In July 2021 a new penal provision on violation of a child's integrity, was introduced in the Swedish legal system. The penalty provision is found in Chapter 4 of the Penal Code. It entails a special criminal responsibility for a person who commits a criminal act against a person close to them, when the act is witnessed by a child. Children who witness domestic violence or other criminal acts between parents or persons close to them are a particular vulnerable group. These children often lack criminal law 1 protection. The new provision on violation of a child's integrity has mostly been well received. The child who witnessed the criminal act will now be a plaintiff with the right to his own special legal representative. There will be a chance that the new provision will strengthen the child's right under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This specifically concerns Article 12 the child's right to be heard. Even so there seems to be several difficulties with the provision in the law enforcement. This essay will explore some of these difficulties.

Digitalisation has fundamentally changed the way we communicate, conduct trade and consume goods and services. It has also enabled new business models to evolve. Some firms in the digital sector have developed and are now operating large conglomerate-like networks commonly referred to as ‘digital ecosystems’. Most digital ecosystems involve several autonomous, yet interdependent, firms. They offer diverse sets of different goods and services that often are technologically or economically interlinked and thus provide more value when bought or used together. Ecosystem business structures exist in many industries but a distinct feature of those in the digital sector is that the interdependencies within them are driven by digital technology and data connectivity. This affects how digital ecosystems function and how they need to be assessed under competition law. One of the ways in which digital ecosystems can expand and broaden their product portfolios is through mergers and acquisitions. The world’s five largest digital ecosystem operators – Alphabet (formerly Google), Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), Amazon, and Microsoft – have together acquired over 800 firms during their relatively short lifetime. The intense merger and acquisition activity observed in the digital sector in the past years has raised concerns about the ability of European Union merger control to ensure that competition in this sector is not distorted by digital ecosystems’ expansion strategies. These concerns relate both to the adequacy of the current procedural system and to the precision of the analytical framework for assessing digital ecosystem mergers. This paper focuses mainly on the latter issue, and more specifically, on the theories of harm that have been applied in assessments of acquisitions by the five digital ecosystem operators mentioned above as well as on the need for alternative approaches or theories of harm for these mergers. It is shown that the assessments largely follow the traditional analytical framework of European Union merger control but that many of the special characteristics of digital markets and digital ecosystems are also taken into consideration. Yet, it is argued in this paper that there is a need for alternative approaches and theories of harm to better account for the competitive implications of digital ecosystem mergers.

No description available.

The stock market has proven to offer satisfactory means of raising capital for public companies. One behaviour that rather frequently can be observed is that companies on the stock market are becoming the subject of so-called takeover-offers. Immediately upon the commencement of a takeover-process the board of directors of a target-company is responsible for certain obligations stipulated in the legal framework for the stock market. An obligation of quite substantial significance for the shareholders in the target-company is the board of directors’ duty to make a statement on the takeover-offer. Since the said statement is of such significance for the shareholders, the question arises whether the board of directors can be held liable for irresponsible statements with regards to an imminent takeover-offer. This thesis aims to answer this question whilst examining closely related questions such as which obligations the board of directors has when making a statement on a takeover-offer as well as what basis of liability is applicable to the board of directors. Due to the nature of the Swedish capital market regulation the thesis also aims to illustrate and problematize the relationship between legislation and what is commonly referred to as self-regulation. By the means of a legal dogmatic method the thesis concludes that the boards of directors in some cases are liable for their statements on a takeover-offer. The conditions for which a basis of liability is applicable differs depending upon which ground of liability is chosen to establish said liability, this circumstance turns out to be of critical importance in a procedural sense. Although the basis of liability differs from one another the thesis displays that legitimate reasons speak for basing a claim for damages on the rule regarding tortious liability that the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has developed. In addition to how the board of directors can be held liable the research has also demonstrated the importance of the statements the board of directors make on a takeover-offer. This provides support to the belief that the board of directors should be able to be held responsible for careless statements with regards to an impending takeover-offer. Furthermore, the research shows that a lack of distinct conjunction between self-regulation and legislation could generate an inconsistent construction of what the content of the current law is at any given time.

This thesis aims to analyse the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) potential violation of the right to a fair trial in placing alleged terrorists on the infamous ‘kill list’ without due process. The CIA has operated a targeted killing program using Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (AUAV) over ‘areas outside active hostilities’, such as Yemen, since 2002. Due process is inherent to modern democratic societies and shapes their rule of law. The doctrinal legal analysis makes use of the key principles of due process to analyse the relevant Presidential Policy Guidance, its compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Art. 14, and a case study. These key principles and analyses will result in a clear overview of the program’s violations of the right to a fair trial. Concluding that the CIA’s AUAV program for targeted killing, particularly in Yemen, constitute extrajudicial executions.

