<p>During the later half of the 20th century standard form contracts began to be used more frequently in contract situations. This trend has been consistent and in today’s world numerous commercial parties employ such contracts in their business transactions. The reasons for the extended use of standard form contracts are the benefits that can be obtained for the parties such as time efficiency, effectiveness and price advantages. Standardised contracts often regulate certain issues of the contract for example the way of delivery, remedies and complaints. The definition of such contracts is corresponding in Sweden and England as contracts containing in advance standardised terms with an aim to be used similarly in contract situations with most clients or customers.</p><p>As the usage of standard form contracts increased, the number of unfair contract terms also enhanced. Therefore, the legislative powers in Sweden and England realised that the rules concerning the freedom of contract had to be restricted and governed. As a result, the legislative powers introduced an open control device through statutory control. This was done in Sweden in 1976 with the enforcement of Section 36 of the Contracts Act, and in England the year after when UCTA came into force. The statutory control in both Sweden and England makes it possible to appraise the fairness of exemption clauses. The statutory control is not identical in the two states. UCTA only concerns exclusion clauses and limitation clauses regarding contract terms and non-contractual notices. In Sweden, on the other hand, there is a general doctrine of unfairness and Section 36 of the Contracts Act can set aside all kinds of agreements.</p><p>The statutory control is complemented by indirect means of controlling the content of a contract through non statutory methods. The non statutory methods are concerned with the incorporation, interpretation and construction of clauses in a contract. To be valid and for a party to be able to rely on a term it must have been incorporated into the contract. The rules concerning the interpretation of standard form contracts and exclusion clauses are also of great importance. In both states the approach held is that the statutory control should be used preferably over the indirect control means, though the indirect means still has a prominent role in England through common law. Both England and Sweden agree on that the weaker party in a contract situation is in a greater need of protection by the rules of law in unfair contract situations. However unfairness can only arise if the superior party has wrongfully used the exclusion clause.</p><p>Our study shows the differences between Swedish and English contract law that can result in difficulties in the harmonisation process. These differences concern the test of reasonableness of exemption clauses, the doctrine of good faith, the legal effects and to what extent the indirect means of control should be applied. The Swedish test of reasonableness may include all relevant circumstances irrespective of the time of their occurrence, before or after the entry of the contract. The courts in England are limited to circumstances that have occurred before the closure of the contract. Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act includes a general rule of unfairness applicable to all kinds of contract terms. The rule of unfairness in the UCTA on the other hand, is only applicable to exemption clauses and indemnity clauses and there is no general rule of unfairness in English contract law. Instead the courts rely on indirect means of control, which therefore is of greater importance in English contract law. Finally, adjustments of unfair exemption clauses has a significant role in Swedish contract law, in contrast to English contract law where any adjustment is regarded as an intrusion of the freedom of contract.</p><p>To endorse one of the most important aims of the EU; a well working inner market, discussions commenced in 2001. The discussions concerned the harmonisation of the contract law within the union. The questions that arose were whether or not it was possible at all to form a European common contract law and if so, what the effects would be. An action plan was developed by the Commission and today both the EU Parliament and the Council are positive in regard to the continuing work with a reference frame. The Commission aims to pass the reference frame in 2009. Since the EU member states are diverse and have different legal systems a harmonisation of the contract law could cause difficulties. There are differences concerning legal traditions and legal values, hence the legal expertise in Europe is divided in the harmonisation question.</p><p>The following study aims to analyse the existing rules of law in Sweden and England representing two diverse legal systems existing in Europe; civil law and common law. The focus of this study regards the control of exclusion clauses in standard form contracts in both legal systems. The comparison will then be used to analyse the fundamental question if the harmonisation of contract law in the EU is feasible. Specific areas within the contract law have already been harmonised, which shows a possibility to coordinate common law and civil law. Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts is one example of harmonised contract law in the EU and the principles in PECL is another example which shows that it is possible to coordinate common law and civil law. A harmonisation of the contract law will probably promote the commerce within the union and be the next step towards one of the most prominent goals of the EU, namely a well functioning common market. However, our study shows that the differences between national legislation and the differences between the legal traditions within the EU are not insignificant and a harmonisation will probably not be enforced without difficulties.</p>

The bachelor thesis examines the protection of religious freedom in Sweden and France, with a main point on the right to wear religious symbols and clothing. The subject is processed in relation to the Member States obligations in accordance with the freedom of religion, provided for in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The right to wear religious symbols and attire has a broad meaning, and in this thesis special focus is placed on the right to wear a religious veil, as the Swedish legal situation is in stark contrast to the French law's restrictive view on the subject. In order to answer the thesis main question, a legal-judicial and comparative law approach is applied. Legislation that has been dealt with in its entirety, is the second chapter in the Swedish regeringsformen (1974:152), the European Convention, the French principle of laïcité, the French Education Act (Article L141-5-1 du Code de l’éducation), the French law on the prohibition of veils in public environments (Loi n° 2010-1192  du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public) and the French Constitution (Constitution of October 4, 1958). Finally, the authors orientation in the research questions of the essay has been emphasized, and a remark about the French legislation has been made.

