Recently, the potential conflict between intellectual property law and competition law within the European Union has become political as many of the Member States see the economic Holy Grail through the so called knowledge economy, an economy to which intellectual property is inextricable linked. The general rule in EC-law is that a holder of an intellectual property right is not obliged to license the use of that right to others. However, the law can intervene in certain specific circumstances, forcing an owner to license his right. Remedies of this kind are called compulsory licenses and have as their purpose to work as a safety valve, hindering the possible abuse of the exclusiveness following an IPR. An analysis of the EC Commission’s Microsoft Decision reveals that the Decision is inconsistent with settled case law from the European Court of Justice in a number of respects. The Decision is unclear and it will be difficult, close to impossible to predict how this approach will be applied in future cases. The Decision taken by the Commission in Microsoft states a new legal and economic policy for Europe, a paradigm applying a new standard on when a compulsory license could be ordered. The analysis show that this paradigm represent a considerable loosening of the circumstances when a remedy of a compulsory license could be ordered and, as a consequence, introduces a considerable degree of legal uncertainty. This uncertainty can have a substantial effect on innovations by market leaders around the whole world who market their products in Europe.

No description available.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda huruvida den svenska lagstiftningen som begränsar den fria rörligheten på spelmarknaden är förenlig med EG rätt samt om det kan misstänkas finnas andra bakomliggande motiv för undantagen än de som åberopats. Uppsatsen syftar till att reda ut om den nuvarande lagstiftningen är förenlig med EG-rätten eller om den behöver justeras. Senare tids utveckling på marknaden och rättspraxis kan tala för att en ändring i lagstiftningen är behövd. Uppsatsen visar på flera faktorer som pekar på att den svenska lagstiftningen och dess motiv inte är förenlig med EG-rätten. Den stora ekonomiska hänsynen kan verka avgörande och får inte vara ett huvudskäl till en inskränkning enligt praxis. Vidare pekar de faktiska omständigheterna på spelmarknaden i Sverige för att de begränsningar som gjorts inte längre är lämpliga för att uppnå det ursprungliga syftet med inskränkningarna. Bland annat bedrivs en hård marknadsföring och introduktion av nya spelformer av Svenska Spel som rimligtvis uppmuntrar till mer spel, när motivet till en begränsning i den fria rörligheten var att begränsa spelandet. Även en statlig utredning från 2006 talar för att lagstiftningen inte är förenlig med EG-rätten och att en ändring behövs göras, exempelvis föreslås ett Licenssystem som både kan skydda spelarnas intressen men samtidigt öppna upp för fler aktörer på marknaden.

Sammanfattning Europeiska gemenskapens domstol (EGD) har än en gång klarlagt att det inte är förenligt med EG-rätten att inte medge avdrag för premier, eller beskatta en överföring av försäkringens värde, till en utländsk pensionsförsäkring om den uppfyller de inhemska kraven för pensionsförsäkring. Med hänsyn till att Sveriges nuvarande regler innehåller ett liknande etableringskrav har regeringen kommit med ett förslag på hur skattereglerna för pensionsförsäkring bör ändras för att inte komma i konflikt med EG-rätten. Förslaget innebär att etableringskravet kommer utökas till att omfatta hela Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet (EES) och för att kunna säkerställa sambandet i skattesystemet föreslås bl.a. att ett nytt kvalitativt villkor införs, som måste vara uppfyllt för att en försäkring ska anses vara en pensionsförsäkring. Villkoret innebär att försäkringsbolag i sina avtalsvillkor måste införa ett villkor om att försäkringsgivaren tar på sig att lämna kontrolluppgifter samt att utländska försäkringsbolag även skriftligen gentemot Skatteverket måste åta sig att lämna kontrolluppgift. Vidare föreslås att skattskyldigheten för avkastningsskatt på en utländsk pensionsförsäkring ska ligga på försäkringstagaren medan skattskyldigheten på en svensk pensionsförsäkring ligger på försäkringsbolaget. De nya reglerna kommer att innebära en viss negativ särbehandling av utländska pensionsförsäkringar, dels p.g.a. att den administrativa bördan blir större för utländska försäkringsbolag då de även skriftligen måste åta sig kontrolluppgiftsskyldigheten, dels p.g.a. att skattskyldigheten för avkastningsskatt för utländska pensionsförsäkringar kommer att ligga på försäkringstagaren, vilket innebär att den enskilde får ökade kostnader vid tecknande av en utländsk pensionsförsäkring. Jag anser att det är tveksamt om dessa skillnader kan anses förenliga med EG-rätten då den negativa särbehandlingen är större i förhållande till vad som ges. Ett annat problem som uppkommer med att kontrolluppgiftsskyldigheten tas in som ett villkor i försäkringsavtalet är att det kommer anses som en villkorsändring om kontrolluppgift inte lämnas, vilket kan leda till att avdrag för premier till pensionsförsäkringen inte medges och till avskattning som yttersta sanktion. Vidare kommer de nya skattereglerna innebära stora administrativa problem främst för Skatteverket vid hantering av de nya kontrolluppgifterna samt vid tillämpningen av reglerna vid fastställande av beskattning på pensioner. Med anledning av att det fortfarande är oklart hur de nya skattereglerna kommer att fungera i praktiken och då det i nuläget inte går att avgöra om de nya skattereglerna kan anses förenliga med EG-rätten, anser jag att de svenska skattereglerna för pensionsförsäkring i förhållande till EG-rätten fortfarande är ett osäkert rättsområde.

