniai sąrašai yra pateikti Europos Bendrijos Stengimo sutarties 81 straipsnio 1 dalyje ir Lietuvos Respublikos Konkurencijos įstatymo 5 straipsnio 1 dalyje. Tačiau ne visi susitarimai, patenkantys į šį sąrašą, ribojantys ar potencialiai galintys riboti konkurenciją, negalioja. Į draudimo sferą nepatenkantys susitarimai vadinami mažareikšmiais arba susitarimais, negalinčiais itin riboti konkurencijos. Jiems bei jų reglamentavimo ir vertinimo pagal Europos Bendrijos ir Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos teisę ir yra skirtas šis darbas. Jei draudžiamų susitarimų problematika ir pagrindiniai praktikos metu iškilę klausimai buvo paliesti ir iki šiol yra nagrinėjami teisinėje literatūroje, mažareikšmiams susitarimams deramo dėmesio savo darbuose neskyrė ir dabar neskiria nei Lietuvos Respublikos, nei Europos Bendrijos teisės specialistai. Šiuo darbu siekiama iš dalies užpildyti teisės literatūroje atsiradusias spragas. Mažareikšmių susitarimų (de minimis) atsiradimas siejamas su Europos Teisingumo Teismo praktika, o atsiradimo pradžia laikytinas 1969 metų sprendimas byloje „Völk v Vervaecke“, kuriame buvo suformuluota reikšmingos įtakos doktrina. Prabėgus metams po sprendimo priėmimo pasirodė pirmasis Europos Komisijos pranešimas dėl mažareikšmių... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The European Communities’ and national legal acts defend the honest competition, which may be negatively influenced by the agreements, concluded between various economic entities, which meet the indications of the prohibited agreements. The lists, containing the examples of such agreements, are submitted in part 1 of article 81 of the Agreement on flotation of the European Community and part 1 of article 5 of the Competition law of the Republic of Lithuania. However, not all the agreements, included into this list, which restrict or may potentially restrict the competition, are invalid. The agreements, which do not fall into the sphere of the prohibited ones, are deemed as the agreements of minor importance or as the agreements, which cannot restrict the competition to a significant extent. Thus, this thesis is devoted to them, to their regulation and assessment as per the European Community’s and Lithuanian Republic’s competition law. If the topic of the prohibited agreements and the principle questions, which arose in the course of gaining of the practical experience, were touched and have been analyzed till the present moment in the juridical literature, then neither the Lithuanian Republic’s nor the European Community’s legal experts did not devote and at present do not devote their attention to the agreements of minor importance in their works. The author of this thesis attempts at least partially to fill the gaps, which appeared in the juridical literature. Appearance... [to full text]

Ši disertacija – pirmas tyrimas Lietuvoje, kuriame kompleksiškai nagrinėjamos reikšmingos įtakos konkurencijai ir reikšmingos įtakos prekybai sąlygos bei de minimis išimties taikymo praktika. Disertaciniame darbe nagrinėjamos ES bei atskirų valstybių narių teisės aktų nuostatos, už rinkos priežiūrą ir sąžiningos konkurencijos apsaugą atsakingų institucijų praktika, pateikiami pasiūlymai dėl esamo teisinio reglamentavimo tobulinimo. Disertacinio darbo rėmuose buvo atlikta ES valstybių narių teisės aktų ir jų suponuotos praktikos (kartais ir atvirkščiai) lyginamoji analizė. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas su EK, Teisingumo Teismo praktika nesutapmančiai besiformuojančiai nacionalinei praktikai (pvz., de minimis išimties, kurios turinys toliau atskleidžiamas disertaciniame darbe, taikymas susitarimams, turintiems sunkių apribojimų). / This dissertation is the first study in Lithuania, which includes complex analysis of conditions of appreciable effect on competition and trade; as well as the practice of applying de minimis exemption. The doctoral dissertation analyzes legal regulations of the EU and Member States, the practice of institutions responsible for monitoring the market and fair protecting fair competition; it includes suggestions for the improvement of existing legal framework. Within the framework of doctoral dissertation, a comparative analysis of the EU Member States’ legislation and practice which is based on it (and vice versa) has been conducted. A particular attention has been paid to national practice which is incompatible with the practice of the EC, or the Court of Justice (e.g. application of de minimis exemption, which is explained in depth further in the doctoral dissertation, for agreements containing hardcore restraints).

