När en investerare vill investera utomlands finns många risker som måste beräknas, analyseras och hanteras. Utöver olika ekonomiska risker finns politiska risker. En investerare kan, för att hantera dessa politiska risker, välja att investera i en stat med vilken Sverige har ett bilateralt investeringsskyddsavtal. Dessa avtal reglerar både materiellt investeringsskydd, det vill säga hur en investerare ska behandlas, och processuellt skydd, det vill säga möjligheten för en investerare att väcka talan mot staten investeraren investerar i genom ett internationellt skiljeförfarande. Sverige har idag 66 stycken bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal i kraft, varav tolv stycken är slutna med länder inom EU. Antalet bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal slutna mellan EU-länder, intra-EU BIT, ökade avsevärt i och med att unionen utvidgades år 2004 och 2007. Sedan dess har avtalens förenlighet med EU-rätten diskuterats i litteraturen, i skiljedomstolar och nyligen även i EU- domstolen i det så kallade Achmea-målet. I uppsatsen kartläggs och analyseras argumenten i diskussionen om relationen mellan intra-EU BIT och EU-rätten. Vidare analyseras vilken del av investeringsskyddet som intra-EU BIT-förespråkare anser vara mest betydelsefull. Från resonemanget och analysen i uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att det är ISDS-systemet, tvistelösningssystemet där en investerare kan väcka talan mot en stat, som kan anses utgöra den mest betydelsefulla delen av investeringsskyddet i intra-EU BIT:en. Därefter analyseras huruvida ett investeringsskydd innehållande ett ISDS-förfarande kan vara förenligt med principen om ömsesidigt erkännande och förtroende. I uppsatsen konstateras att ISDS-förfarandet inte kan vara förenligt denna princip och att problematiken inte kan lösas genom en juridisk debatt utan måste diskuteras på en politiskt hög nivå. / When investing abroad, an investor is faced with many risks that need to be thoroughly analysed in order to be mitigated. Risks are not only financial, but also political. An investor may, to mitigate these risks, choose to invest in states with which Sweden has a bilateral investment treaty, a so called BIT. BIT do not only regulate treatment of the investor and the investment, which is the material investment protection; but also the jurisdictional possibility of the investor to raise charges against the state of in which the investment has taken place in case of violation of investment rights, procedural investment protection. Today, Sweden has 66 BITs in force, out of which twelve are concluded with EU member states, so called intra-EU BIT. The number of intra-EU BITs grew significantly as a result of the enlargement of the union in the year of 2004 and 2007. Since then, the agreements’ compatibility with the EU legislation has been a subject of discussion within literature, investment arbitrations and recently in the European Court of Justice in the Achmea case. This thesis aims to establish and analyse the context of the discussions flourishing the relationship between the intra-EU BITs and the EU legislation. Additionally, the author intends to identify which argumentation regarding investment protection, that by intra-EU BIT praisers is considered to be the most impactful. As a result, the conclusion of the thesis is that it is the ISDS-system, the investor- state dispute settlement, in which an investor can raise charges towards a state, that is the most valuable part of the investment protection given by the intra-EU BITs. Accordingly, it is analysed weather investment protection containing an ISDS-system can be compatible with the principle of mutual trust and recognition. In the thesis it is concluded that the ISDS-system cannot be considered to be compatible with the principle and that this problem should be debated on a high political level and cannot be solved through a legal debate.