Den tekniska utvecklingen, närmare bestämt introduktionen av fenomenet självkörande fordon, har medfört att det i skrivande stund föreligger viss oklarhet beträffande ansvarsfrågan enligt gällande rätt. Denna oklarhet har varit föremål för diskussion i ett delbetänkande från regeringen. I SOU 2016:28 finns sammanfattade förslag på reglering, däremot endast avseende försöksverksamheten ”Drive Me” som biltillverkaren Volvo ligger bakom. För att bemöta denna oklarhet har rättsläget diskuterats och problematiserats i hopp om ökad insikt i frågan. Detta utifrån framförallt skadeståndslagen, trafikskadelagen och produktansvarslagen samt generella skadeståndsrättsliga principer och ansvarsformer. Sammantaget har det kunnat konstateras att det inte finns någon självklar lösning på problemet, även om det i ett flertal situationer går att få en uppfattning av vad som vore juridiskt rimligt. Uppsatsen bidrar således till en problematisering av rättsläget inför den kommande harmoniseringen av teknik och juridik; ett steg i utvecklingen. / The technological development, specifically the introduction of the phenomenon of driverless vehicles, has meant that the time of writing, some ambiguity regarding the issue of liability under the law exists. This uncertainty has been discussed in an interim report from the government. Proposals on regulation are summarized in current SOU, however, only for the pilot project “Drive Me” as the automaker Volvo is behind. In order to address this uncertainty, the legal position has discussed and problematized in the hope of increasing awareness on the issue. Mainly from tort liability, Traffic damage Act, product liability law and liability forms and general principles of tort law. Overall, it´s been established that there is no obvious solution to the problem, although it´s possible to get an idea of what would be legally reasonable in a number of situations. The essay contributes thus to a discussion of problems of the legal position for the upcoming harmonization of technology and law; a stage of development.

This master thesis examines Directive 2014/66/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer, the so-called ICT-directive and its corresponding rules in the Swedish legal framework with a main point on the principles of good administration. This issue is deliberated in relation to the direct effect of the European Union and the national procedural and institutional autonomy to determine whether the Directive’s procedural safeguards have been implemented satisfactorily. The principle of good administration has a wide comprehension and therefore, in this thesis, the focus is on the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially and fairly, an obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions and a right to be heard in the Directive and the corresponding rules of the Swedish utlänningslagen (2005:716) and utlänningsförordningen (2006:97) also with consideration to the Swedish förvaltningslagen (1986:223) and the new förvaltningslagen (2017:900). This master thesis is based on the legal-judicial and comparative law approaches to solve the legal problems that arise after the national implementation of this Directive. Finally, criticism has been directed towards the principle of good administration in the Union law and Swedish law. / I denna magisteruppsats analyseras Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2014/66/EU om villkor för inresa och vistelse för tredjelandsmedborgare inom ramen för företagsintern förflyttning av personal, det så kallade ICT-direktivet (Intra-Corporate Transfer) och de motsvarande reglerna i den svenska rätten med tonvikt på principen om god förvaltning. Ämnet behandlas i förhållande till Europeiska unionens direkta effekt och den nationella processuella och institutionella autonomin för att undersöka huruvida direktivets rättssäkerhetsgarantier har implementerats på ett tillfredställande sätt. Principen om god förvaltning har en bred förståelse och i denna uppsats sätts fokus på omsorgsprincipen, motiveringsskyldigheten och rätten att bli hörd i ICT-direktivet och de motsvarande reglerna i den svenska utlänningslagen (2005:716) och utlänningsförordningen (2006:97) samt med beaktande av förvaltningslagen (1986:223) och den nya förvaltningslagen (2017:900). Magisteruppsatsen tillämpar den rättsdogmatiska och komparativrättsliga metoden för att lösa de juridiska problemen som uppkommer vid den nationella implementeringen av ICT-direktivet. Slutligen har kritik riktats till principen om god förvaltning i unionsrätten och i den svenska rätten.