Religious accommodation in the workplace has been a growing issue in the business community, partly as a result of an increasing number of religious discrimination cases in the United States. The focus of this qualitative phenomenological study was to investigate Muslims' perceptions concerning religious accommodation using pluralism and religious pluralism as the theoretical frameworks. Data were collected via an online survey of Muslims from different regions throughout the United States with a sample size of 28 participants. Data from the online survey were analyzed using the Moustakas method of phenomenological analysis, which consists of epoché, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and the synthesis of meanings and essences. Results showed the Muslim employees perceived there was a severe lack of religious accommodation provided by their companies. A plurality of the respondents stated their companies did not take any action toward providing them with religious accommodation. Findings also showed prayer to be one of the most important forms of religious expression in the workplace. The implications for positive social change are that companies begin to communicate more effectively with their Muslim employees. With the hope that leaders and public policymakers will implement changes that are beneficial to American society.

This diploma master thesis focuses on the de minimis regime and its application within financing of theatres in the Czech Republic. The de minimis regime is one of the instruments of finance regulations of finance from public budgets, in relations to enterprises in the Czech Republic. As it is an instrument of so-called state aid with considerable selective features, is it a subject of thorough regulations by the European Union. These regulations thus directly affect legal systems of member countries of the EU. The aim of the master thesis is to describe how the de minimis regime affects the opportunities of Czech theatres to receive financial support from public budgets and to find out how the legal acts of the European Union affect the financial situation of these theatres. The thesis also deals with the problem as seen from the point of view of providers of these financial supports so that it could be possible to reflect the issue as a whole. The theoretical background of the thesis is formed by the relevant legal acts, issued by the European Commission and by the commentaries made about them. An inseparable part of this work is also grant calls of individual grant providers in the Czech Republic. The practical part of the master thesis is then based on thorough research of all Czech theatres with regards to their relations to de minimis issues. The master thesis also works with data provided by the Czech Register of the de minimis regime.

The objective of this thesis is to evaluate and describe Czech legislation regarding agreements intervening in the economic competition, namely with the focus on their actual form, specifics, characteristics and basic essentials, and to evaluate their correctness and business impacts, taking into account legislation and case law of the European Union. The purpose of the research is primarily to outline the basic elements of forms of prohibited agreements, highlight deficiencies of legislation related to them, and to argue findings arising from the literature and case law. The thesis is based on both Czech and European literature and judicature. The thesis is divided into six chapters which are complemented by the Introduction and the Conclusion. The First Chapter compares legislation of the Czech Republic and the European Union, while the attention is devoted in particular to the influence of European legislation and judicature on the development of Czech law and decision-making practice. It also focuses on certain differences and possibilities of their removal and overcoming. The Second Chapter forms the core of the thesis and also describes the core law governing the cartels when it closely examines every single part of the state of facts of prohibited agreements. This part provides a...