Le droit des aides d’Etat est un domaine singulier du droit de l’Union européenne (UE). Sonobjectif le rend même unique au monde et pourtant il demeure en partie méconnu et seseffets sous-estimés. La crise économique et financière débutée en 2007 l’a remis sur ledevant de la scène. Dans ce contexte, un outil s’est révélé comme central dans la gestiondes évènements : la conditionnalité. Longtemps ignorée, cette technique, présente depuisles origines en droit des aides d’Etat, s’avère être d’une influence insoupçonnée sur lemécanisme de contrôle des soutiens étatiques. D’une part, elle autorise la Commission àexiger des modifications substantielles, tant du projet d’aide que des bénéficiaires, afin d’enautoriser la mise en oeuvre. D’autre part, la conditionnalité permet à la Commissiond’avancer un agenda politique, de manière indirecte, au service de l’approfondissement del’UE. Son incidence ne se limite pas seulement à la question de la compatibilité desfinancements publics. Elle s’exprime également dans le cadre du suivi des décisionsconditionnelles, et des éventuels recours juridictionnels. De nouvelles techniques basées surla conditionnalité ont fait leur apparition à tous les stades de l’examen des aides. Plusencore, elle joue un rôle considérable, en amont, dans le processus de création du droit desaides d’Etat et de sa soft law. Compte tenu de sa portée, cette étude s’est attachée àmesurer l’ampleur de ce phénomène, à définir ses concepts, à identifier ses formes et àévaluer ses conséquences. Il en résulte que la conditionnalité est à l’origine d’une nouvelleapproche du droit des aides d’Etat. / State aid law is a unique area of European Union (EU) law. Its objective makes it evenunique in the world and yet it remains partly unknown and its effects underestimated. Theeconomic and financial crisis, which began in 2007, has brought it back to the forefront. Inthis context, a tool has proved to be central in the management of events: conditionality. Thistechnique, which has long been ignored, has always had an unsuspected influence on themechanism of control over state support. On the one hand, it authorizes the Commission torequire substantial changes, both in the aid project and for the beneficiaries, in order toauthorize its implementation. On the other hand, conditionality allows the Commission to putforward a political agenda, indirectly, to service the deepening of the EU. Its impact is notlimited to the question of the compatibility of public funding. It is also expressed in the contextof the monitoring of conditional decisions, and possible judicial review. New techniquesbased on conditionality have emerged at all stages state aid control. Moreover, it plays aconsiderable role, upstream, in the process of creating state aid law and its soft law. Givenits scope, this study focused on measuring the extent of this phenomenon, defining itsconcepts, identifying its forms and evaluating its consequences. As a result, conditionality isat the origin of a new approach to state aid law.

Le changement climatique a acquis, durant ces cinquante dernières années, une dimension politique et juridique. En 2009, le Traité de Lisbonne a intégré la lutte contre le changement climatique parmi les objectifs prioritaires de la politique environnementale internationale de l’Union européenne, en reconnaissant la volonté de l’Europe de jouer un rôle de leader mondial dans ce domaine. Cette thèse porte sur la lutte contre le changement climatique en droit de l’Union européenne. Dans la première Partie, nous analyserons tout d’abord l’ambition européenne dans le cadre des négociations internationales, lieu d’émergence de la gouvernance climatique. Puis, nous examinerons le système des compétences de l’UE pour évaluer si ce dernier permet de répondre efficacement aux défis que le changement climatique pose. La seconde Partie porte sur la mise en oeuvre de la politique climatique européenne, en présentant les principaux instruments – notamment le paquet énergie-climat – et en montrant les mécanismes à la disposition de l’Union européenne pour mettre en cohérence cette politique transversale et pour influencer l’action climatique globale par ses mesures internes. Cette analyse aide à la compréhension des apports européens, passés et présents, à la construction d’une gouvernance climatique mondiale efficace. Les caractéristiques spécifiques du changement climatique en font en outre un point d’observation privilégié pour l’étude de certaines dynamiques propres à la construction européenne. / Over the last fifty years, climate change has acquired a political and a legal dimension. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty included combating climate change among the objectives of the European Union’s international environmental policy, demonstrating the will of the EU to play a leading global role in this domain. This thesis studies the development of the fight against climate change in EU law. In Part I we analyse European ambitions within the framework of international negotiations, where climate governance originally emerged. Then, we examine the European system of competence in order to better understand whether or not it actually serves as the most effective approach to tackling climate change issues. Part II concerns the implementation of the EU climate change policy. Here, we present its main instruments, i.e. the climate and energy package, and examine the mechanisms that the EU uses to give coherence to this cross-cutting policy and influence global climate action by way of internal measures taken. Our analysis furthers the understanding of European contributions, both past and present, to the construction of effective international climate governance. Moreover, the subject of climate change, a major global challenge with an array of specific characteristics, provides us with a privileged point of view to examine several dynamics of the construction of European integration.