The need to collect electronic communications for foreign intelligence purposes has increased in the past two decades, primarily due to the increase of international threats such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, digitalization and technical innovation have given rise to new possibilities for government surveillance and expanded the scope of the types of communications that may be collected. This gives rise to issues concerning the balance between effective foreign intelligence activities and the protection of personal integrity. This thesis performs a comparative analysis of the protection of personal integrity in signals intelligence in Sweden and the United States, by examining the protection of personal integrity under the Swedish Instrument of Government and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (European Convention) compared to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the requirements for signals intelligence under the Swedish Act (2008:717) on Signals Intelligence in Defense Intelligence Operations (the Surveillance Act) and § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, as amended). The analysis further includes a review of the safeguards adopted in each legal system to limit the collection of communications and to ensure that personal integrity is considered in signals intelligence operations. In regard to the protection of personal integrity, the analysis concludes that Swedish law, combined with the European Convention, offers a wider and more extensive protection for individuals when compared to the United States’ framework. However, all provisions include a requirement of proportionality or reasonableness intended to balance the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of personal integrity. The analysis further concludes that the Fourth Amendment has limited impact on signals intelligence carried out under § 702 FISA due to its limitations to the people of the United States, and that individuals' ability to exercise their rights is greater under the European Convention. The European Convention further offers protection beyond Sweden's borders, resulting in some protection for non-Swedish persons. As for the signals intelligence conducted under the Surveillance Act and § 702 FISA, several similarities and differences are identified. Both regulations limit the signals intelligence to be carried out for certain purposes. However, a notable difference is that, while signals intelligence under both the Surveillance Act and § 702 FISA are limited to foreign conditions, Swedish signals intelligence may be conducted on communications that cross Sweden’s borders. Meanwhile, collection under § 702 FISA may only target non-US persons outside of the United States. Despite this difference, signals intelligence under both regulations result in the collection of communications of the country’s own citizens. To limit the collection, both the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment (Sw. Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA) and the United States National Security Agency (NSA) apply certain safeguards. These include the use of search terms in Swedish signals intelligence and selectors in American signals intelligence. While they are both used to make relevant selections in the collection of communications, there are some notable difference between the two. For example, selectors consist of, inter alia, an email address or phone number, while search terms should not, as a general rule, target a specific individual. Further, there is no warrant requirement for collections under § 702 FISA compared to the Surveillance Act, which requires court approval. Lastly, in regard to the control and review of Swedish and American signals intelligence, the analysis concludes that such activities are conducted in different manners in both legal systems. This includes both internal and external controls. However, the Swedish control units appear to have greater opportunities to intervene by, for example, controlling the FRA's access to signal carriers and interrupting an ongoing collection if needed.

Visselblåsarbegreppet har blivit ett allt mer frekvent förekommande inslag inom den unionsrättsliga lagstiftningen, och vikten av att beskydda arbetstagare som bistår myndigheter med information som kan stoppa överträdelser har på senare år uppmärksammats och betonats världen över. I samband med en modernisering och uppdatering av den finansmarknadsrättsliga lagstiftningen, inte minst till följd av den tekniska utvecklingen inom området, valde EU:s lagstiftande organ att göra en markering mot fysiska och juridiska personer som ägnar sig åt överträdelser som kan vilseleda aktörerna på de finansiella marknaderna. Bland annat infördes, genom ett antal nya rättsakter, enhetliga sanktioner samt minimibestämmelser för kriminalisering av vissa ageranden. Vid framtagandet av lagstiftningen diskuterades även på EU-nivå huruvida ett potentiellt införande av ekonomiska incitament för visselblåsare som bidrar med värdefull information i fråga om marknadsmissbruk borde utgöra en del av det sociala skyddet för nämnda individer. Medlemsstaterna hade redan i samband med tidigare unionsöverskridande lagstiftning ålagts att vidta särskilda åtgärder för att säkerställa att visselblåsare erhåller skydd gentemot arbetsgivare avseende hämndaktioner, men här, tydligt inspirerade av den amerikanska lagstiftningen i motsvarande område, öppnade EU för första gången för att låta unionsmedlemmarna erbjuda monetära utbetalningar till visselblåsare. I förevarande uppsats presenteras den aktuella EU-lagstiftningen samt den inhemska lagstiftning som bestämmelserna genererat i Sverige. Nämnda inslag sätts i relation till den amerikanska visselblåsarlagstiftningen. En redogörelse för lagstiftningens mottagande och effekt – kombinerat med teoretiska såväl som statistiska studier avseende ekonomiska incitament kopplat till visselblåsning – används för att besvara frågan huruvida ett införande av nämnda incitament skulle kunna utgöra ett ändamålsenligt inslag inom den svenska lagstiftningen. Min argumentation, vilken presenteras i analysdelen, utmynnar i ståndpunkten att ekonomiska incitament mycket väl skulle kunna utgöra en funktionell beståndsdel av visselblåsarskyddet, men att lagstiftningens utformning och det praktiska utförandet skulle kunna optimeras jämfört med dess amerikanska motsvarighet. Vidare vill jag i analysavsnittet betona vikten av ett skifte i inställning och attityd inom europeisk rättskultur gentemot visselblåsare.