For some time now, the EU has worked on managing the tax issues that have spawned from companies establishing subsidiaries in various Member States. These tax issues have concerned that of double taxation leading to the conception of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (2011/96/EU, the PSD). One of the main purposes of the PSD is to prevent double taxation. The PSD aimed to create a mutual taxation system for parent companies, with subsidiaries in other Member States, as it was deemed essential. However, it was a mutual taxation system with regards to dividends paid from subsidiaries to parent companies, which meant there were still discrepancies to be found – and, as it turned out, exploited by companies seeking to gain an illegitimate tax advantage. Consequently, the EU announced the ‘de minimis’ anti-abuse rule in the PSD, whereby adoption was mandatory, for all Member States, so long as a Member State’s current tax legislation does not meet the requirements set forth by the anti-abuse rule. One of the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule was to ensure an improved legal clarity and security as well as preventing the abuse of the provisions as established in the PSD. The idea behind the anti-abuse rule is, thereby, perceived as well meaning although remarks have been made, by various authorities, regarding the prevalent flaws the anti-abuse rule is plagued by. There have been remarks against the anti-abuse rule’s conception to begin with, as it goes against the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Furthermore, there have been remarks regarding the vagueness of the prerequisites and wording in the anti-abuse rule, contrary to the main purposes of the anti-abuse rule as established by the EU.   In this study, the author will examine whether or not the criticism is justified, primarily by focusing on the possibilities of concretising the wording in the anti-abuse rule. This will be achieved by examining six Member States to determine how their respective adoption has fared. Also, the anti-abuse rule’s contribution to legal clarity and security will be determined, to discern whether or not the anti-abuse rule functions in accordance with its main purpose.   The author has found that the anti-abuse rule is indeed in accordance with the general principles of subsidiarity and proportionality given the proven inability of the individual Member States to devise a common solution to the aforementioned tax issues, as well as the fact that the extent of the measure is appropriate, considering the issue at hand. Furthermore, six Member States have been examined, to determine how their respective adoption of the anti-abuse rule have fared. Three Member States have chosen to adopt the anti-abuse rule whereas the remaining three have chosen to refrain on the grounds that it has been deemed superfluous, seeing as their current legislation already meets the minimum requirements as established in the provisions of the anti-abuse rule. The Member States that have chosen to implement the anti-abuse rule have done so by adopting the vague wording verbatim, giving credence to the notion that they refrained from interpreting and/or rephrasing the wording as it is perceived as not only vague but also occasionally abstract, thus difficult to concretise. Not only does this mean that the anti-abuse rule should be regarded as that of inferior standard, as far as legal clarity and security go, but also that it lacks transparency and should thereby be regarded as nigh counterproductive. / EU har sedan länge arbetat med att hantera de beskattningsfrågor som uppkommer i takt med att bolag etablerar dotterbolag i en annan medlemsstat. Dessa frågor berör exempelvis dubbelbeskattning varpå EU upprättade Moder- och Dotterbolagsdirektivet (2011/96/EU, nedan benämnt PSD) som avsåg hjälpa bolag undslippa denna problematik. Direktivet tog sikte på att skapa gemensamt beskattningssystem för moderbolag och dotterbolag hemmahörande i olika medlemsstater – då det ansågs viktigt med enhetliga beskattningsregler inom EU. Det ska observeras att denna enhetlighet enbart sträcker sig till vinstutdelning som lämnas från dotterbolag till moderbolag i en annan medlemsstat, vilket innebar att olikheter fortfarande förelåg i övriga beskattningsfrågor. Detta ledde sedermera till att multinationella bolag kunde utnyttja medlemsstaternas olikheter genom att företa arrangemang som resulterade i en otillbörlig skattefördel.   Företagandet av sådana arrangemang ledde till att EU valde att upprätta en de minimis-bestämmelse i PSD som var obligatorisk för samtliga medlemsstater att implementera, givet att deras nationella lagstiftningar inte redan uppfyllde bestämmelsens minimikrav. Denna bestämmelse kom sedermera att benämnas anti-missbruksbestämmelsen och ämnade tillföra en högre grad klarhet och säkerhet för att tydligare belysa de arrangemang som anses godtagbara och som inte ämnade missbruka PSD:s bestämmelser, där syftet bakom missbruket av PSD var att anskaffa skattefördelar. Tanken bakom anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är således godartad men likväl är bestämmelsen inte utan brister, samtidigt som den ifrågasätts från olika instanser. Det har påpekats att bestämmelsen inte bör ha upprättats, till att börja med, då den strider mot subsidiaritets- och proportionalitetsprincipen, som är fördragsstadgade. Vidare har det påpekats att rekvisiten i anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är otydliga och tillför således inte den klarhet och säkerhet enligt EU:s syfte.   Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka huruvida den nya anti-missbruksbestämmelsens ordalydelse kan konkretiseras, vilket görs efter att ha klarlagt hur sex utvalda medlemsstater gått till väga med implementeringen av nämnd bestämmelse. Slutligen utreds huruvida anti-missbruksbestämmelsens bidrag till klarhet och säkerhet görs i enlighet med dess syfte. Författaren har i denna uppsats kommit fram till att anti-missbruksbestämmelsen är förenlig med såväl subsidiaritetsprincipen som proportionalitetsprincipen, då medlemsstaterna, till dags dato, inte förmått hitta en lösning utan EU:s involverande samtidigt som EU:s ingripande står i proportion till målet med åtgärden. Det har funnits att medlemsstaterna som implementerat anti-missbruksbestämmelsen har avstått från att tolka och anpassa anti-missbruksbestämmelsen varför bestämmelsens vaga ordalydelse återfinns i respektive lands lagbestämmelser. Anledningen bakom varför de avstått från att tolka bestämmelsen anser författaren bero på att bestämmelsen är vag, stundtals abstrakt, med anledning av de rekvisit som begagnas. Detta medför att bestämmelsen blir svår att konkretisera, varför det kan anses att en av EU:s målsättningar – att bidra till ökad klarhet och säkerhet – inte kan anses uppfyllt. Vidare har anti-missbruksbestämmelsen lett till en minskad förutsebarhet och rättssäkerhet, varför bestämmelsen inte bara bör anses undermålig utan även nära inpå kontraproduktiv.