Face à la mutation des modalités des échanges internationaux et à l'accentuation du commerce de biens intellectuels entre entreprises de traditions différentes, des réajustements des modèles contractuels et un réordonnancement des modes de règlement des différends semblent inévitables. La nature juridique incertaine des connaissances secrètes, en Chine et dans l’Union européenne est un obstacle à la formalisation de leur transfert et par conséquent à la définit ion d’un cadre de résolution des différends adapté. Si les propositions de lois et de direct ive se multiplient pour définir cette notion et son régime, l’approche retenue est souvent limitée à la dimension délictuelle de la divulgation de la connaissance. La recherche menée, tout en tenant compte des atteintes portées au secret, se focalise principalement sur le transfert volontaire de connaissances. Pour répondre aux besoins des acteurs du commerce international, ces opérations ne peuvent plus être limitées aux seuls contrats de « communication de savoir - faire ». Si les notions de « bien intellectuel » et de « possession intellectuelle »permettent de justifier théoriquement d’autres formes contractuelles, les droits chinois et européen se réfèrent aux cessions et licences de connaissances. Ces opérations, souvent insérées dans un ensemble contractuel complexe et réalisées entre parties de cultures différentes,peuvent engendrer des différends variés. Lorsque ces différends apparaissent,le degré de confidentialité assuré devant les juridictions nationales étudiées ne permet pas de répondre aux attentes légitimes des parties. Les différences de cultures processuelles des parties et la culture chinoise du règlement amiable des différends invitent aussi à éviter le recours aux juridictions nationales. Les combinaisons entre médiat ion et arbitrage, par leur grande flexibilité procédurale, peuvent fournir un cadre de résolut ion adapté aux exigences tant économiques que culturelles des parties. Dans cet esprit, la thèse propose la mise en place d’un Règlement de M²arb avec un médiateur–expert, garant de la confidentialité du processus de résolut ion des différends. / Facing the evolution of international trade and the development of intellectual proper ty trade between companies from different backgrounds, contractual model readjustments and a reordering of dispute resolution systems seems unavoidable. The unsettled legal status of secret knowledge in China and in the EU can be an obstacle to the formalization of their transfer and therefore inhibits the definition of a suitable framework for resolving disputes. Legislators and scholars are currently debating proposals of laws and directives to elaborate this concept and its regime, but only address issues liketor t and disclosure of secret information. Legal scholarship to date has mainly been focused on the voluntary transfer of knowledge and has taken intoaccount the damage caused to secrets. To meet the needs of business operators, these operations should not be limited to "know-how communication contracts” (contrats de communication de savoir - faire). The concepts of “ intellectual good” and " intellectual ownership" theoretically justifyother types of contracts, while Chinese and European laws refer to assignment and license of trade secret . These operations, often provided for in a complexs et of contracts between parties from different cultural backgrounds, can lead to a wide variety of disputes. When disputes occur, national courts do not always provide a level of protect ion of confidential information that meets parties’ expectations. Differences in procedural cultures as well as the Chinese culture of amicable dispute settlement prevent the parties from relying on national courts. The combinations between mediation and arbitration, by their procedural flexibility, can provide a suitable dispute resolution framework taking into account economic and cultural considerations. Therefore, this thesis proposes M² arb Rules that introduce a mediator-expert with a mission of securing knowledge confidentiality during the dispute resolution process.

