- 1 - Abstract The issue of income tax is a topic that is current, whatever the political organization of the country, because it is a fact significantly affecting the political, economic and social conditions, from many different aspects. Individual load, as well as corporate income taxes is one of the key elements that most impact on people and affect their economic behavior, social and political decision-making standard. Income tax in the tax systems is one of the most important taxes, because it is burdening the income of individuals and legal entities, tax payers. Through a greater or lower tax burden on personal and corporate income it is possible to use the legislation in the area of income tax and its setting, in the period of economic stagnation, as an instrument for economic recovery. In the area of tax systems and tax systems of specific countries in the last decade we recorded a relatively significant development. The shift, consisting mainly in the approximation of national tax laws, is in our legal system particularly evident after the enter of Czech Republic to the European Union in 2004. In connection with the gradual expansion of the European Economic Community, of the customs union, common market between Member States and European Union development into as we know it today, with 27 Member...

The market access approach refers to a way of interpretation of the notion of restriction to free movement advanced by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The rationale behind the concept, as it emerged from the landmark judgment in Commission v. Italy (Trailers), is that any measure that hinders access to the market is prima facie considered as a restriction to free movement and is therefore held incompatible with EU law unless the Court finds it justified and proportionate. Applying the market access approach the Court seems to have departed from its previous case law as it does not require a measure to be discriminatory in any way. Instead, a measure is already found to constitute a restriction if it is liable to discourage economic operators from accessing the market of a Member State or making such access less attractive or more difficult. On one hand, this interpretation allows the Court to strengthen integration and contribute to establishing the internal market free from any obstacles. On the other hand, it considerably extends the scope of the notion of restriction to free movement and therefore the scope of EU law in general. Particularly, the market access approach allows the Court to strike down an immense amount of national measures and thus intrude into national regulatory...

La mondialisation interroge le dogme de la frontière. Peut-être que la représentation d’une ligne nette et tranchée séparant de manière catégorique et intemporelle un « dedans » et un « dehors » n’est pas la seule forme juridique possible de la frontière. Peut-être aussi que l’élimination des frontières dans le marché intérieur de l’Union européenne (au sens de l’article 26 TFUE) et l’établissement d’un « village-global », qui aurait irrémédiablement fait disparaître toute forme de démarcation, ne l’est pas non plus. Peut-être que la mondialisation n’est pas, en définitive, une invitation à s’interroger sur la déchéance ou la résurgence des frontières, mais l’occasion de réfléchir à leur pertinence afin de retrouver un sens à la notion de « frontière ». / Globalization questions the very dogma of the border. Perhaps the representation of the border as a clear and distinct line – separating unequivocally and timelessly – the “inside” from the “outside” is not the only possible legal status for the border. Perhaps the elimination of borders within the internal market of the European Union (in the sense of article 26 TFEU) and the implementation of a “global village”, which would have irreversibly erased all forms of dividing lines, do not match the legal reality of international trade. Perhaps globalization is not an invitation to question the decline or resurgence of borders, but an opportunity to think about their relevance in order to rediscover the very meaning of the notion of “border”.

This thesis deals with the EU internal market, focusing on the recent developments related to the Single Market Act of 2010. At the same time, the work deals with a critical assessment of selected instruments of the internal market, improving the business environment and thereby promote the competitiveness of European enterprises. Selected instruments which are rated in the work were selected on the basis of the content of EU Single Market Act, specifically the thesis evaluates additional funding for businesses, instruments of the European public procurement system and ultimately the EU regulatory environment and tools for administrative burdens reduction.

Objective: The papers objective is to create a deeper understanding for whether or not cultural and psychic distance affects corporate establishments in the EU. Method: The results have been gathered through intense data collection through interviews with ScaniaAB and Business Sweden. There has also been extensive research of 36 different companies and their first establishments in different countries. We have then analyzed the results through cultural and psychic distance and through Uppsala University's internationalization process model. Conclusion: The conclusions of this paper are: Corporate establishment often occurs in neighboring countries because of the similarity to the domestic markets which contribute with a greater security. Since the introduction of the EU single market, corporate establishments have become easier within the single market. The cultural and psychic distance does exist within the EU, however the internal market decreases these distances and the impact on corporate establishments. The market commitment is essential to the corporates survival within the new market. Cultural and psychic distance affects small firms more often since their lack of network and experience. Cultural and psychic distances are two different but related phenomena.