Since the adoption of the renewed EU strategy for Corporate Social Responsibility in 2011, inspired by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the EU has made efforts to foster responsible business conduct and enhance access to remedies for victims of negative environmental and human rights impacts generated by corporate activities. As voluntary approaches have proved insufficient in generating the necessary adjustments in business operations, the European Commission presented its proposal for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDD) in February 2022. This legal instrument will serve various purposes: it will level the playing field for large companies in the EU, introduce a legal standard of care through the due diligence process, and ameliorate the hurdles that victims of harmful corporate activities face in seeking justice against multinational enterprises with significant economic power. The CSDD proposal will require large businesses operating in the European internal market, both European and non-EU companies, to carry out due diligence concerning the negative impacts on human rights and the environment, including those of their subsidiaries and business partners. The sustainability due diligence process demands, among other things, identifying actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts, preventing or mitigating potential impacts, and ending or minimizing actual impacts in business activities. The extent of this responsibility in companies' value chains is a debated topic in the proposal, as it is a key factor in determining civil liability for harms caused by companies' lack of compliance. The civil liability rule introduced by CSDD may help victims pierce the corporate veil and claim responsibility from parent companies for the damage caused by their subsidiaries and business partners' activities when the parent company fails to fulfill its due diligence obligations. Together, the due diligence requirements and the civil liability rule in the directive will fill the legal gap in the protection of human rights and the environment, taking into consideration for the first time the particularities of transnational civil litigations, the extent and nature of the damage, and the power imbalances between the parties in dispute. However, are these promising provisions capable of making a real change? There is sufficient empirical evidence confirming that big companies use the principle of limited liability strategically—not only within corporate groups through their subsidiaries but also through their business partners—to reshape the boundaries of the company and minimize liability risk. Research suggests that the CSDD's promising provisions may not reduce the frequency of negative impacts on human rights and the environment, as the root causes that make such harms possible may lie in how corporate law is currently conceived.

Varumärkesrätten innefattar en bred definition av vilka kännetecken som kan konstituera ett varumärke, vilken inkluderar formen på en vara. När kännetecknet består av en varuform utgör således varan i sig kännetecknet och därmed varumärket. Vid en varumärkesregistrering ska bedömningen av olika kategorier av kännetecken inte skilja sig åt, men för varuformer finns ytterligare hinder vid registrering jämfört med andra typer av kännetecken. Ett sådant registreringshinder avser specifikt funktionella former. Många former tenderar att vara funktionella till viss grad, vilket aktualiserar art. 7.1 e) ii) VmF. Artikeln föreskriver ett absolut registreringshinder mot att registerna former som endast består av ”en varas form eller annan egenskap hos varan som krävs för att uppnå ett tekniskt resultat”. Om en varuform hindras registrering enligt artikeln, är uteslutningen från registrering permanent. Det innebär att registreringshindret inte kan övervinnas även om formen förvärvar särskiljningsförmåga på marknaden. EUD har uttalat att det inte vore skäligt att neka registrering av varuformer endast på grund av att de innehar några funktionella element. För att ett kännetecken ska falla inom ramen för artikeln behöver således en forms alla väsentliga särdrag falla inom ramen för bestämmelsen. Detta medför viss problematik när det kommer till hybridkännetecken vilka innehar vissa element som är funktionella, men även andra element som är icke-funktionella. Enligt gällande rätt kan hybridkännetecken registreras som varumärken om de innehar icke-funktionella särdrag som anses vara väsentliga. Hela formen av ett hybridkännetecken kan således registreras som ett varumärke under förutsättning att endast några av de väsentliga särdragen krävs för att uppnå den tekniska funktionen. Genom en undersökning av rättspraxis konstateras att EUD utför en fri och långtgående undersökning vid bedömning av vad som utgör en forms väsentliga särdrag och dessa särdrags eventuella funktion. EUD är inte bunden till vad som anges i varumärkesansökan, utan undersöker även den faktiska varan på marknaden för vilket kännetecknet är ämnat att användas. EUD verkar generellt vara restriktiv med att låta tredimensionella former registreras, inte minst när de innehåller funktionella element. Möjligen beror den negativa inställningen till att registrera hybridkännetecken på bristen av effektiva lösningar att tydligt undanta de funktionella elementen från registrering. Vid en registrering av hybridkännetecken uppstår även intressanta aspekter ur intrångssynpunkt eftersom formen är registrerad som en helhet, även om vissa väsentliga särdrag inte är ämnade att omfattas av ensamrätten. Vid analoga tillämpningar av rättspraxis framstår det som att dessa element, utan att det explicit framgår av exempelvis en disclaimer, ska vara undantagna från den ensamrätt som erhålls varumärkesinnehavaren. / The trade mark law includes a very broad definition of signs that can constitute a trade mark, which includes the shape of a product. When a sign consists of the shape of a product, the product itself becomes the sign and thus the trade mark. In the case of a trade mark registration, the assessment should not differ between different categories of signs. However, when it comes to registration for signs consisting of the shape of a product, there are further obstacles to overcome before protection can be granted compared to other types of signs. Many shapes tend to be functional to some extent, which brings relevance to the absolute ground for refusal found in art. 7.1 e) ii) EUTMR. The article prohibits registration of signs which consist exclusively of “the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result”. If the registration of a sign is prohibited by the article, the exclusion from registration is permanent. This means that the ground for refusal cannot be overcome even if the sign acquires distinctiveness on the market. The CJEU has stated that it would not be reasonable to deny a shape registration only on the sole ground that it has some functional elements. Therefore, in order for a sign to fall within the scope of the article, all the essential characteristics of a shape must fall within the scope of the provision. This causes certain difficulties when it comes to hybrid signs, which possess some elements that are functional, but also other elements that are non-functional. Under current law, hybrid signs can be registered as trade marks if the non-functional elements are considered as essential. The entire form of a hybrid sign can thus be registered as a trade mark only if some, but not all, essential characteristics are required to achieve the technical function. By examining case law, it can be stated that the CJEU carry out a free and extensive examination when assessing what constitutes the essential characteristics of a shape and the possible function of these elements. The CJEU is not bound to the trade mark application but also examines the actual goods for which the sign is intended to be used. The CJEU generally seems to be restrictive in allowing registration for three-dimensional shapes, especially in regard to those incorporating functional elements. This might be the case since there is no good way to clearly exclude the functional elements from the registration. However, when registering a hybrid sign, interesting aspects also arise from the infringement point of view since the shape is registered as a whole but contains certain essential features, which are not intended to be covered by the exclusive right granted. In analogous applications of case law, it appears that these elements, without being explicitly stated in e.g. a disclaimer, must be excluded from the exclusive right granted to the proprietor.