Dégagés de façon prétorienne par la Cour de justice, les principes généraux du droit de l’Union occupent dans la jurisprudence administrative française une place que peut expliquer la notion de dédoublement fonctionnel. D’une part, ce sont des normes obligatoirement appliquées par le juge national dans le champ du droit de l’Union.D’autre part, en dehors du champ, ils constituent une source d’inspiration pour le Conseil d’Etat dans la création et l’interprétation des principes généraux du droit français. Dans le premier cas, le juge administratif est garant du respect de ces principes.Fidèle aux exigences de la Cour de justice, il assume pleinement son rôle de juge de droit commun de l’application des principes du droit de l’Union. Dans le second cas, il devient acteur de la circulation des principes en Europe. Toutefois la coexistence des principes peut engendrer des tensions, accentuées par la difficulté à délimiter le champ du droit de l’Union, incertain et en pleine expansion. C’est pourquoi la thèse propose le déploiement d’une politique jurisprudentielle de convergence, dans laquelle le juge administratif affirmerait explicitement son souci de s’inspirer des principes du droit de l’Union. Ces derniers, combinés avec les principes issus de la Charte des droits fondamentaux, de la CEDH et des ordres nationaux, semblent donner naissance à une nouvelle catégorie de source matérielle : les principes européens communs. L’originalité de celle-ci, qui la différencie de toute autre source, est de constituer une oeuvre collective des juges en Europe, dans laquelle ces derniers puisent leur inspiration pour créer de nouveaux principes ou interpréter les principes existants. / The general principles of EU law, which are a judicial creation of the Court of Justice, play a role in French administrative case law that can be explained by the notion of functional duplication (“dédoublement fonctionnel”). On the one hand, the general principles of EU law are rules that are mandatorily applied by the national courts within the scope of EU law. On the other hand, beyond that scope, they constitute a source of inspiration for the Conseil d’Etat in creating and interpreting general principles of French administrative law. In the first case, the administrative courts are the primeguarantors of compliance with these principles. In line with the requirements of theCourt of Justice, they entirely fulfill their role as the ordinary courts applying principles of EU law. In the second case, they become one of the protagonists of the movement of principles in Europe. However, the coexistence of principles could trigger tensions,heightened by the difficulties in delineating the scope of principles of EU law, which is uncertain and rapidly expanding. That is why the thesis proposes the development of a judicial convergence policy, in which the administrative courts would more clearly affirm their concern to take inspiration from the general principles of EU law. These latter, combined with the principles stemming from the Charter of Fundamental Rights,the ECHR and the national orders, seem to give rise to a new category of material source: the common European principles. The originality of this category, which differentiates it from any other source, is that it constitutes a collective work of judges inEurope, from which they draw their inspiration to create new principles or interpret the existing ones.

The thesis is focused on theoretical principles of demarcation of products with health effects in the EU law and on the reflection of these issues in the application and administrative practice in commercial law. The thesis developed yet been brought judicial interpretation with the scientific interpretation of certain key and decisive problems that separate from each other law-regimes of regulation: medicinal product for human use, foods, cosmetics products, medical devices and biocides. Correct law-regime for a particular product is determinating of the general legal basis in the EU internal market. It is therefore a important problem not only in EU law, but also in EU economic. Thesis results are highly critical of current practice in the local markets of EU member states, especially Czech Republic, and in many instances documented sub-optimal application of this law in general practice.

The Non-Financial Reporting Directive (“NFRD”),[1]is an important contributor to the European Union’s (EU) goal of creating a more sustainable future for all. By requiring large public-interest entities to report non-financial information relating to sustainability matters, the NFRD increases business transparency and gives stakeholders the opportunity to make more informed investment decisions, monitor corporate activities and initiate discussions based on current practices. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the NFRD as it stands today and to analyze in what way the NFRD has the potential to improve by chiefly using the legal dogmatic method. The thesis reached its completion with an appropriate timing (January 2021) as the EU has announced its ambition to revise the NFRD by the first quarter of 2021. The conclusion drawn is that the NFRD should be revised on a series of points. Most importantly, reliability of the provided information should be secured through a stronger verification mechanism. Other areas for improvement concern the enlargement of the scope of the NFRD and the implementation of further measures securing comparable data.  [1]Directive 2014/95/EU.

