Global ETD Search

1	Unfair Contract Terms in European Contract Law : Legal consequences for and beyond Swedish Contract Law / Oskäliga avtalsvillkor inom den Europeiska Avtalsrätten : Rättsföljder för svensk avtalsrätt Garrido Huidobro, Mattias January 2014 (has links) Recent case law from the ECJ on one of the most important EU contract law legislation has left questions open about the compatibility of Swedish contract law with the Unfair Contracts Term Directive. The case law on Article 6 (1) in the directive seem to have changed the view on how to deal with the legal consequence of an unfair term in consumer contracts; namely that unfair terms cannot be adjusted but need to be declared invalid. This essay examines how the effects from the ECJ case law provide new light upon Swedish contract law. The effect creates a clash of ideas and rationalities between Union law and Swedish contract law. Unfair terms cannot be adjusted as the relevant Swedish legislation provides. An unfair term needs to be invalid, and if necessary, such an unfair term can in certain circumstances be complemented with default rules from national contract law. This does not only seem to change the interpretation and application of the Swedish law, but it also form an underlying tension between the instrumental market-functional Union law and the more justice oriented Swedish private law. Furthermore, as we move towards a new European civil code, perhaps these tensions and clashes may say something about where the discipline of European Private Law is headed. contract terms legal consequence directive 93/13 consumer internal market European Private Law Swedish Contract Law effet utile justice Aristotle instrumentalism Camino Section 36 of the Contracts Act oskäliga avtalsvillkor direktiv 93/13 Camino rättsföljder konsument inre marknad instrumentalism effet utile rättvisa Aristoteles Europeisk Privaträtt
2	L'application dans le temps des décisions QPC / Temporal application of QPC decisions of the french Conseil constitutionnel Benigni, Marina 12 November 2018 (has links) La question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (QPC), instaurée en 2008, permet au Conseil constitutionnel de se prononcer sur la conformité d’une disposition législative déjà entrée en vigueur, aux « droits et libertés que la Constitution garantit ». Les effets substantiels des décisions QPC, c'est-à-dire la suppression ou la modification d’une disposition législative par le prononcé d’une inconstitutionnalité ou d’une réserve d’interprétation, peuvent se révéler importants compte tenu de la portée erga omnes de ces décisions. C’est alors par la maîtrise de leur application temporelle que les effets substantiels vont être encadrés voire modérés. Certains effets temporels revêtent un caractère automatique : la décision QPC en tant qu’elle porte sur une norme (la disposition législative en cause), s’insère dans l’ordonnancement juridique et, à ce titre, génère des conflits de normes. Par ailleurs, les effets temporels peuvent également, et surtout, être choisis par le Conseil constitutionnel, par l’utilisation de son pouvoir de modulation. Ce pouvoir a été conçu de manière à laisser une grande liberté au Conseil constitutionnel. Dans une démarche d’efficacité, le juge constitutionnel s’est fixé l’objectif de faire bénéficier le justiciable d’un« effet utile » de ses décisions et a par conséquent valorisé l’usage de la rétroactivité. Cependant, la liberté seule n’assure pas une pleine maîtrise de ce pouvoir de modulation et ce même pouvoir est parfois insuffisant pour régir les effets substantiels des décisions QPC. La thèse contribue, sur la base d’une analyse exhaustive de l’ensemble des décisions QPC du Conseil et de trèsnombreuses décisions dites « retour de QPC » des juridictions ordinaires, à étudier ces insuffisances et notamment le manque de réflexion sur la compatibilité entre la technique de la modulation et l’office du juge constitutionnel et sur la nécessité d’une collaboration avec les juridictions ordinaires. / The priority question of constitutionality (QPC), created in 2008, allows the french Constitutional Council to operate a judicial review of an adopted law. The substantial effects of a QPC decision, ie the abolition or the modification of a legislation by pronouncing its unconstitutionality or by interpreting it in accordance with the Constitution, can be considerable given the erga omnes impact of these decisions. These substantial effects can however be controlled or moderated by the temporal effects. Some temporal effects are inevitable: the QPCdecision since it concerns a norm (the law), integrates with the legal order and generates norms’ conflicts. Otherwise the temporal effects can be chosen by the Constitutional Council thanks to the ability of modulating the temporal effects of its decisions. This jurisdictional technical lets total liberty to the Constitutional Council. The court, in an efficacy perspective, sets the objectiveof giving a « useful effect » to the litigant and thus accords value