Ekonomiska nackdelar som uppstår till följd av att en verksamhet bedrivs genom flera självständiga dotterbolag istället för under ett bolag med flera driftställen avhjälps normalt med lagregler om koncernbidrag. Dessa regler är emellertid endast tillämplig på nationella koncerner, dvs. koncerner där samtliga bolag har säte i ett och samma land. Problem uppstår emellertid när de olika dotterbolagen är belägna i olika länder. Denna uppsats behandlar problematiken kring gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar inom EU. Grunden för uppsatsen är det kontroversiella målet Marks & Spencer där frågan om gränsöverskridande förlustavdrag ställdes på sin spets. Målet fick stor betydelse för rättsutvecklingen i såväl Sverige som övriga Europa.

Many different types of qualification requirement and other forms of regulations of professions exist in the Member States of the European Union. A common qualification requirement for access to a profession or use of a professional title is the possession of a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications that proves that the person in questions has the education and experience necessary. The aim of the thesis is to examine what legal strategies the Community has developed to counteract the obstacle against free movement of workers and self-employed persons that national qualifications of this types gives rise to. The analysis is performed using an integration perspective and with its basis in the tensions between European Community law and national law that arise as Community law’s demands for free movement and equal treatment conflict with the interest of the Member States to set their own professional qualifications in accordance with national values and traditions. Central to the examination are the directives on recognition of professional qualifications adopted by the Council and the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice’s case-law on the subject. A central tasks is to analyse the contents of Community law and to study those rules from a development perspective.

The European Union (EU) is built on the principle of freedom of establishment, meaning that companies have the possibility to establish themselves as a company or by setting up a secondary establishment in other Member States. This right has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice through case law. A basic feature in domestic tax legislation is that losses are allowed to be set off against profits when calculating the tax liability of a company. At the moment cross-border loss compensation within the EU is restricted, unfeasible or just accepted on a temporary basis. This lack of recognition of loss-offset gives the fact that double taxation may occur and claims form two or more national tax systems leads to uncertainty in the way a company will be taxed. Depending on whether the secondary establishment is a subsidiary or a branch, the rules relating to loss compensation differs. Taxation of secondary establishments is based on the principle of whether or not they are considered as a resident or a non-resident of the state. In regards to taxation of secondary establishments, the PE is considered to be a non-resident and a subsidiary considered to be a resident. However, the European Court of Justice approach of non discriminatory treatment and equal treatment that has been developed and seen in the history of case law leads to the question if the Marks & Spencer ruling that concerned secondary establishments in form of subsidiaries can be applied to permanent establishments. The most vital difference between a subsidiary and a permanent establishment is connected to the taxation of the two. The subsidiary is considered to become a resident of the establishing state while the permanent establishment is seen as a non-resident. This legal difference between the two leads to different treatment under tax law. Taxation under a tax treaty leads to the situation where one of the contracting states will either credit or exempt the income deriving from the permanent establishment. Permanent establishments are often taxed under the method of exemption. In the Marks & Spencer case it was held that losses and profits were two sides of the same coin. Applying this statement to permanent establishments gives the notion that if a contracting state exempts an income, there will be a set off of the symmetry of having losses and profits within the same tax system. This lead to the fact that if applying the Marks & Spencer ruling on permanent establishments that are taxed under the exemption method, allowing terminal losses to be taken into account at the head office will set off the symmetry. Therefore it can be considered as the Marks & Spencer ruling shall not apply to permanent establishments.

