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.

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.

Within the broader scope of free movement of persons, free movement of workers is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the European Union (EU) law. It is one of most significant rights that are granted to the Union citizens and will be enjoyed by Turkish nationals after Turkey&rsquo / s accession the Union. In this regard, this study examines the free movement of Turkish workers in the EU within the framework of Turkey&rsquo / s EU accession process and two recent EU enlargements since 2004. Along with the legal scope of free movement of workers, transitional arrangements applied in two recent enlargements are analyzed as it could provide some foresights about such freedom with respect to Turkey&rsquo / s EU membership.

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p> / <p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

<p>The Savings Directive will enter in to force 1st of July 2005, after years of discussions about it. The Directive has caused some controversy and several proposals have been rejected.</p><p>The Savings Directive means that an individual who recieves savings income in the form of interest payment from another Member State will be taxed in his or hers State of residence. This will be achieved by an automatic exchange of information be-tween the Member States, concerning interest payments on savings. Some countries have opted out of the information exchange and will instead levy a withholding tax during a transitional period.</p><p>The free movement of capital became fully liberalized when articles 1 and 4 in Directive 88/361/EEC was given direct effect. Later the main provisions from that Directive were implemented in the EC Treaty. All restrictions on the free movement of capital are prohibited, according to article 56 EC. Exceptions to this free movement can be found in article 58 EC. One example of a possible justification is the right for Member States to apply tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested.</p><p>Certain fundamental principles have to be complied with, foremost the Principle of Proportionality and the Principle of Legal Certainty, to be able to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital.</p><p>If the Savings Directive is in breach of the free movement of capital according to article 56-60 EC, is analysed in this thesis. It is discussed whether the Directive constitutes a restriction and in that case which possible justifications there are.</p><p>Our conclusion is that the Savings Directive constitutes a restriction, in so far that it will likely dissuade residents from placing their capital in another Member State, because they will be taxed in their State of residence anyhow. However, this restriction is possible to justify according to article 58 (1) (b) EC. Therefore, the Savings Directive is not in breach of the free movement of capital.</p> / <p>Sparandedirektivet träder i kraft 1 juli 2005, efter många års diskussioner kring det och efter att flera förslag har röstats ner.</p><p>Sparandedirektivet innebär att en individ från en Medlemsstat som mottager ränteinkomst härrörande från sparande i ett annat Medlems land blir beskattad i Medlemsstaten där han eller hon bor. Detta skall ske genom automatiskt utbyte av information rörande ränteinkomster på besparingar mellan Medlemsstaterna. Några länder har fått dispans från informations utbytet under en viss tid och kommer då istället att påföra en källskatt.</p><p>Den fria rörligheten av kapital blev liberaliserad fullt ut i och med att artiklarna 1 och 4 i Direktiv 88/361/EEC gavs direkt effekt. Huvudbestämmelserna från det direktivet blev senare implementerade i EG fördraget. Enligt artikel 56 EG är alla restriktioner på fri rörlighet av kapital förbjudna. I artikel 58 EG hittas dock undantag till denna fria rörlighet. Ett exempel på en möjlig rättfärdigande grund för en restriktion är möjligheten för Medlemsstater att behandla individer skattemässigt olika beroende på var de är bosatta och beroende på var kapitalet är placerat.</p><p>För att kunna rättfärdiga en restriktion på den fria rörligheten av kapital måste också vissa grundläggande principer följas, framförallt proportionalitetsprincipen och principen om rättssäkerhet.</p><p>Denna uppsats utreder om Sparandedirektivet bryter mot den fria rörligheten av kapital uppställd i artiklarna 56-60 EG, genom att analysera om Direktivet utgör en restriktion och i så fall vilka rättfärdigandegrunder som är möjliga att använda.</p><p>Slutsatsen, baserat på vår utredning, blir att Sparandedirektivet utgör en restriktion på den fria rörligheten av kapital, eftersom det troligtvis kommer att avskräcka personer från att placera besparingar utomlands, då de kommer att bli beskattade i den stat de bor i alla fall. Restriktionen är dock möjlig att rättfärdiga genom 58 (1) (b) EG. Därför bryter Sparandedirektivet inte mot fri rörlighet av kapital.</p>

<p>The aim of this thesis is to identify some of the obstacles to trade, that occurs on the common market, and to analyse the errors that still occurs in the national authorities application of the principle of mutual recognition. Is the principle of mutual recognition sufficient for the creation of a common market, or is there a need for additional measures to cope with the obstacles to trade that still exists on the common market? The problems related to the incorrect procedures of the national authorities and the fact that undertakings prefer to bring their products in to line with the rules of every single member state must be solved, if the principle of mutual recognition is to become trustworthy. On some areas, harmonisation ought to be chosen above the principle of mutual recognition, but in other cases an increased administrative collaboration, mandatory training for the national authorities or information campaigns intended mainly for undertakings could be the answer. The possibility to help undertakings to sue member states for damages should also be investigated. If these problems are solved, the principle of mutual recognition, in addition to harmonisation, could become an excellent tool for the upholding of the free movement of goods in the common market.</p>