Sparandedirektivets syfte är att effektivisera beskattningen av ränta på sparande inom EU genom att räntan ska beskattas i betalningsmottagarens hemviststat. Direktivet gäller endast fysiska personer och gränsöverskridande räntebetalningar. Syftet ska uppnås genom ett utbyte av information medlemsstaterna emellan. I stället för att utbyta information kan en medlemsstat välja att ta ut källskatt på ränta och vidarebefordra en viss del av källskatten till betalningsmottagarens hemviststat. De svenska bankernas kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet för begränsat skattskyldiga sparare har i och med direktivets införande utvidgats. Bankerna skickar uppgifterna till Skatteverket som i sin tur vidarebefordrar dem till behörig myndighet i spararens hemviststat. Direktivet innehåller ett undantag, de minimis-regeln, som innebär att medlemsstaterna om de vill får undanta vissa ränteinkomster som härrör från fondföretag. Syftet är att undanta aktiefonder som måste investera i fordringar av likviditetsskäl. Regeringen har valt att inte införliva undantaget i svensk lag. Detta medför enligt vår åsikt en konkurrensnackdel för de svenska fondbolagen. På grund av Regeringens beslut måste dessa bolag, för att kunna sälja sina fonder inom EU, kunna redovisa hur stor del av en utdelning som hänför sig till ränta. Kan de inte göra detta betraktas hela beloppet som ränta och omfattas därmed av kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet. Sparandedirektivet har implementerats i svensk lag genom en paragraf i lagen om självdeklarationer och kontrolluppgifter (LSK) som stadgar att direktivet gäller som svensk lag. Utöver detta har ett antal ändringar införts i LSK. Vi anser att implementeringen kan strida mot direktivet som föreskriver att medlemsstaterna ska anta de lagar och förordningar som krävs för att uppfylla direktivets föreskrifter. Vi anser inte att LSK på ett tillfredsställande sätt har anpassats till direktivet eftersom LSKs regler ibland överlappar direktivet och ibland motsäger det. LSK innehåller två undantag från kontrolluppgiftsskyldigheten. Dessa undantag strider mot direktivet som inte innehåller några dylika undantag. Vi anser dock att undantagen är rimliga eftersom de undantar konton utan betydelse för informationsutbytet och att liknande undantag bör införlivas i direktivet. Med anledning av sparandedirektivets införande har de svenska bankerna, i rollen som betalningsombud, föranletts merarbete och kostnader. Kostnaderna har uppstått bland annat då bankerna har ändrat sina datasystem för att kunna uppfylla direktivets kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet. De har även fått komplettera sin information om begränsat skattskyldiga kunder. Skatteverket är den behöriga myndigheten i Sverige och ska således vidarebefordra de uppgifter om personer som är begränsat skattskyldiga i Sverige som lämnas av betalningsombuden. Eftersom Sverige sedan tidigare har ett väl utbyggt kontrolluppgiftssystem och har deltagit i informationsutbytet inom OECD har sparandedirektivets införande inte medfört särskilt stora kostnader för Skatteverket. Sparandedirektivet förväntas leda till ökade skatteintäkter för de stater vars obegränsat skattskyldiga personer placerar sina tillgångar utomlands. Emellertid finns det risk för att dessa personer placerar sina tillgångar i andra typer av sparande eller placerar tillgångarna i stater som inte omfattas av direktivet för att undgå beskattning. Vi anser därför att det finns risk för att sparandedirektivet blir ett slag i luften. / The aim of the Savings Taxation Directive is to ensure an effective taxation of income from savings in the form of interest payments within the EU. This shall be done through taxation of the interest payment in the Member State where the beneficial owner, the saver, has his residence. The