to retroactivity. Yet this liberty alone isn’t enough to provide a complete control of this modulating ability and this ability can’t regulate all the substantial effects. This thesis, based on an exhaustive jurisprudential analysis ofthe QPC decisions, aims to study these difficulties and especially the lack of reflection about the compatibility of the technical into the judicial office of the court and about the essential collaboration with the ordinary jurisdictions. Contrôle a posteriori Contentieux constitutionnel Conflits de lois dans le temps Pouvoir de modulation Effets temporels Efficacité Effet utile Effets subséquents Juridictions ordinaires Conseil constitionnel A posteriori control Constitutional proceedings Temporal conflicts of law Modulating ability Temporal effects Efficacity Useful effect Subsequent effects Ordinary courts
3	De grundläggande rättsprinciperna vid direktupphandling : HFD 2018 ref. 60 och EU-rätten / The General Principles of Swedish Direct Awards : HFD 2018 ref. 60 and EU Law Lignell, Elias January 2022 (has links) This thesis examines the general principles in European Union (EU) public procurement law, as they apply to Swedish direct awards of low value, outside the scope of the EU procurement directives. A combination of Swedish and EU legal methodology is used to investigate two overarching themes. Firstly, the two different legal bases of the general principles, in the light of the Court of Justice of the EU’s definition of cross-border interest, as well as the Swedish implementation. Secondly, the central substantive consequences imposed by the principles on direct awards. The only national precedent on the subject, HFD 2018 ref. 60 of the Supreme Administrative Court, is both utilised and criticised against the backdrop of EU law to paint a picture of the principles’ inner workings in a direct award context. Pertaining to the first theme, an analysis of the applicability of EU primary law on direct awards is undertaken in order to distinguish the legal bases of the principles. If a contract is of certain cross-border interest, the general principles flow directly from EU law. In the absence of such an interest, the principles are exclusively based in Swedish law, which nationally extends the EU principles to all procurement (gold-plating). Overall, contracts valued below a quarter of the applicable EU directive threshold usually lack certain cross-border interest, unless there are concrete indications of the opposite. As a result, most direct awards fall outside the scope of EU law. An awareness of the legal bases of the principles is relevant to avoid breaches of EU primary law. It is argued that the Swedish gold-plated implementation of the general principles causes unnecessary uncertainty, and that separate national principles should be introduced outside the scope of EU primary law. As for the second theme, a thorough analysis concludes that the principles do not prohibit direct awards given without any exposure to competition, as long as the contracts are of low enough value. Direct awards can therefore be conducted through direct contact with a single supplier, in accordance with the legislative aims of the procedure. This may not be the case for social and other specific services of relatively high value. Nonetheless, the principles still affect direct awards, for instance in prohibiting flagrant cases of differential treatment without objective justification, based in arbitrary or corrupt decision-making. Unfortunately, these requirements are able to be circumvented due to the wide discretion given to procuring entities. On the other hand, if a direct award procedure is voluntarily advertised, the principles have greater practical significance. Still, the requirements in such cases are more lenient than in ordinary procurement procedures. public procurement government procurement direct award Sweden general principles legal principles EU law primary law CJEU ECJ certain cross-border interest threshold gold plating procedure competition low value contract offentlig upphandling upphandlingsrätt LOU LUF direktupphandling grundläggande rättsprinciper grundläggande principer allmänna principer upphandlingsrättsliga principer principer för direktupphandling upphandlingsprinciperna HFD 2018 ref. 60 EU-rätt primärrätt överskjutande implementering bestämt gränsöverskridande intresse kravet på insyn likabehandlingsprincipen icke-diskriminering proportionalitetsprincipen öppenhetsprincipen konkurrensprincipen olikbehandling likabehandling nationella principer frivillig annonsering direkttilldelning icke-direktivstyrd direktupphandlingsgräns tröskelvärde lågt värde anbudsinfordran konkurrensutsättning icke-konkurrensutsatt 19 a kap 19 a kap. 8 § rättsmedel överprövning obligatoriska krav sammanblandning EUF-fördraget FEUF EU-domstolen EU-rättslig metod rättsdogmatisk metod effet utile teleologisk tolkning affärsmässighet handlingsfrihet rättssäkerhet korruption Law Juridik Law (excluding Law and Society)

1

Page generated in 0.0431 seconds