Double taxation is known as restricting the free flow of capital and accordingly results in a limited access of the internal market. Although, not many Member States have entered into double taxation conventions in order to avoid juridical double taxation of inheritances. The question then arises whether this failure to eliminate juridical double taxation is restricting the free movement of capital. The ECJ‟s case law regarding inheritance taxes are very varying. In its initial case law, the ECJ stated that national measures which reduce the value of the inheritance are in breach of EC law. Even measures which could restrict investors in one Member State from investing in other Member States are considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that discriminating situations could not be justified with the argument that these situations arise due to the co-existence of national tax systems. Given these facts, it seems like juridical double taxation is likely to constitute a breach of EC law. The ECJ has however only concentrated on which effect the national provisions in a single Member State may have and have not given concern to which effect these provisions may have in connection with the tax provisions in other Member States. The author believes that the Court takes this approach because of a respect of the Member States fiscal sovereignty. This respect also shows in the Block case. In this case the ECJ made it clear that juridical double taxation, caused by the co-existence of national tax systems, is not considered to be a breach of EC law. The ECJ also stated that when the Member States develops their tax systems, due to the lack of harmonised Community rules regarding direct taxation, they are not obliged to adapt to the tax systems of other Member States in order to avoid double taxation. The ECJ also made it clear that the citizens are not guaranteed a neutral tax situation when transferring their place of residence. In this thesis a comparison has also been made to judgements where the ECJ considers economic double taxation to be a breach of EC law. After studying all these cases it seems like the ECJ considers juridical double taxation to be an undesirable restriction of the free flow of capital. But even though the ECJ encourages the Member States to enter into double taxation conventions, there are no consequences when the Member States fail to do this. The difference between cases regarding economic double taxation and juridical double taxation could be that the ECJ considers it to be too far reaching to judge juridical double taxation as a breach of EC law and do not want to regulate how this restriction shall be avoided and thereby take the role of the Community legislator or breach the fiscal sovereignty of the Member States. The author believes that it would be more beneficial for the internal market if juridical double taxation was avoided and that it would not be harmful if the ECJ would give the Member States some incentives for entering into double taxation conventions in order to eliminate or alleviate situations where juridical double taxation occurs.

Direct taxation is an area which has not been harmonized entirely within the European Community. Nevertheless, the ECJ has in its case law stated that even though direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they may not exercise that competence by breaching EC law. At the same time the EC Treaty provides certain exceptions in the form of justifications for national measures resulting in such breach of EC Law. The justification grounds provided by the EC Treaty are, however, limited and general and not suitable for justifying tax measures. That is why the rule of reason has played such an important role within the area of direct taxation. The rule of reason made it possible to in-voke justification grounds that were not expressly mentioned in the EC Treaty. Since the list of justifying grounds, not provided by the EC Treaty, is open-ended, Member States have been invoking several different justifying grounds which were suitable for tax measures. One of those justification grounds which has been used the most is the preservation of the cohesion of the national tax system. The first time the cohesion of a national tax system was brought forward as a justifying reason for a restrictive measure was in the Bachmann case. There the ECJ held that the Belgian legislation could be justified on the ground of the cohesion of the national tax system. However, the ECJ has been applying the cohesion justification very restrictively and never accepted it as a valid justification ground after the Bachmann case. What the ECJ has done in subsequent cases is to develop the meaning of the principle and adding new criteria which must be fulfilled in order for the cohesion justification to be successfully invoked. However, during this course the ECJ has been very unclear and inconsistent, harming legal certainty, which taxpayers are supposed to expect. Even in the doctrine, authors have been questioning the validity of the cohesion justification due to the ECJ’s reluctance to accept it again. In connection with recent case law concerning cross-border dividend taxation, voices have been heard, demanding the ECJ to address the cohesion justification once more in order to set out clear boundaries for its application and to disperse the current legal uncer-tainty regarding the matter. As a consequence the aim of this paper is to analyze the appli-cation of the cohesion justification to cross-border dividend situations from a legal certainty perspective. As becomes clear from analyzing recent cross-border dividend cases, the ECJ seems to have departed from earlier established criteria and a new line of thought seems to direct the development towards the introduction and application of new criteria. Conclusively, we have found that the application of the cohesion justification by the ECJ has been very inconsistent and that this inconsistency has led to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, making it difficult to predict the outcomes of future cases. Therefore, we conclude that the ECJ should take the opportunity, which has presented itself in recent cases concerning cross-border dividend taxation, to clarify the cohesion justification and set out clear definitions for how to apply it.

