The EU guarantees the free movement of persons. The citizens of the EU Member States have the right to move freely without barriers within the EU borders and this result in an integration of the peoples in Europe. The integration result in several international family relationships. It is not unusual in the present situation that families have international relations. For example, spouses in a married couple may have different nationality. The international family law in Europe is applicable in case of a cross-border family dispute. The international family law consists of specific common rules on jurisdiction and rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments. There is no substantive family law or conflict-of-law rules in the international family law in the present situation. National law regulates the substantive law and the conflict-of-law rules. Since all Member States applies its own substantive family law, and the fact that national family law rules may differ in many cases, the absence of a common substantive family law in the EU cause issues in international family law. The differences in the substantive family laws affect citizens negatively in case of one Member State imposes less favorable legal effects compared to the internal law of another Member State. The national conflict-of-law rules apply since the international family law does not include any conflict-of-law rules. The conflict-of-law rules identifies the applicable national substantive law which gives rise to the problems in cross-border disputes. The international family law has no substantive solution to the cross-border disputes. The issues in international family law are that EU citizens are not necessarily treated the same way in all Member States even if the circumstances in a family law situation are identical. Legal uncertainty, risk of discrimination on grounds of nationality and possible obstacles to the free movement of people in the EU are examples of how citizens are affected by the divergences in international family law in the EU. A harmonisation of substantive family law is required to meet the citizens' rights under similar conditions in all Member States. However, the EU should not strive for common conflict-of-law rules since these rules only specify the substantive law. Differences in judicial practice arise in the substantive family law. A harmonised substantive law in the EU is required to avoid such differences. A harmonisation of these rules is complex due to the differences in national law. For example, the differences in the substantive law give rise to difficulties to harmonise the substantive rules by means of regulations. An appropriate solution for the harmonisation of substantive law is to let the Court of Justice of the European Union and the literature achieve a harmonised international family in Europe in due time.

Vid införandet av Lissabonfördraget var unionens tanke att införa flertalet förändringar i syfte att bland annat effektivisera och klargöra unionens arbete. En stor förändring var också införandet av de ändringar som har till syfte att göra EU mer demokratiskt. Europaparlamentet får i och med införandet av Lissabonfördraget befogenheter inom fler områden och det förra medbeslutandeförfarandet blir nu det ordinarie. Den största förändringen är dock införandet av medborgarinitiativet. Våren 2010 lade kommissionen fram ett lagförslag med krav på vad ett medborgarinitiativ ska innehålla. Detta var ett förslag som skilde sig mycket mot det som stadgas i fördragstexten och gör det mycket mer komplicerat att genomföra ett initiativ. Syftet med uppsatsen är därför att undersöka om de införda förändringarna kommer leda till ett mer demokratiskt EU och om den föreslagna förordningen kommer inskränka medborgarinitiativet så mycket att det kan anses som en fördragsändring. I uppsatsen beskrivs de olika förändringar som gjorts i och med införandet av Lissabonfördraget för att sedan följas upp av en analys av de förändringar som har gjorts i syfte att göra unionen mer demokratisk. De införda ändringarna kommer enligt författaren att leda till ett mer demokratiskt EU men inte med den verkan som kanske hade hoppats när fördraget skrevs under. Medborgarinitiativet kommer möjliggöra påverkan från nytt håll även om den föreslagna förordningen kommer göra det mer komplicerat än det som stadgas i FEU. De införda kraven är omfattande men de är inte oproportionerliga och de kan rättfärdigas bland annat med tanke på risk för förfalskning av namnunderskrifter och minskad seriositet i förslagen. Förändringarna kommer mer att utöka unionsmedborgarnas möjlighet att påverka än att utöka den reella påverkan.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2004. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 440 -459). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Tasked with enforcing the criminal law against suspected offenders, public prosecutors have traditionally enjoyed broad discretion, which is usually structured by legal and policy guidelines defining rules prosecutors should follow when making their decisions. Basing its analysis upon direct observations and interviews in the two jurisdictions under study, this comparative thesis endeavours to understand how the French and Anglo-Welsh criminal justice systems attempt to combine the necessities of accountability for public prosecution services in modern democratic societies with the flexibility and reactivity needed in the application of the law provided by prosecutorial discretion. There have been few systematic, empirical accounts of the decision-making process of these national prosecution services. This thesis argues that neither system observed achieves a satisfactory balance between accountability and discretion for public prosecutors. In France, although democratic and hierarchical accountability channels are well developed in theory, oversight is weak due to the primacy of the concept of ‘adaptation’ in the legal culture and the strong professional ethos of procureurs as independent judicial officers. In England and Wales, public prosecutors are part of a highly bureaucratic and centralised structure which strictly enforces consistency in prosecutorial decisions at the expense of much discretion and autonomy for individual prosecutors whose responsibility is limited to narrow and repetitive tasks due to the segmentation of the prosecution process. This overbearing accountability structure, coupled with a historical balance of power in favour of the police, appears to prevent prosecutors from making decisions perceived as unpopular with their hierarchy or the police. Finally, pressure on resources and a drive for efficiency in both jurisdictions have resulted in the bureaucratisation of the criminal justice process with part of the prosecution workload being delegated to unqualified staff and minor cases being processed as quickly as possible into a one-size-fits-all system.

