- About
-
The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers
to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is
provided by the
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
Search results
Showing 21 to 23 of 23 (0.009 seconds)| 21 |
Competition and Data Protection Law in Conflict : Data Protection as a Justification for Anti-Competitive Conduct and a Consideration in Designing Competition Law RemediesBornudd, David January 2022 (has links)
Competition and data protection law are two powerful regimes simultaneously shaping the use of digital information, which has given rise to new interactions between these areas of law. While most views on this intersection emphasize that competition and data protection law must work together, nascent developments indicate that these legal regimes may sometimes conflict. In the first place, firms faced with antitrust allegations are to an increasing extent invoking the need to protect the privacy of their users to justify their impugned conduct. Here, the conduct could either be prohibited by competition law despite of data protection or justified under competition law because of data protection. In the EU, no such justification attempt has reached court-stage, and it remains unclear how an enforcer ought to deal with such a claim. In the second place, competition law can mandate a firm to provide access to commercially valuable personal data to its rivals under a competition law remedy. Where that is the case, the question arising in this connection is whether an enforcer can and should design the remedy in a way that aligns with data protection law. If so, the issue remains of how that ought to be done. The task of the thesis has been to explore these issues, legally, economically, and coherently. The thesis has rendered four main conclusions. First, data protection has a justified role in EU competition law in two ways. On the one hand, enhanced data protection can increase the quality of a service and may thus be factored in the competitive analysis as a dimension of quality. On the other, data protection as a human right must be guaranteed in the application of competition law. Second, these perspectives can be squared with the criteria for justifying competition breaches, in that data protection can be invoked to exculpate a firm from antitrust allegations. Third, in that context, the human rights dimension of data protection may entail that the enforcer must consider data protection even if it is not invoked. However, allowing data protection interests to override competition law in this manner is relatively inefficient as it may lead to less innovation, higher costs, and lower revenues. Fourth, the profound importance of data protection in the EU necessarily means that enforcers should accommodate data protection interests in designing competition law remedies which mandate access to personal data. This may be done in several ways, including requirements to anonymize data before providing access, or to oblige the firm to be compliant with data protection law in the process of providing access. The analysis largely confirms that anonymization is the preferable option.
|
| 22 |
Suveränitetsvakuumet och oenigheter om EU-rättens företräde : En diskussion kring kommissionens underlåtenhet att föra fördragsbrottstalan / The sovereignty-vacuum and disagreements on the primacy of EU-law : A discussion on the commissions omission to start infringement proceduresLiljeström, Leo January 2023 (has links)
The European court of Justice (ECJ) has the stance that EU-law, within the confines of EU competence, has primacy over national law, regardless of its source, even if it’s the national constitutions. Although generally the ECJ:s stance is accepted, sometimes it is instead the EU that has had to indirectly (through inaction) accept the conclusions of the national constitutional courts. When this happens, it can however only be noticed as the EU commission’s decision to not start infringement proceedings against the member state, and as such it appears as a legal vacuum or absence of enforced law. Inside this vacuum there is lacking enforcement of EU-law, which the member states can use as a de facto exemption from EU-law to regain or uphold national sovereignty. Thus the member states can fill the vacuum by deciding cases on the basis of their own constitutional law rather than (the unenforced) EU-law. It appears to be an in EU-law unregulated transfer of sovereignty. This paper intends to shed light on possible problems that arise in this situation due to the lack of legality and certainty that ensues from these exemptions from EU-law being upheld through the inaction of the commission rather than positive legal regulation. I will also attempt to find a coherent model for the explanation of this seemingly contradictory situation, describing it as a “sovereignty-vacuum”, an opposing but related concept to the “exemption” of Carl Schmitt. Through use of Schmitt’s political theology, I attempt to find a solution to the problem of legality with an analogy to the concept of “mercy” and “forgiveness” in the context of constitutional law. Ultimately, I propose a solution de lege ferenda that these implicit exemptions from EU-law be written down as explicit exemptions.
|
| 23 |
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 LawLignell, 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.
|
Page generated in 0.0165 seconds