The free movement of goods constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the European Union and entitles goods entrance to the internal market. Sweden had before 1995 few monopolies concerning the import, export, manufacturing, distribution and retail on alcohol, and had to as a result of entering EU abolish four of these. The monopoly on retail, Systembolaget, was retained, and is still today strictly controlled by limited number of stores as well as restricted openly-hours. Systembolaget contributes an important part of the Swedish Alcohol Policy, which main purpose is to limit the accessibility of alcohol in Sweden. Another essential purpose is to prevent alcohol to reach people under the age of twenty, and this is upheld by strict age-controls when purchasing alcohol from Systembolaget. Lately it has been argued that the Swedish prohibition of private import of alcohol con-stitutes a restriction of the free movement of goods and in breach of Article 28 EC. The exception of such restriction is presented in Article 30 EC and allows Member States to obtain national trade barriers if a justification based on the protection of the public health could be made. The Commission is of the opinion that the Swedish prohibition constitute such a restriction referred to in Article 28 and is not willing to accept the justification to protection of the public health. The Swedish government however, is reluc-tant to remove the prohibition and argues that consumers that require a certain product can import alcohol through Systembolaget. An elimination of the ban would undermine the core purpose with Systembolaget which is to protect the public health and prevent alcohol to be distributed to people under the age of twenty. According to the Alcohol Act a person who has turned twenty can legally import alco-hol to Sweden when he is travelling with the goods if those products are for his personal use. A proposal has been presented to a redefinition of private import, which would in-clude situation where the buyer is not personally travelling with the goods, yet the transportation is carried out on the buyer’s behalf. Such purchases are often referred to distance purchase, and in those situations should the excise duty be laid down in the coun-try where the good was released for consumption. In distance sales the seller is respon-sible for the transportation of the goods but also to pay excise duty on the products in the country of destination. A redefinition of private import to include transportation made on the buyer’s behalf could create problems since there is no actual contract between the seller and the transporting-company. Problems can then arise since the seller has no possibility to control that the buyer is of the legal age or guaranteeing that the alcohol is for that person’s use / Den fria rörligheten av varor utgör en grundstomme inom den Europeiska Unionen, vilken erkänner varor från medlemsstaterna tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Sverige hade fram till 1995 fem olika monopol som reglerade importen, exporten, tillverkningen, distributionen och försäljningen av alkohol, men var tvungen som ett led i inträdet till EU att avveckla fyra av dessa. Kvar återstod försäljningsmonopolet, Systembolaget, vilket än idag är strikt reglerat genom begränsat antal butiker och öppet-tider. Systembolaget utgör in viktigt beståndsdel i den svenska alkoholpolitiken, vilken har till syfte att begränsa alkoholen och dess skadeverkningar i Sverige. Ett viktigt mål är också att motverka att alkoholen når ut till ungdomar under 20år, varvid strikta kon-troller av ålder sker vid köp på Systembolaget. På senare tid har det diskuterat huruvida det svenska förbudet mot privat införsel av alkohol skall anses vara förenligt med den fria rörligheten av varor och den uppställda artikel 28 i EG-fördraget. Där stadgas det att inga importrestriktioner skall hindra varor tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Det uppställda undantaget i artikel 30 berättigar medlemsstaterna att behålla en sådan restriktion om det kan anses nödvändigt till skyddet för den allmänna hälsan. Kommission har i ett motiverat yttrande upplyst Sve-rige att förevarande förbud utgör en sådan restriktion som avses i artikel 28 och att förutsättningarna att behålla ett sådant förbud inte kan anses uppfyllda. Den svenska regeringen anser att förbudet fyller en viktig funktion genom att begränsa tillgängligheten av alkoholen på den svenska marknaden, samt upplyser att en konsument som önskar importera särskilda produkter kan göra detta genom Systembolaget. Att tillåta konsumenter att importera fritt skulle försvaga det ursprungliga syftet med Systembolaget, vilket är att skydda den allmänna hälsan och minska risken för att alkohol blir tillgänglig för ungdomar. Enligt Alkohollagen kan en person som har fyllt 20 fritt importera alkohol till Sverige under förutsättning att denne reser in med varorna till Sverige och att dessa varor är för hans personliga nyttjande. En föreslagen utvidgning av definitionen privat import kan komma att inkludera varutransporter vilka sker för köparens räkning, ofta kallade distans köp. Detta skiljer sig då nämnvärt från distansförsäljning där säljare står för transporten, och är skyldig att betala punktskatt i destinationslandet för dessa varor. Vid distans köp skall ingen beskattning ske i destinationslandet, under förutsättning att dessa avgifter har betalts i varans ursprungsland. En utvidgning av definition av privat import till att innefatta varutransporter organiserade av köparen kan skapa problem då inget riktigt kontrakt föreligger mellan säljaren och transportbolaget. Svårigheter kan då uppstå för säljarens då denne saknar möjlighet att kontrollera att köparen är av påstådd ålder och att alkoholen är avsedd för dennes personliga konsumtion.