directive is only applicable on individuals and on cross-border payments. The aim shall be achieved through an exchange of information between the Member States. Instead of exchanging information, a Member State can choose to levy a withholding tax. A certain amount of that tax shall be transferred to the Member State of residence of the beneficial owner. The obligation for Swedish banks to forward statements of earnings concerning foreign savers has been extended through the directive. The banks sends the information to the Swedish tax authority which then forwards the information to the competent authority in the savers state of residence. The directive contains an exception, the de minimis rule, that states that Member States can choose to exempt certain interest payments deriving from Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities (UCITS). The aim of the exception is to give the Member States a possibility to exclude undertakings which invest mainly in equity but which must hold some debt for liquidity purposes. The Swedish Government has chosen not to implement the exception into Swedish law. In our opinion, this leads to a competitive disadvantage for Swedish UCITS. Due to the Governments’ decision, the Swedish UCITS must, in order to be able to sell their products within the EU, be able to show the interest part of a dividend. If this cannot be done, the entire amount is considered as interest and must be reported as such. The directive has been implemented into Swedish law through a paragraph in the Law of Self Assessment and Statement of Earnings. It states that the Savings Taxation Directive shall be applied as Swedish law. Besides the implementation, some parts of the law have been changed. We think that the implementation may be in breach of the directive, which states that Member States must pass laws and decrees necessary to fulfill the regulations in the directive. We do not think that the Swedish law has been adjusted to the directive in a sufficient way since the Swedish law sometimes overlap the directive and sometimes contradict it. The Swedish law contains two exceptions from the obligation to give statements of earnings. These exceptions breach the directive since the directive does not contain any exceptions of this kind. However, we think that the exceptions are reasonable since they exempt bank accounts which are of no importance for the exchange of information stated in the directive. Similar exceptions should therefore in our opinion be included in the directive. The implementation of the Savings Taxation Directive has caused the Swedish banks, in their role as paying agents, supplementary work and costs. The costs have occurred when the banks have had to adopt their computer systems in order to fulfil the criteria in the directive. The banks also had to complete their information about foreign savers who are liable to tax in Sweden. The Swedish tax authority is the competent authority in Sweden and shall therefore report the information, concerning foreign tax payers, that is forwarded by the paying agents. Sweden had, even before the implementation of the directive, a well functioning system for statements of earnings. The state also participates in the exchange of information that takes place within the OECD. Therefore, the implementation of the directive has not caused any costs of importance for the Swedish tax authority. It is expected that the Savings Taxation Directive will give rise to increased tax revenues for the Member States whose tax payers invest abroad. However, there is a risk that these savers invest in other products or transfer their assets to states that are not within the scope of the directive in order to avoid taxation. Because of this, we think that the Savings Taxation Directive might be a waste of effort.

