No description available.

<p>Denna uppsats behandlar EU:s inre marknad och dess fria rörlighet av varor. Den fria rörligheten av varor reglerar i artiklarna 28 och 29 EG-fördraget. Dessa artiklar förbjuder import- och exportrestriktioner samt ÅMV mellan medlemsstaterna. Det finns däremot undantag till dessa artiklar i artikel 30 EG-fördraget, som kan tillämpas om åtgärden är tillräckligt nödvändig och lämplig. Artiklarna 28 - 30 EG-fördraget är framför allt tillämpliga på gemenskapens medlemsstater, men även på dess institutioner, något som bekräftas i EG-domstolens praxis.</p><p>EU:s institutioner har befogenheter att införa harmoniserande akter som exempelvis reglerar den inre marknaden. En av dessa institutioner är Kommissionen som har befogenhet att införa beslut, antingen i samråd med Rådet, eller på eget initiativ i enlighet med fördragsbestämmelserna. Ett av de beslut som Kommissionen inrättat är beslut 2004/388/EG om ett dokument om överföring av explosiva varor. Beslutet riktade sig till alla medlemsländer inom EU och hade till syfte att reglera handeln med explosiva varor. Ett företag som handlar med explosiva varor och som därmed påverkades av Kommissionens beslut är Orica Mining Services i Nora. Detta beslut innehåller flera regler om själva överföringsdokumentet som skall se ut på ett visst sätt.</p><p>Frågan huruvida Kommissionen kan införa beslut som strider mot artiklarna</p><p>28 - 30 EG-fördraget kan därmed bekräftas utifrån dels EG-domstolens praxis och dels den information som intervjuerna bidragit med. Genom att institutionen inte har tillräckliga skäl till att motivera en åtgärd i enlighet med undantagen i artikel 30 EG-fördraget strider åtgärdens införande mot fördragsbestämmelserna om den fria rörligheten av varor.</p>

Denna uppsats behandlar EU:s inre marknad och dess fria rörlighet av varor. Den fria rörligheten av varor reglerar i artiklarna 28 och 29 EG-fördraget. Dessa artiklar förbjuder import- och exportrestriktioner samt ÅMV mellan medlemsstaterna. Det finns däremot undantag till dessa artiklar i artikel 30 EG-fördraget, som kan tillämpas om åtgärden är tillräckligt nödvändig och lämplig. Artiklarna 28 - 30 EG-fördraget är framför allt tillämpliga på gemenskapens medlemsstater, men även på dess institutioner, något som bekräftas i EG-domstolens praxis. EU:s institutioner har befogenheter att införa harmoniserande akter som exempelvis reglerar den inre marknaden. En av dessa institutioner är Kommissionen som har befogenhet att införa beslut, antingen i samråd med Rådet, eller på eget initiativ i enlighet med fördragsbestämmelserna. Ett av de beslut som Kommissionen inrättat är beslut 2004/388/EG om ett dokument om överföring av explosiva varor. Beslutet riktade sig till alla medlemsländer inom EU och hade till syfte att reglera handeln med explosiva varor. Ett företag som handlar med explosiva varor och som därmed påverkades av Kommissionens beslut är Orica Mining Services i Nora. Detta beslut innehåller flera regler om själva överföringsdokumentet som skall se ut på ett visst sätt. Frågan huruvida Kommissionen kan införa beslut som strider mot artiklarna 28 - 30 EG-fördraget kan därmed bekräftas utifrån dels EG-domstolens praxis och dels den information som intervjuerna bidragit med. Genom att institutionen inte har tillräckliga skäl till att motivera en åtgärd i enlighet med undantagen i artikel 30 EG-fördraget strider åtgärdens införande mot fördragsbestämmelserna om den fria rörligheten av varor.