Délimitée par référence à la jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme, le champ pénal de l’Union européenne se révèle plus conséquent que ce que l’apposition du qualificatif « pénal », en droit de l’Union, ne le laisse penser. Envisager dans sa globalité, à l’aune des caractéristiques d’un système juridique et des modèles pénaux existant, les éléments du champ pénal de l’Union européenne peuvent alors s’agencer comme les pièces d'un puzzle qui prend progressivement forme et dont l'image générale se dessine peu à peu. Le champ pénal de l’Union européenne n’est plus qu’une compilation de normes. Il constitue désormais un système juridique : un ensemble d'éléments en interaction, évoluant dans un environnement déterminé, structuré en fonction des finalités qu’il est destiné à satisfaire, agissant sur son environnement et se transformant avec le temps sans perdre son identité. Son idéologie pénale à dominante répressive n’a rien de particulièrement original ; sa physionomie, en tant que système pénal, en revanche, reproduit l'atypisme proprement unioniste / Defined by the Europe court of human rights (ECHR), the EU extend its scope of action beyond the definition of « penal » as found in the EU law. Seen as a whole, taken the characteristics and models of already existing law systems, the different elements of the EU law scope can be put together like a jigsaw puzzle, revealing pieces after pieces the general picture. The penal scope of the EU isn’t just about regulations anymore. It acts as a legal system - a set of elements interacting with one another, evolving in set environment, structured to meet set up goals, taking action on its environment and evolving with time without losing its identity/nature. Its penal ideology and restrictive tendencies are not innovative, but its structure, on the other hand, replicate the atypical trait of the EU

Humanitarian visas for asylum purposes have been widely discussed in recent years. With few alternatives at their disposal, refugees are forced to illegal and dangerous routes in their attempts to reach Europe. The aim of this study is to investigate the conditions for implementing humanitarian visas in Sweden and to clarify the consequences of Sweden's approach to humanitarian visas for third-country nationals in need of international protection. Using idea analysis as a method, the tenability of two official reports published by the Swedish Government is analyzed. By examining the assessments, an understanding of the conditions for introducing humanitarian visas in Sweden is established. In order to explore the implications of Sweden's position on the right of third country nationals to seek asylum, the study draws on a critical perspective on how migrants and refugees’ risk being subjected to violent border controls and how their legal status is subjected to various kinds of scrutiny.  Several shortcomings are identified in these reports and the conditions thus created for the introduction of humanitarian visas in Sweden. Although the need for more safe and legal routes to seek asylum and the consequences of Sweden's migration and asylum policy are highlighted, no national measures are recommended. Instead, it is recommended that Sweden should lobby for the introduction of humanitarian visas to the EU as a whole, with the overall aim of reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to Sweden in particular. Although it is commonplace for refugees to perish in search of safety, no practical measures are deemed essential to establish safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. State sovereignty thus continues to impede fundamental rights for all. Refugees and asylum seekers are severely affected by the uncertainty as to who is responsible for guaranteeing these fundamental rights. In an attempt to get these basic rights fulfilled, asylum seekers currently must resort to illegal acts at the risk of their lives. / Humanitära visum vid asylskäl har diskuterats flitigt de senaste åren. Med få alternativ till hands tvingas flyktingar ta till illegala och livsfarliga vägar i sina försök att ta sig till Europa. Syftet med studien är därför att utreda vilka förutsättningar som finns för att införa humanitära visum i Sverige samt att tydliggöra konsekvenserna av Sveriges inställning till humanitära visum för tredjelandsmedborgare som har ett internationellt skyddsbehov. Med idéanalys som metod granskas hållbarheten i två statliga offentliga utredningar. Genom att kritiskt granska de bedömningar som görs, skapas förståelse för vilka förutsättningar som finns för att införa humanitära visum i Sverige. För att utreda implikationerna som Sveriges inställning har på tredjelandsmedborgares rätt att söka asyl tar studien stöd av ett kritiskt perspektiv om hur människor på flykt riskerar att utsättas för våldsamma gränskontroller och hur deras juridiska ställning utsätts för olika typer av vågspel.  Flera brister identifieras i utredningarna och de förutsättningar som därmed ges för att införa humanitära visum i Sverige. Trots att behovet av fler säkra och lagliga vägar att söka asyl konstateras, samt att konsekvenserna av Sveriges migrations- och asylpolitik uppmärksammas, rekommenderas inte att några nationella åtgärder vidtas. I stället rekommenderas att Sverige ska framföra påtryckningar för att införa humanitära visum i EU. Ett övergripande mål är samtidigt att minska antalet asylsökande som söker sig till Sverige. Fastän det beskrivs hur människor på flykt omkommer i jakten på säkerhet, så bedöms inte nationella åtgärder vara nödvändiga för att införa säkra och lagliga vägar för asylsökande. Den statliga suveräniteten fortsätter således att utmana rätten till rättigheter för alla. Flyktingar och asylsökande drabbas framför allt av osäkerheten kring vem som är pliktbärare och oklarheter kring hur deras rättigheter ska tillförsäkras. För att försöka få sina rättigheter tillgodosedda tvingas de att ta till illegala handlingar med livet som insats.