ES vidaus rinka suprantama kaip teritorija be sienų, kurioje be kitų laisvių užtikrinamas ir laisvas prekių judėjimas. Laisvas prekių judėjimas yra labiausiai išplėtota iš vadinamųjų keturių „laisvių“ ir bene sėkmingiausiai veikianti Europos Bendrijos sritis. Automobilių pirkimas-pardavimas taip pat patenka į laisvo prekių judėjimo principų reguliuojamą sritį, nes autmobiliai taip pat yra „Prekės“. Taigi automobilių registravimo draudimas yra akivaizdus laisvo prekių suvaržymo pavyzdys, nes joks žmogus nebus suinteresuotas pirkti automobilį žinodamas, kad negalės jo registruoti ir naudoti. Tyrimo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, ar toks Lietuvoje taikomas draudimas nepažeidžia laisvo prekių judėjimo principų. Visų pirma, svarbiausio laisvam prekių judėjimui taikomo proporcingumo principo. Jis reikalauja, kad naudojamos priemonės atitiktų tą tikslą, kurio jomis siekiama. Taigi nukrypti nuo bendrosios taisyklės leidžiama tik tiek, kiek yra būtina keliamiems tikslams pasiekti. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad Lietuvos institucijų veiksmai nėra proporcingi siekiamiems tikslams. Visų pirma, proporcingumo principas nereikalauja Bendrijos šalių atsisakyti naudoti laisvą prekių judėjimą varžančias priemones. Antra, taikomas „dešiniavairių“ automobilių registracijos draudimas, nepagrindžiant moksliniais tyrimais ar skaičiavimais, negali būti pateisinamas tik dėl galinčio kilti pavojaus kitiems eismo dalyviams, žmonių sveikatai ir visuomenės saugumui. Išanalizavus kitų šalių praktiką... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The free movement of goods is the most successful project in European Community. It is an important part of the internal market described in EC treaty as follows: the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty. It is necessary to ensure the appropriate application of principles of free movement goods in European Community. Only this way it is possible to ensure fair competition among states companies and keep internal market competitive to the rest of the world. For the majority of products, EU countries have adopted the principle of mutual recognition of national rules. Any product legally manufactured and sold in one member state must be allowed to be placed on the market in all others. Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on Functioning of European Union deals with the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. Measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions mean laws, regulations, administrative provisions, administrative practices, and all instruments issuing from a public authority including recommendation which have similar effect to quantitative restrictions. These articles are a leading tool to deal with elimination of technical barriers which are the most dangerous to free movement of goods notion. Only on the... [to full text]

Moksliniame tiriamajame darbe nagrinėjamos laisvo asmenų judėjimo teisinio reguliavimo problemos Lietuvoje įstojus į Europos Sąjungą ir prisijungus prie Šengeno acquis. Autorė, remdamasi dokumentų analizės metodu siekia atskleisti Europos Sąjungos aktuose įtvirtintus, Europos Teisingumo Teismo išaiškintus, laisvo asmenų judėjimo teisės principus. Europos Sąjungos bei Šengeno susitariančiųjų valstybių teritorijoje laisvo asmenų judėjimo idėja buvo sukurta tam, kad būtų įgyvendinama laisvos rinkos politika. Tam, kad būtų pasiektas šis tikslas, kiekviena valstybė narė turi siekti tinkamo Europos Sąjungos aktų įgyvendinimo. Deja, Lietuva čia dar tik naujokė. Vykdant Europos Sąjungos aktuose numatytus nurodymus, juos perkeliant į Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktus, dėl tradicijų pasikeitimo ir ankstesnių įpročių atsiranda netikslumų, neteisingų interpretacijų, ko pasekoje iškyla įvairių problemų. Šiuo atveju, nagrinėjamos problemos, susijusios su Sąjungos piliečių, jų šeimos narių ir kitų asmenų, turinčių Sąjungos piliečių statusą, judėjimu bei buvimu valstybių narių teritorijoje. Aptariant, Europos Sąjungos aktus, Europos Teisingumo Teismo praktiką, LR teisės aktus bei įvairių valstybių narių, tame tarpe ir Lietuvos, institucijų veiklą, pasinaudojant lyginamojo, loginio, taip pat analitinio kritinio metodų pagalba, darytina išvada, jog Lietuvoje laisvo asmenų judėjimo teisinio reguliavimo problemos tikrai egzistuoja: vidaus sienos atvertos, tačiau, remiantis statistika, gana... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The scientific research had been made in order to analyse the legal regulation of the free movement of persons in Lithuania after entering the European Union and accesing to the Schengen acquis. There was identified and investigated problems, associated with the Union citizens and their family members and other persons having the status of EU citizens, and with their movement and stay in the union’s territory. The author using the method of document’s analysis explored the main legal regulations of European Union and also the laws of Lithuanian Republic on the matter of implementation of free movement of persons. According to the observations of practitioners and experts the author described existing situation in the area of freedom of movement in Lithuania, which appeared to be innapropriate. Although the internal borders are considered to be not controled, on the basis of statistic, checks on persons are carried out quite often. Moreover, Lithuanian legislation is lacking the rule of reasonable time period for the persons who do not carry the right documents to prove that they have the right for the free movement of persons. In addition, individuals who do not carry the appropriate travel documents are not admitted to the territory, expeled or fined in accordance with such provisions which are intended for external border regime and its illegal crossing, as well as persons from third countries lawlessly crossed external borders. First of all, there should be made... [to full text]

Brain drain has been the object of much policy discussion in the gobal context for many years; however, in Lithuania it is a new phenomenon. The assessment of the brain drain scope in the country is not possible because of the lack of systematic data sources. This research discusses the brain drain issue in the context of free movement of persons after the EU enlargement.