Après des décennies de mise en œuvre d’une politique économique protectionniste et enfermée, l’Égypte a opté en 1991 pour l’économie du marché et l’ouverture de ses frontières aux échanges internationaux. Dès lors, il manquait une pièce importante de lutte contre les cartels et le pouvoir de marché de manière générale. En 2005, l’Égypte a finalement adopté sa première législation de concurrence. Au regard de l’importance de l’Égypte au niveau régional et mondial, sur le plan économique et politique, il est opportun de s’intéresser à l’effectivité du droit égyptien de la concurrence, dans le but d’apprécier ses avancées et ses faiblesses et de proposer des pistes de perfectionnement. Cette étude cible des aspects qu’elle juge prioritaires : les règles substantielles, procédurales et institutionnelles visant la lutte contre les ententes secrètes, les abus de position dominante et les concentrations. Les appréciations et propositions sont faites à partir d’une mise en perspective de systèmes juridiques qui ont été choisis en référence : ceux de deux pays en développement (Brésil et Afrique du sud) et ceux des pays développés (Union européenne, la France et, à titre subsidiaire, les États-Unis). Elles entendent également tirer profit des travaux d’organisations internationales. / After decades of adopting a protective and closed economic policy, Egypt has finally opted in 1991 for the market economy and the opening of its borders to international trade. However, an important aspect was missing ; the fight against cartels and market power in general. In 2005, Egypt has finally adopted its first competition law. Given the importance of Egypt at the regional and global levels, from both economic and political perspectives, it is timely to pay attention to the effectiveness of Egyptian competition law in order to evaluate its level of progress and its weaknesses and to propose methods and means of enhancement. This study is targeting issues and matters that are considered to be priorities: substantive, procedural and institutional rules aiming for fighting against cartels, abuse of dominance and mergers. The assessments and proposals set out in this study have been made in perspective of legal systems that have been chosen as reference: those of two developing countries (Brazil and South Africa) and those of developed countries (European Union, France and, alternatively, the United States). They also intend to benefit from the work of international organizations.

Le trafic d’armes à feu au sein de l’Union européenne est une menace préoccupante contre l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice poussant l’Union et ses États membres à réagir afin de renforcer leur cadre juridique. Néanmoins, il est difficile d’apporter aux problématiques posées par le trafic d’armes à feu une solution légale du fait de ses caractéristiques et sa transversalité. Les stocks d’armes à feu se trouvant aux frontières de l’Union européenne sont détournés afin d’être introduit dans l’espace sans frontières par de multiples acteurs aux intérêts et motivations diverses. Ces traits de caractères rendent difficile la mise en place d’un cadre juridique harmonisé dans des domaines restant sous le joug de la souveraineté nationale. Ces difficultés ont entrainé le développement d’un cadre juridique imparfait et limité créant des failles juridiques dont les trafiquants profitent. Néanmoins, les solutions existent et sont pour certaines déjà présentes dans le cadre normatif de l’Union européenne. Cependant, l’évolution du trafic d’armes à feu et de ses acteurs conduit également à envisager le développement de nouveaux mécanismes et de nouveaux pans du droit / Firearms trafficking within the European Union is a worrying threat to the area of freedom, security and justice, prompting the Union and its Member States to react in order to strengthen their legal framework. Nevertheless, the issue of firearms is complex to legislate because of its characteristics and its cross-cutting nature. Firearm stocks at the borders of the European Union are diverted in order to be introduced into the border-free area by multiple actors with diverse interests and motivations. These characteristics make it difficult to establish a harmonised legal framework in areas that remain under the yoke of national sovereignty. These difficulties have led to the development of an imperfect and limited legal framework creating legal loopholes from which traffickers benefit. Nevertheless, solutions exist and some of them are already present in the European Union's normative framework. However, the evolution of firearms trafficking and its actors also leads us to consider the development of new mechanisms and new areas of the law