The inner market of the European Community is developing and as a part of this company law and the freedom of establishment are doing the same. Some of this development is carried out through case law from the European Court of Justice as well as through Community harmonisations. As this has happened some worried voices has been raised arguing that a development similar to that in the USA, known as the Delaware effect, might occur. There has been some development indicating such development; companies have made use of the freedom of establishment to seek a more favorable legislation and Member States have changed and adapted their legislations. An example is the lowering of the minimum paid-up capital for limited liability companies that has oc-curred. In this paper the Delaware effect is investigated in order to clarify what it is and how it has developed. This knowledge is vital to be able to se if a Delaware effect might be developing within the European Community. There has been a large discussion on the Delaware effect in the USA and it is evident from that discussion that there are scholars arguing in several directions and that it is in-conclusive whether or not the Delaware effect is detrimental to shareholders, companies and others. In this paper it is argued that, as it is questionable what the Delaware effect en-tails in the USA it is even more questionable to talk about a Delaware effect within the European Community. The Member States are to some extent re-stricted, due to Community harmonisations, as to what they can do in order to compete for incorporations. Companies are also hampered in their attempts to make use of the freedom of establishment, especially companies already incor-porated in a MS. It is also argued that there is a lack of incentives and possibili-ties for both Member States and companies to facilitate a competition for company law. Adding these components together, the preconditions within the European Community are not suitable for a Delaware effect or a European Community Delaware to emerge. The continued development of the freedom of establish-ment along with the companies increased understanding of its benefits might create incentives to seek more favorable legislations, but it is highly unlikely that a Member State will emerge to be as successful as Delaware.

No description available.

<p>The inner market of the European Community is developing and as a part of this company law and the freedom of establishment are doing the same. Some of this development is carried out through case law from the European Court of Justice as well as through Community harmonisations. As this has happened some worried voices has been raised arguing that a development similar to that in the USA, known as the Delaware effect, might occur. There has been some development indicating such development; companies have made use of the freedom of establishment to seek a more favorable legislation and Member States have changed and adapted their legislations. An example is the lowering of the minimum paid-up capital for limited liability companies that has oc-curred.</p><p>In this paper the Delaware effect is investigated in order to clarify what it is and how it has developed. This knowledge is vital to be able to se if a Delaware effect might be developing within the European Community. There has been a large discussion on the Delaware effect in the USA and it is evident from that discussion that there are scholars arguing in several directions and that it is in-conclusive whether or not the Delaware effect is detrimental to shareholders, companies and others.</p><p>In this paper it is argued that, as it is questionable what the Delaware effect en-tails in the USA it is even more questionable to talk about a Delaware effect within the European Community. The Member States are to some extent re-stricted, due to Community harmonisations, as to what they can do in order to compete for incorporations. Companies are also hampered in their attempts to make use of the freedom of establishment, especially companies already incor-porated in a MS. It is also argued that there is a lack of incentives and possibili-ties for both Member States and companies to facilitate a competition for company law.</p><p>Adding these components together, the preconditions within the European Community are not suitable for a Delaware effect or a European Community Delaware to emerge. The continued development of the freedom of establish-ment along with the companies increased understanding of its benefits might create incentives to seek more favorable legislations, but it is highly unlikely that a Member State will emerge to be as successful as Delaware.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis is concerned with the 1992 attempt to legislate for the introduction into the French civil code of a "trust-like" device, the Fiducie. Through a study of the 1992 Bill's Fiducie, it is hoped to contribute to a socio-theoretical understanding of the workings of French legal culture, in the specific context of this recent confrontation with the common law trust. On the basis of the works of Foucault, Lenoble and Ost, French legal culture will be theoretically constructed as an epistemic entity shaped by two types of discourses: the juridical discourse of sovereignty and the discourse of Governmentality. In the light of the works of Bourdieu and Dezalay, it will be argued that these discourses are connected to the conflictual dynamics of societal fields, identified as the juridical field and the field of Governmentality. As a result of the operation of the juridical discourse of sovereignty, the Fiducie cannot reproduce the dual ownership structure of the trust. This is due in particular to the symbolic potency of the principle of absolute ownership, a product of the juridical discourse of sovereignty. This discourse forms the basis of the French epistemic tradition and is rooted in struggles amongst lawyers for the symbolic authority of law. The second epistemic level relevant to our study is identified as Governmentality, a discourse concerned with the construction of the proper objects, means and ends of government, understood in the broad Foucauldian sense. The Fiducie 's limitations as regards tax planning result from the fiscal provisions of the Bill and the impossibility to fragment ownership rights. Such limitations illustrate the imperative of surveillance in French Governmentality. But the Bill also reflects a contradictory tension towards a more liberal understanding of the Fiducie as a flexible and almost unregulated contractual device destined to compete with the trust on the global market. The conflicting tensions apparent in the legislative formulation of the Fiducie echo struggles within the juridical field and in the governmental field. These struggles involve an emerging elite of international legal experts seeking a dominant position internationally and within their own national fields. On the basis of this analysis, it will be possible to formulate a number of concluding hypotheses as to the reasons for the 1992 Bill's failure and its possible future revival.