<p>Sparandedirektivets syfte är att effektivisera beskattningen av ränta på sparande inom EU genom att räntan ska beskattas i betalningsmottagarens hemviststat. Direktivet gäller endast fysiska personer och gränsöverskridande räntebetalningar. Syftet ska uppnås genom ett utbyte av information medlemsstaterna emellan. I stället för att utbyta information kan en medlemsstat välja att ta ut källskatt på ränta och vidarebefordra en viss del av källskatten till betalningsmottagarens hemviststat. De svenska bankernas kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet för begränsat skattskyldiga sparare har i och med direktivets införande utvidgats. Bankerna skickar uppgifterna till Skatteverket som i sin tur vidarebefordrar dem till behörig myndighet i spararens hemviststat.</p><p>Direktivet innehåller ett undantag, de minimis-regeln, som innebär att medlemsstaterna om de vill får undanta vissa ränteinkomster som härrör från fondföretag. Syftet är att undanta aktiefonder som måste investera i fordringar av likviditetsskäl. Regeringen har valt att inte införliva undantaget i svensk lag. Detta medför enligt vår åsikt en konkurrensnackdel för de svenska fondbolagen. På grund av Regeringens beslut måste dessa bolag, för att kunna sälja sina fonder inom EU, kunna redovisa hur stor del av en utdelning som hänför sig till ränta. Kan de inte göra detta betraktas hela beloppet som ränta och omfattas därmed av kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet.</p><p>Sparandedirektivet har implementerats i svensk lag genom en paragraf i lagen om självdeklarationer och kontrolluppgifter (LSK) som stadgar att direktivet gäller som svensk lag. Utöver detta har ett antal ändringar införts i LSK. Vi anser att implementeringen kan strida mot direktivet som föreskriver att medlemsstaterna ska anta de lagar och förordningar som krävs för att uppfylla direktivets föreskrifter. Vi anser inte att LSK på ett tillfredsställande sätt har anpassats till direktivet eftersom LSKs regler ibland överlappar direktivet och ibland motsäger det. LSK innehåller två undantag från kontrolluppgiftsskyldigheten. Dessa undantag strider mot direktivet som inte innehåller några dylika undantag. Vi anser dock att undantagen är rimliga eftersom de undantar konton utan betydelse för informationsutbytet och att liknande undantag bör införlivas i direktivet.</p><p>Med anledning av sparandedirektivets införande har de svenska bankerna, i rollen som betalningsombud, föranletts merarbete och kostnader. Kostnaderna har uppstått bland annat då bankerna har ändrat sina datasystem för att kunna uppfylla direktivets kontrolluppgiftsskyldighet. De har även fått komplettera sin information om begränsat skattskyldiga kunder.</p><p>Skatteverket är den behöriga myndigheten i Sverige och ska således vidarebefordra de uppgifter om personer som är begränsat skattskyldiga i Sverige som lämnas av betalningsombuden. Eftersom Sverige sedan tidigare har ett väl utbyggt kontrolluppgiftssystem och har deltagit i informationsutbytet inom OECD har sparandedirektivets införande inte medfört särskilt stora kostnader för Skatteverket.</p><p>Sparandedirektivet förväntas leda till ökade skatteintäkter för de stater vars obegränsat skattskyldiga personer placerar sina tillgångar utomlands. Emellertid finns det risk för att dessa personer placerar sina tillgångar i andra typer av sparande eller placerar tillgångarna i stater som inte omfattas av direktivet för att undgå beskattning. Vi anser därför att det finns risk för att sparandedirektivet blir ett slag i luften.</p> / <p>The aim of the Savings Taxation Directive is to ensure an effective taxation of income from savings in the form of interest payments within the EU. This shall be done through taxation of the interest payment in the Member State where the beneficial owner, the saver, has his residence. The directive is only applicable on individuals and on cross-border payments. The aim shall be achieved through an exchange of information between the Member States. Instead of exchanging information, a Member State can choose to levy a withholding tax. A certain amount of that tax shall be transferred to the Member State of residence of the beneficial owner. The obligation for Swedish banks to forward statements of earnings concerning foreign savers has been extended through the directive. The banks sends the information to the Swedish tax authority which then forwards the information to the competent authority in the savers state of residence.</p><p>The directive contains an exception, the de minimis rule, that states that Member States can choose to exempt certain interest payments deriving from Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities (UCITS). The aim of the exception is to give the Member States a possibility to exclude undertakings which invest mainly in equity but which must hold some debt for liquidity purposes. The Swedish Government has chosen not to implement the exception into Swedish law. In our opinion, this leads to a competitive disadvantage for Swedish UCITS. Due to the Governments’ decision, the Swedish UCITS must, in order to be able to sell their products within the EU, be able to show the interest part of a dividend. If this cannot be done, the entire amount is considered as interest and must be reported as such.