This thesis identifies the underlying values of German and English contract law. It establishes that to some extent almost all values are reflected in both jurisdictions but that in many cases the underlying values compete with each other. The thesis identifies the balance of the values in the context of four problem areas namely pre-contractual duties of disclosure (breaking off negotiations), mistake, unfair contract terms and changed circumstances. The thesis concludes that although almost all values are reflected in each system the balance of the values differs significantly. This is important and topical because identifying the balance of the competing values within a jurisdictions and contrasting these to another jurisdiction provides a deeper level of understanding of the courts' decision-making process. The particular questions which the research addresses are twofold, firstly, which values are competing within the context of a particular problem, and secondly, what weight is given to each value in a given context in contrast to the other jurisdiction. In order to address these questions a combination of doctrinal and comparative research methods is adopted. The focus is on the decisions of the respective courts', but doctrinal elements are also explored through the way in which cases were interpreted by academic writers at that particular time, while a functional comparative method is adopted. The work does not aim to create its own theory of contract or try to engage in the theoretical debate of which universal values 'should' apply. The implications of the research findings are that policies at a European level can more accurately identify the core underlying values if they firstly identify the viability of harmonising areas of contract law and at a national level and evaluate potential legislative changes in light of these values. Additionally, identification of the values also allows further research on the desirability of the values to be conducted.

The application of Art. 87(1) EC to taxes above all is connected to the application of the derogation method, which appears to be part of the selectivity criterion. This dissertation examines the application of the derogation method and the assessment of the selectivity criterion applied to taxes, primarily de lege lata, but also de lege ferenda. It begins with an analysis of the relationship among the criteria of Article 87(1) EC and continues with an analysis of the relationship between the derogation method and the assessment of the selectivity criterion applied to taxes. Several scholars have criticised the application of the derogation method because of the difficulty of identifying a derogation and of establishing the benchmark against which the derogation should be assessed. In this dissertation both the benchmark and the establishment of a derogation is analysed, partly with reference to the tax expenditure debate that occurred in the subject area of international taxation during the 1970s and 1980s. The selectivity criterion applied to taxes contains an assessment of justification, whereby the selective nature of a measure can be justified on the basis of the nature or general scheme of the system: Therfore the meaning and implications of this assessment are also examined. After all these issues have been examined de lege lata, the extents to which the application of the derogation method and the assessment of the selectivity criterion follow a logical system are discussed and recommendations for eliminating the identified deficiences are put forward.