The EU jurisdictional scheme, known as the “Brussels Regime”, confers competence to national courts to adjudicate over international matters. The main rule in Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation sets out that the defendant should generally be sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled. For certain subject matters, the scheme allows the action to be brought elsewhere. The raison d’être is to provide an adequate counterbalance to the one-sided rule of Article 4(1). Articles 7(1) and (2) enable the claimant to launch the suit, “in matters relating to a contract”, at the court of the Member State where the contractual obligation was to be fulfilled, and, in “matters relating to tort”, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. Whether to invoke Article 7 is entirely the claimant’s choice, but the final decision on its interpretation is vested in the Court. Thereby, the manner in which the Court views the provisions will effectively decide the extent of the claimant’s choice to invoke so-called special jurisdiction. It also means that greater emphasis on special jurisdiction will reduce the importance of the main rule in Article 4. Conversely, if the Court were to interpret Article 7 narrowly, its intended effect within the system would be denied. In both cases, the balance between Articles 4 and 7 has been upset. In the former case, the claimant is favoured because of the increased possibilities to choose the forum for the dispute, while in the latter case, the defendant is favoured because he retains the advantage of litigating in his home turf. The starting point for this essay is this very idea of a purported balance between litigants’ interests in EU cross-border litigation. The thesis analyses whether the Court’s case-law on general vis-à-vis special jurisdiction has transitioned from being generally defendant-friendly to claimant-friendly. It is argued that already from the first judgments rendered on the original Brussels Convention in 1976, increasingly more disputes have been launched at special fora, which has amounted to a claimant-friendly scheme. It is also argued that this development has been at the expense of the defendant. Greater choice for the claimant means in turn that the defendant’s ability to foresee before what courts he may be sued has been largely impaired. The thesis highlights how this imbalance is the result of inherent challenges in the Brussels Regime, particularly in relation to how the relevant connecting factors are designated. It is proposed that the unwanted effects of the Court’s practice as well as the shortcomings of the scheme itself are to be considered in the Commission’s evaluationof the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is presently in the works.

Débutée par l’étude des règles communautaires engendrées par le naufrage de l’Erika, la présente recherche s’est affinée autour de la relation entre sécurité maritime et protection du milieu marin tout en s’enrichissant de l’observation des règles internationales. Dès lors, l’idée retenue fut d’étudier la collision entre deux éléments ni équivalents, ni complètement différents et de voir ce que ce « big-bang » juridique avait pu provoquer.La première partie envisagera le renouvellement de la fonction de sécurité maritime autour de la finalité de protection du milieu marin. En effet, vers le milieu du XXème siècle, l’apparition des préoccupations environnementales vient déséquilibrer la répartition classique des compétences entre l’Etat du pavillon et l’Etat côtier. La liberté, principe fondateur de l’ordre des mers, se transforme pour s’adapter aux réalités de la protection du milieu marin. Elle devient alors le principe d’utilisation durable de la mer, nouvelle clé de la répartition des souverainetés en mer. Une forme de gouvernance environnementale de la sécurité maritime paraît se constituer autour de l’Organisation maritime internationale et de l’Union européenneLa seconde partie permettra de mettre en lumière la redéfinition de l’espace normatif de sécurité maritime au prisme de l’objectif de prévention des pollutions. A l’origine, les règles de sécurité maritime avaient pour but de protéger l’entreprise maritime contre les dangers de la mer. Désormais, il s’agit de protéger la biosphère pour sauvegarder l’humanité et ses générations futures. C’est pourquoi la sécurité maritime classique, devenue insuffisante, évolue vers une notion plus moderne, « environnementale ». / Begun with the study of the European Union rules engendered by the wreck of Erika, the present research was refined around the relation between marine safety and marine environment protection while growing rich of the observation of the international rules. From then on, the idea was to study the collision between two elements neither equivalents, nor completely different and to see what this legal "big-bang" had provoke.The first part will envisage the renewal of the function of marine safety around the purpose of marine environment protection. Indeed, by the middle of the XXth century, the appearance of the environmental concerns comes to destabilize the classic distribution of the skills between the flag State and the coastal State. The freedom, founding principle of the order of seas, has been transformed to adapt itself to the realities of the marine environment protection. It becomes then the principle of sustainable use of the sea, the new key of the distribution of sovereignties on the sea. A shape of environmental governance of the maritime safety appears to establish around the International Maritime Organization and the European Union.The second part will allow to bring to light the redefining of the normative space of maritime safety in the prism of the objective of prevention of the pollutions. Originally, the regulations of marine safety aimed at protecting the sailormen against the dangers of the sea. Henceforth, it is today a question of protecting the biosphere, the humanity and its future generations. That is why the classic marine safety, become insufficient, evolves towards a more modern, " environmental " notion.