Member States' rules on the taxation of the foreign business income of companies, whether they are based on the fiscal principle of territoriality or on the principle of worldwide taxation, raise complex issues of compatibility with the law of the European Union. Areas of conflict include particularly the taxation of foreign profits, the deduction of foreign losses, the elimination of international double taxation, and the attribution of profits to permanent establishments. The dissertation analyses these conflicts on the basis of a study of the case law of the European Court of Justice. Although this analysis provides some guidance for the taxation of companies when they carry out business activities throughout the European Union, it is concluded that the Court cannot, by itself: solve the conflict between the taxation of business income in a cross-border context and the objective of achievement of the internal market. / Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, 2011

Le citoyen de l’Union fait l’objet actuellement d’une attention particulière, se retrouvant notamment au centre du programme de Stockholm récemment adopté sur l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice. Toutefois, la notion du citoyen est trop étroite pour y loger le justiciable européen, déjà visé par la Cour dans son arrêt Van Gend en Loos, bénéficiaire d’une justice européenne qui progresse alors que se développe l’espace judiciaire européen.Dans ce domaine, les normes judiciaires nationales sont encadrées au service d’un droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective et uniforme, qui recouvre deux dimensions : au sein du marché intérieur, il permet la sauvegarde des droits que les justiciables tiennent des normes européennes ; dans le domaine de la coopération civile, il vise à atténuer les obstacles résultant du caractère transfrontière d’un litige. Le juge national est le relais de l’intervention européenne. Son importance grandit au fur et à mesure que les normes judiciaires de l’Union se développent. Il peut le cas échéant adapter son droit national, voire s’affranchir d’éventuelles contraintes. Il devient par ailleurs l’artisan d’une justice horizontale, organisée entre plusieurs juges nationaux, dans le domaine de la coopération civile.Dans l’ordre européen, le juge national n’est pas véritablement encadré par la Cour de justice, en raison des limites inhérentes à la fonction de la Cour et des réserves persistantes qu’opposent les États membres aux normes européennes. La Cour tend par ailleurs à déléguer de plus en plus l’interprétation de certaines notions au juge national. Le rôle du juge national se transforme ainsi en celui d’un véritable égal européen. / European Union citizens are currently the focus of special attention, notably being central to the Stockholm Programme recently adopted in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice. However, the notion of citizenship is too narrow to include people envisaged by the Court of Justice in its judgment Van Gend en Loos, who are the beneficiaries of a European justice that is expanding as the European Judicial Area develops.In this sphere, national judicial norms are subject to the right to an effective and uniform jurisdictional protection, which has two dimensions: in the Internal Market, it enables the rights derived from European law to be protected; in the field of Civil Cooperation, it tends to reduce obstacles arising from cross-border litigation. The judges in Member States are the intermediaries for European intervention. Their importance increases as European judicial norms develop. The judge in a Member State may, if necessary, adapt, or even depart from the constraints of, national law. Furthermore, he becomes the architect of a truly horizontal justice in the area of Civil Cooperation, in which several national judges participate.In the European legal system, the national judge is not really restricted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), because of limitations inherent in the Court’s function, and the continuing reservations of Member States opposed to European law. What is more, the European Court increasingly tends to delegate the interpretation of particular concepts to the national judge. Judges in Member States are thus gaining the status of partners equal to the judges of the ECJ in European justice.