<p>The VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) does not regulate Member States’ opportunities to intervene against tax evasion. The European Court of Justice has clarified the situation in case C-255/02 Halifax. This case establish that the universal principle against the abuse of rights applies to VAT, which means that Member States have the opportunity to redefine transactions not involving a breach of law but nevertheless goes past what the legislature envisaged at the introduction of the provision.</p><p>A debate has risen as to whether the principle against the abuse of rights is equally ap-plicable in Swedish domestic law on VAT. The administrative court of appeal in Go-thenburg, Case No. 622-05, has ascertained that the principle is not applicable when it derives from the Directive and the provision has not been implemented in Swedish law as it should. Hence there is no basis for applying the principle. The Swedish tax authori-ty has released a statement asserting that the principle applies to Swedish domestic law on VAT. They believe that the principle has its basis in primary legislation and there-fore does not require legal basis in domestic law to be applicable. Most of the Swedish literature agree with the tax authority and establish that the principle should be regarded as applicable in Swedish domestic law.</p><p>The Swedish tax authority is an investigating and taxing authority and they are to follow their own positions and orientations and the principle against the abuse of rights should therefore be regarded as applicable is in Swedish domestic law on VAT.</p><p>The interpretation of legal certainty and predictability should prevail in Swedish tax law. When applying the purpose of the principle against the abuse of rights, there may be a collision between the principle against the abuse of rights and the principle of pre-dictability. The conflict is based on the state´s interest of taxation that the principle</p><p>against the abuse of rights could be considered to intend to protect and a taxpayer's right to certainty in taxation.</p><p>For the taxpayer’s certainty to be fulfilled, she shall with reasonable reliability be able to predict the tax consequences of her actions. This means that the law must be followed due to the principle of legality and future cases should be consistent with previous deci-sions. Predictability is rarely perfect and should be considered more gradually. When a taxpayer has taken an active action to maximize her tax benefits the action should be considered as a choice to give up some of the predictability provided by the taxation system. For that reason it should not be regarded as disproportionate that the principle against the abuse of rights must prevail over the principle of predictability. The ECJ has suggested it to be done like this within European Law, in case C-255/02 Halifax.</p> / <p>Då mervärdesskattedirektivet (2006/112/EG) ej reglerar medlemsstater möjlighet att ingripa mot skatteflykt har Europeiska unionens domstol i Mål C-255/02 Halifax klargjort denna situation. Den allmängiltiga principen mot rättsmissbruk anses vara tillämplig på mervärdesskatteområdet. Detta innebär att medlemsstater har möjlighet att omdefiniera transaktioner som i sig inte innebär ett lagbrott men likväl går förbi vad lagstiftaren åsyftat vid införandet av bestämmelsen.</p><p>Det har uppkommit en diskussion gällande huruvida principen mot rättsmissbruk är tillämplig även inom svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. Kammarrätten Göteborg har i mål nr. 622-05 konstaterat att principen ej är tillämplig då den härstammar från direktiv och att bestämmelsen ej har implementerats i svensk rätt som sig bör. Det finns därför ingen grund för att tillämpa principen. Skatteverket har publicerat ett ställningstagande som hävdar att principen är tillämplig i svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. De anser att principen har sin grund i primärrätten och därför inte kräver lagstöd i intern rätt för att vara tillämpningsbar. Större delen av svensk doktrin anser, likt Skatteverket, att principen ska anses vara tillämpningsbar i svensk intern rätt.</p><p>Då Skatteverket är utredande och beskattande myndighet och de har att följa sina egna ställningstaganden och riktlinjer måste det anses vara konstaterat att principen mot rättsmissbruk är tillämpningsbar i svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. Detta då de baserar sitt ställningstagande på att principen härrör från primär EU-rätt.</p><p>Inom svensk skattelagstillämpning ska rättssäkerhet och förutsebarhet vara rådande. Vid tillämpning av principen mot rättsmissbruk kan det uppkomma en kollision mellan nämnda princip och förutsebarhetsprincipen.  Intressekonflikten grundas i statens beskattningsintresse som principen mot rättsmissbruk bör kunna anses ha som syfte att skydda, och den skatteskyldiges rätt till förutsebarhet inom beskattningen.</p><p>För att den skatteskyldiges förutsebarhet ska anses vara uppfylld ska denne med rimlig säkerhet kunna förutse skattekonsekvenserna av sitt handlande. Detta innebär att lagen måste följas, legalitetsprincipen, och att ny praxis går i linje med tidigare avgöranden.  Förutsebarheten är sällan fullkomlig utan bör betraktas mer gradmässigt. Vid skatteflykt har man gjort ett aktiv handlande att maximera sin skattefördel och bör därför anses ha valt bort en del av den förutsebarhet som systemet erbjuder.  Det bör därför inte anses vara oproportionerligt att man låter principen mot rättsmissbruk får företräde framför förutsebarhetsprincipen, så som man i målet C-255/02 Halifax antytt att det ska ske inom EU-rätten.</p>

The VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) does not regulate Member States’ opportunities to intervene against tax evasion. The European Court of Justice has clarified the situation in case C-255/02 Halifax. This case establish that the universal principle against the abuse of rights applies to VAT, which means that Member States have the opportunity to redefine transactions not involving a breach of law but nevertheless goes past what the legislature envisaged at the introduction of the provision. A debate has risen as to whether the principle against the abuse of rights is equally ap-plicable in Swedish domestic law on VAT. The administrative court of appeal in Go-thenburg, Case No. 622-05, has ascertained that the principle is not applicable when it derives from the Directive and the provision has not been implemented in Swedish law as it should. Hence there is no basis for applying the principle. The Swedish tax authori-ty has released a statement asserting that the principle applies to Swedish domestic law on VAT. They believe that the principle has its basis in primary legislation and there-fore does not require legal basis in domestic law to be applicable. Most of the Swedish literature agree with the tax authority and establish that the principle should be regarded as applicable in Swedish domestic law. The Swedish tax authority is an investigating and taxing authority and they are to follow their own positions and orientations and the principle against the abuse of rights should therefore be regarded as applicable is in Swedish domestic law on VAT. The interpretation of legal certainty and predictability should prevail in Swedish tax law. When applying the purpose of the principle against the abuse of rights, there may be a collision between the principle against the abuse of rights and the principle of pre-dictability. The conflict is based on the state´s interest of taxation that the principle against the abuse of rights could be considered to intend to protect and a taxpayer's right to certainty in taxation. For the taxpayer’s certainty to be fulfilled, she shall with reasonable reliability be able to predict the tax consequences of her actions. This means that the law must be followed due to the principle of legality and future cases should be consistent with previous deci-sions. Predictability is rarely perfect and should be considered more gradually. When a taxpayer has taken an active action to maximize her tax benefits the action should be considered as a choice to give up some of the predictability provided by the taxation system. For that reason it should not be regarded as disproportionate that the principle against the abuse of rights must prevail over the principle of predictability. The ECJ has suggested it to be done like this within European Law, in case C-255/02 Halifax. / Då mervärdesskattedirektivet (2006/112/EG) ej reglerar medlemsstater möjlighet att ingripa mot skatteflykt har Europeiska unionens domstol i Mål C-255/02 Halifax klargjort denna situation. Den allmängiltiga principen mot rättsmissbruk anses vara tillämplig på mervärdesskatteområdet. Detta innebär att medlemsstater har möjlighet att omdefiniera transaktioner som i sig inte innebär ett lagbrott men likväl går förbi vad lagstiftaren åsyftat vid införandet av bestämmelsen. Det har uppkommit en diskussion gällande huruvida principen mot rättsmissbruk är tillämplig även inom svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. Kammarrätten Göteborg har i mål nr. 622-05 konstaterat att principen ej är tillämplig då den härstammar från direktiv och att bestämmelsen ej har implementerats i svensk rätt som sig bör. Det finns därför ingen grund för att tillämpa principen. Skatteverket har publicerat ett ställningstagande som hävdar att principen är tillämplig i svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. De anser att principen har sin grund i primärrätten och därför inte kräver lagstöd i intern rätt för att vara tillämpningsbar. Större delen av svensk doktrin anser, likt Skatteverket, att principen ska anses vara tillämpningsbar i svensk intern rätt. Då Skatteverket är utredande och beskattande myndighet och de har att följa sina egna ställningstaganden och riktlinjer måste det anses vara konstaterat att principen mot rättsmissbruk är tillämpningsbar i svensk intern rätt på mervärdesskatteområdet. Detta då de baserar sitt ställningstagande på att principen härrör från primär EU-rätt. Inom svensk skattelagstillämpning ska rättssäkerhet och förutsebarhet vara rådande. Vid tillämpning av principen mot rättsmissbruk kan det uppkomma en kollision mellan nämnda princip och förutsebarhetsprincipen.  Intressekonflikten grundas i statens beskattningsintresse som principen mot rättsmissbruk bör kunna anses ha som syfte att skydda, och den skatteskyldiges rätt till förutsebarhet inom beskattningen. För att den skatteskyldiges förutsebarhet ska anses vara uppfylld ska denne med rimlig säkerhet kunna förutse skattekonsekvenserna av sitt handlande. Detta innebär att lagen måste följas, legalitetsprincipen, och att ny praxis går i linje med tidigare avgöranden.  Förutsebarheten är sällan fullkomlig utan bör betraktas mer gradmässigt. Vid skatteflykt har man gjort ett aktiv handlande att maximera sin skattefördel och bör därför anses ha valt bort en del av den förutsebarhet som systemet erbjuder.  Det bör därför inte anses vara oproportionerligt att man låter principen mot rättsmissbruk får företräde framför förutsebarhetsprincipen, så som man i målet C-255/02 Halifax antytt att det ska ske inom EU-rätten.