</p><p>The directive has been implemented into Swedish law through a paragraph in the Law of Self Assessment and Statement of Earnings. It states that the Savings Taxation Directive shall be applied as Swedish law. Besides the implementation, some parts of the law have been changed. We think that the implementation may be in breach of the directive, which states that Member States must pass laws and decrees necessary to fulfill the regulations in the directive. We do not think that the Swedish law has been adjusted to the directive in a sufficient way since the Swedish law sometimes overlap the directive and sometimes contradict it. The Swedish law contains two exceptions from the obligation to give statements of earnings. These exceptions breach the directive since the directive does not contain any exceptions of this kind. However, we think that the exceptions are reasonable since they exempt bank accounts which are of no importance for the exchange of information stated in the directive. Similar exceptions should therefore in our opinion be included in the directive.</p><p>The implementation of the Savings Taxation Directive has caused the Swedish banks, in their role as paying agents, supplementary work and costs. The costs have occurred when the banks have had to adopt their computer systems in order to fulfil the criteria in the directive. The banks also had to complete their information about foreign savers who are liable to tax in Sweden.</p><p>The Swedish tax authority is the competent authority in Sweden and shall therefore report the information, concerning foreign tax payers, that is forwarded by the paying agents. Sweden had, even before the implementation of the directive, a well functioning system for statements of earnings. The state also participates in the exchange of information that takes place within the OECD. Therefore, the implementation of the directive has not caused any costs of importance for the Swedish tax authority.</p><p>It is expected that the Savings Taxation Directive will give rise to increased tax revenues for the Member States whose tax payers invest abroad. However, there is a risk that these savers invest in other products or transfer their assets to states that are not within the scope of the directive in order to avoid taxation. Because of this, we think that the Savings Taxation Directive might be a waste of effort.</p>

in English language: The statement of Angela Merkel from November 2014 that she would rather see the UK out of the EU than compromise the free movement in the EU (which as at the date of the submission of this dissertation materialized in potential Brexit) was one of the reasons which encouraged the author to analyse the reach of free movement rules, more specifically the horizontal direct effect of the Treaty freedoms, in this dissertation. The author focuses on the issues stemming mainly from the broader topic of the legitimacy of market integration which the author translated into the concept of separation of the regulatory competences between the EU and the Member States and related separation between the Treaty provisions' addressees, namely the Member States and the private entities. This dissertation focuses on the following research question: To what extent has the CJEU advanced the European market integration through the development of the principle of horizontal direct effect of the Treaty freedoms? The starting point after the establishment of the EEC was that the sole addressees of the Treaty freedoms were the Member States whereas the Treaty rules on competition only applied to private entities. However, as is demonstrated throughout this dissertation, it is nowadays generally accepted...

The legality of music sampling is in Sweden unknown. The reason for this is mainly the lack of relevant case law and that the legislation and legislative history has not reach clarity within this subject. There are generally two different routes and perspectives on sample issues. The first main route is that samples should be judged according to the “common” copyright rules where originality, similarity and other factors need to be investigated. The second route is that sampling issues should be judged upon the neighbouring rights, and within these rules no other tests needs to be included. It is simply an infringement if it is proven that someone has in fact sampled a recording. American case law has inherent both views and most often are pending between these views. German case law however made it clear in the Kraftwerk case that the neighbouring rights are used within German law. Through this inconsistency the authors have not found any clear indications which rules a Swedish court would apply. Due to the relationship between Sweden and Germany, and that they are both members of the European Union the authors believe that Sweden will judge accordingly to the neighbouring rights. However, the authors believe that the neighbouring rights were created for the purpose to contradict piracy and not sampling disputes. Furthermore, neither the legislative history nor judicial literature gives any indications that the neighbouring rights should be used when a part of a work has been altered and used in a new work. The author’s personal beliefs are therefore that the neighbouring rights should not be applied on sampling cases. The “common” copyright rules should instead be applied which includes originality and similarity tests.