Les systèmes fiscaux nationaux sont traditionnellement construits autour de la relation entre l’Etat et le contribuable. Au fondement de la notion d’ « Etat fiscal » (ce que la doctrine allemande appelle Steuerstaat), cette relation structure l’organisation du système fiscal, tenu de prendre en compte les facultés contributives, c’est-à-dire la capacité à payer des contribuables au regard de leur situation face à l’impôt. L’affirmation progressive de la portée fiscale du marché intérieur conduit à remettre en cause l’exclusivité de cette relation pour contraindre les systèmes fiscaux à se conformer aux objectifs propres au marché intérieur. Justifiée par le principe de primauté du droit de l’Union européenne, la « fiscalité de marché », c’est-à-dire un ensemble de règles fiscales accompagnant la construction et le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur, fragilise les principes constitutifs de l’Etat fiscal. Alors que les principes de la « fiscalité de marché », nés de la portée fiscale des libertés de circulation et de l’objectif de concurrence libre et non faussée, suivent la logique propre au marché intérieur, l’Etat fiscal est centré autour du contribuable. Il est nécessaire d’analyser la relation entre ces deux logiques potentiellement conflictuelles en recherchant si les principes fondamentaux de l’Etat fiscal sont incompatibles avec ceux de la « fiscalité de marché » . La « fiscalité de marché » contribue à une transformation du fonctionnement de l’Etat fiscal par l’affirmation d’une obligation de neutralité sur le marché. Toutefois, elle n’en remet pas en cause les fondations, particulièrement la prise en compte des facultés contributives par le législateur fiscal. La pérennité de l’Etat fiscal invite alors à s’interroger sur les moyens d’organiser sa coexistence avec les principes de la « fiscalité de marché ». / National tax systems are usually built upon the relation between State and Taxpayers. Laying at the foundations of the Fiscal State (what German doctrine calls Steuerstaat), this relation structures the very organization of the tax system which has to take taxpayer’s ability-to-pay into account. The affirmation of the fiscal scope of Internal market has led to question this relation’s exclusivity to force national tax systems to comply with Internal market’s goals. Based on the principle of primacy of the European Union Law, “market taxation” (fiscalité de marché), i.e. a whole set of tax rules going with the construction and the proper functioning of the Internal Market, weakens Fiscal State’s main principles. While “market taxation”’s principles are based on the fiscal scope given to freedoms of movement and undistorted competition and follow the Internal market’s goals, the Fiscal State is centered around the taxpayer. It is necessary to assess the relation between these possibly conflictual rationales by researching whether Fiscal State’s main principles go against those of “market taxation”. “Market Taxation” effectively leads to deep changes in the functioning of tax systems by enforcing a whole neutrality on the market. Nevertheless, Fiscal State’s foundations, in particular the legal obligation of taking taxpayers’ capacity-to-pay into account, are not disputed. Fiscal State’s continuity invites to examine how to organize its coexistence with “market taxation”’s principles.

Blockchain at the European Level Abstract The objective of this master thesis is to provide a basic overview of the blockchain technology, its features and its potential utilization, including an overview of European legal regulations that might be applicable to the technology, under certain conditions. In the first chapter, the master's thesis sets forth the legal framework of the EU primary law that establishes or can establish the EU's competence to act in the matters of blockchain technology, depending on its legal qualification (especially in the context of the internal market - namely the free movement of services and capital). The second and third chapters provide essential description of features of blockchain and cryptocurrency and related services. A more detailed description is provided in Annexes I-IV of this thesis. Further, the legal status and applicable regulation of cryptocurrencies are assessed at the European and national levels and in terms of other global jurisdictions. The assessment also includes the recent CJEU's judgment in the case Hedqvist, according to which bidirectional exchange services (purchase of cryptocurrency for fiat currency and vice versa) are to be exempted from VAT obligation under the VAT directive. In line with the CJEU's reasoning and the Advocate General's...