La fiscalité environnementale repose sur un double fondement: économique (le double dividende) et juridique (le principe pollueur payeur). Elle doit s'inscrire dans une réforme fiscale verte alliant flexibilité de l'instrument fiscal et pérennité des objectifs environnementaux. Dès lors, la responsabilité environnementale et sociale apparaît comme un nouveau paradigme. Cependant, face à l'internationalisation des problèmes environnementaux et de la concurrence fiscale, l'échelon régional est particulièrement approprié. Au sein même de l'Union européenne, différents scénarios sont possibles. L'ajustement des taxes aux frontières est ainsi un mécanisme efficace de reconnaissance des préoccupations environnementales. L'analyse de la fiscalité environnementale dans différents États, y compris des États en développement, permet d'en apprécier toutes les potentialités. Sans oublier l'hypothèse d'une fiscalité mondiale, l'usage des conventions fiscales internationales ou la reconnaissance d'une coutume internationale sont des hypothèses. / Environmental taxation is based on a double economic (the double dividend) and legal (the polluter pays principle) foundation. It must be part of a green tax reform combining flexible instruments with sustainable environmental objectives. So, the environmental and social responsibility appears as a new paradigm. However, in front of the globalization of environmental problems and tax competition, the regional level is suitable. Even within the European Union, some options are possible. Hence, the border tax adjustment is an effective mechanism regarding environmental concerns. The analysis of environmental taxation in various countries, including developing countries, shows all potentialities. Not to mention global taxation, the use of tax treaties and the existence of an international custom are hypotheses

The dynamic interpretation of EU citizenship as a 'fundamental status of all Member State nationals' has opened the door for more horizontal conceptions of equality in European Union law. At the same time, the meaning and purpose of equal treatment in the case of economically inactive and dependent EU citizens has remained ambiguous. The objective of this study is to clarify what normative justifications, other than to eradicate the obstacles to the internal market, can be offered for more just and equal relationships between EU citizens within the existing constitutional order of the EU. What defines EU citizenship as an equal status is how those individuals who hold this status are treated in relation to one another. The thesis discusses in detail how the rationale for discrimination analysis under Article 18 TFEU has changed in parallel with the evolution of EU citizenship. The question of how unlawful discrimination differs from legitimate differential treatment under the so-called 'real link' case law leads to a more theoretical question of what philosophical justifications underlie the EU principle of equality. The democratic theory of equality is used to support the argument that the current bias in favour of 'activity' at the expense of ‘status’ in EU equality law is rooted in a narrow and individualistic view of agency. The thesis, then, argues that recognizing the inherent connection between EU citizens' agency and their subjectivity can provide a justification for a more relational conception of equality even in the absence of a full democratic pedigree in EU law. This analysis contributes a perspective which is usually not there by examining how EU citizenship can benefit from the psycho-dynamic theories of subjectivity that underlie the feminist critique of 'citizenship as agency'.