The sui generis-right in article 7.1 of the database directive provides the maker of a database, who has made a qualitatively and/or quantitative substantial investment in the obtaining, verification and/or presentation of the contents in a database, the right to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part of the database contents. In order to prevent the circumvention of article 7.1, the right to prohibit tortious dispositions of the contents was sup- plemented by article 7.5, which extends the right for the maker to prevent non-substantial parts to be extracted and/or re-utilized, provided that the extraction and/or re-utilization are repeated and systematic in a way that undermines the substantial investment the maker of the database has made.  The way that the sui generis-right is framed as an investment protection, in combination with the fact that the right’s object of protection is the investment as such, is the reason that the right has come to be regarded as a protection clause against unfair competition rather than an intellectual property right. As a result, the sui generis-right is of great significance to unfair competition and competition and antitrust law in general. This applies not only to article 102 FEUF, but especially to the DMA and in relation to the prescribed data-sharing obligation in article 6.10 in the DMA.  Competition and antitrust law in general and the DMA in particular, through its rootedness in article 3 FEU, aim to maintain competitive, open and fair digital markets. This applies, to say the least, as a part of ensuring the efficiency in the EU internal market, which by enlarge is intended to benefit the consumers. In this way, it’s understood that the consumers perspective plays a fundamental role in competition policy. In relation to the DMA, this is expressed through articles 6.2 and 6.10 of the DMA, which have the function of promoting innovation and increasing the consumers’ diversity of choice, while simultaneously giving the business users better opportunities to compete with the gatekeepers and thus become more efficient.  By imposing on a gatekeeper a far-reaching data-sharing obligation under article 6.10 in the DMA, in combination with the prohibition to use the same data under article 6.2, the gatekeepers’ sui generis-right is limited in all material aspects. Thereby, these provisions impose greatly on the gatekeepers’ ability as a maker of a database to freely dispose of their own database contents and thus obtain future returns and other competitive advantages as a result of the substantial investment. This is due to the fact that the gatekeeper is subject to an obligation to share the results of the investment with the business users.  The database directive states, however, that the sui generis-right must not be afforded in such a way as to facilitate abuses of a dominant position. By this reference it’s understood that this exception was written with article 102 FEUF in mind. In light of the significant differences between article 102 FEUF and the DMA, it can be concluded that the exception does not apply to the DMA. This is particularly the case as the DMA is framed as an ex ante-regulation, whereas article 102 FEUF is an ex post-regulation.  As this paper has highlighted, it requires great forethought when imposing a compulsory data-sharing obligation such as the one in article 6.10 in the DMA. The intended function of the sui generis-right is to promote investments in data processing and storage functions. In order to even receive or make use of the effective and high-quality data the business users have a right to receive from the gatekeepers, they have to have effective and proper databases, because otherwise it's entirely pointless to even force the gatekeepers to share their data.  Thus, a proportional balance is required between the interest in protecting the data as such by maintaining ex ante incentives to invest and the interest to promote open and fair digital markets as a way to ensure the effectiveness of the internal market for the benefit of the consumers and ex post social welfare. This could be a possible explanation to the Commission’s proposal of the Data Act, specifically article 35, which stipulates that the sui generis-right shall not be applied to machine generated data. It remains, however, to see how the question of the sui generis-right’s to be or not to be will play out in the future.