Alors que la construction communautaire prend ses racines dans l'adoption par six États européens du traité portant création de la Communauté du charbon et de l'acier (CECA), il faudra attendre 2009, pour qu'une politique de l'énergie soit introduite dans le droit primaire par le traité de Lisbonne. En dépit de cette consécration tardive, l'activisme de l'Union dans le domaine de l'énergie est incontestable, bien qu'il ne soit pas appréhendé uniformément au sein de la doctrine. Une partie d'entre elle estime qu'il n'existe toujours pas de politique énergétique européenne, tandis que l'autre considère que cette politique européenne existe mais qu'elle ne mérite pas, le qualificatif de« politique commune ». Ce débat doctrinal, qui s'insère dans le cadre de la théorie juridique des politiques en droit de l'Union, renvoie à une interrogation sur la nature et la portée exacte des interventions de l'Union dans le domaine de l'énergie. En effet l'analyse des actions entreprises par l'Union dans le secteur de l'énergie, depuis le traité CECA jusqu'à l'aune des années 90, révèle une montée en puissance de ces dernières, qui se traduit par une première mutation visant à substituer aux nombreuses actions partielles une première ébauche de vision globalisée des problématiques énergétiques au sein de la Communauté et ce, alors même qu'aucune politique de l'énergie n'avait été introduite dans le TCE. Les Etats membres étaient, en effet, très réticents à reconnaître une compétence à l'Union dans ce domaine, et ce pour différentes raisons liées aux multiples dimensions, économique, sociale, environnementale et sécuritaire d'une politique énergétique ainsi qu'à leur dépendance énergétique très diversifiée. Cet embryon de politique énergétique, enserrée dans des contraintes particulièrement fortes trouvera donc son ancrage juridique dans des bases juridiques indirectes ou subsidiaires et en particulier dans celles relatives à l'établissement d'un marché intérieur (Partie I). Pourtant, l'énergie est loin d'être un « objet économique ordinaire » et la soumission de ce secteur aux seules règles du marché pourrait générer de multiples menaces, notamment pour l'accomplissement des missions de service public, les exigences environnementales ou encore la sécurité de l'approvisionnement. Il aurait donc fallu, à l'occasion de l'introduction dans les traités d'une politique de l'énergie, mieux reconnaître la spécificité de ce secteur et prévoir en la matière la mise en place d'une politique véritablement commune. Or, le droit primaire hérité du traité de Lisbonne déçoit quelque peu : le nouvel article 194 du TFUE relatif à l'énergie, parait faire le choix d'une forme de statu quo et semble même remettre en cause certains aspects de cette politique. Pourtant, la dynamique communautaire parait enclenchée. Que ce soit dans le cadre du marché intérieur de l'énergie, via la régulation commune des marchés et la prise en compte de ses spécificités (sociale, sécuritaire, environnementale) ou dans celui du volet externe, au travers le renforcement des relations énergétiques avec les Etats tiers, la politique énergétique européenne s'oriente de plus en plus vers une vraie politique commune (Partie II). / The European Union construction has its origins in adoption by six European States of the ECSC Treaty. However, it will be necessary to wait until 2009, when a policy in the field of energy was integrated in the primary law by the treaty of Lisbon. Despite this late consecration, the activism of the Union in the field of energy is evident, even if it is far from being uniformly comprehended within the doctrine. One part of them considers, that the European energy policy still does not exist, while others consider that the European policy exists but that it should not be qualified as a “common policy”. This doctrinal debate, which is inserted as a part of the legal theory of polices in the European Union law, addresses a question on the nature and precise significance of the intervention of the Union in energy field.En fact, the analysis of actions undertaken by the EU in the energy sector since the ECSC Treaty up to the beginning of the nineties, reveals an increasing power of these last, ending up as a first mutation trying to substitute a number of partial actions by a first global vision of energetic policies within the Community. This was taking place without any energy policy introduction the TEC. The Member states were in reality very reluctant to acknowledge that the EU has a competence in this domain. This was due to numerous reasons linked to multiple dimensions: economic, social, environmental, and security issues of an energy policy, as well as their energetic dependence, which was quite varying. This embryo of an energy policy, inserted in particularly strong constraints, finds therefore its legal frame in indirect or subsidiary legal bases and especially in those relating to the establishment of the internal market (Part I). However, energy is far from being an “ordinary economic good” and the submission of this sector to market rules could generate multiple threats, notably for public service missions, environmental requirements or the security of supply. It would therefore have been necessary, on the occasion of introduction in the treaties of an energy policy, to better admit the specificity of this sector and to envisage in this field the establishment of a real common policy. But the primary law inherited from Lisbon Treaty is disappointing: the new article 194 of the TFUE relating to energy, seems to make the choice of status quo and even seems to put back some aspects of this policy. However, the Community dynamism is functioning. And either as a part of the internal market of energy, via common regulation of markets and taking into consideration of its specific characteristics (social, security, environmental), or in the one of external aspect, by reinforcing energy relations with third States, the European energy policy turns progressively into a real common policy (Part II).