Legislation on benefit sharing dates back to 1992 and the commandment of the UNConvention on Biological Diversity, hence implementation still has few cases to fall back on(CBD, 1992). The case study of the project ProBenefit presented by the thesis highlights howlack of deliberation can undermine a democratic process. The objective of the thesis is thatProBenefit’s attempt to implement the standards of the CBD on access and benefit sharingwill highlight not only problems met by this specific project, but difficulties that generallymeet democratic processes in contexts of high inequality. To define if the project ProBenefitsucceeded in carrying out a deliberative process the project will be analyzed by the criteria:access to information, representation, legitimacy and involvement.The population in the project area of ProBenefit had a long history of social marginalization,which made it hard for foreign projects to gain legitimacy. The lack of independentorganizations and the late establishment of the project, which resulted in time shortage, madeit impossible to prevent the distrust of the local population. The failure of the projectcoordinators to ensure active participation of all stakeholders resulted in a late and lowinvolvement of the local participants. The absence of independent organization also madedemocratic legitimacy of the process questionable. Even if ProBenefit had a vision ofdemocratic deliberation the project was unable to break down the prevailing unequal powerdistribution which resulted in an unsustainable process and failure. The conclusion of thethesis is that the attainment of deliberation foremost depends on how a project deals with theexisting distribution of power and how it succeeds in involving all stakeholders.

Different interpretations of the New York Convention’s Article V(1)(e) have caused inconsistencies regarding how courts deal with applications for enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards. Court cases from various Contracting States display that the courts have adopted different approaches to this matter. With the rising number of challenges of awards, the issue has become increasingly important. The author examines international case law to analyze the issue of enforcement of annulled arbitral awards with the purpose of suggesting a possible Swedish approach. A number of aspects support the view that national courts have discretion when deciding whether to enforce a foreign arbitral award notwithstanding that has been annulled in the country of origin. Both the New York Convention and the Swedish Arbitration Act leaves narrow room for the court to exercise this discretion. The author suggests that enforcement of an annulled foreign arbitral award should be possible in Sweden under certain exceptional circumstances. If the competent authority in the country where the award was made annuls the award for reasons totally unacceptable from a Swedish point of view, the option to enforce the foreign arbitral award in Sweden should still be available. This approach is in line with the wording and purpose of both the New York Convention and the Swedish Arbitration Act. The suggested Swedish approach would not cause any serious uncertainty for the parties to the arbitration, but would create a necessary safety-valve for the courts to avoid having to refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award when it has been set aside for obscure reasons or by a corrupt court. As is evident from international case law, the interpretation and application of Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention varies depending on what country enforcement is sought. To avoid contributing to further inconsistencies, it is necessary for Swedish authorities and practitioners to consider the issues addressed in the study.

Det har varit möjligt att paketera tillgångar i bolag sedan reglerna om näringsbetingade andelar infördes år 2003. Att paketera en tillgång i ett bolag innebär att det bolag som äger tillgången placerar denna i ett helägt dotterbolag, exempelvis genom en underprisöverlåtelse, för att sedan avyttra andelarna i dotterbolaget istället för att sälja tillgången direkt. Genom att paketera tillgångar på detta vis kan moderbolaget avyttra tillgångar utan att försäljningsvinsten ska näringsbeskattas. I och med att det blir andelar i ett helägt dotterbolag som moderbolaget säljer kan dessa andelar ses som näringsbetingade andelar. En vinst på näringsbetingade andelar ska inte tas upp till beskattning. Lagstiftaren förutsåg att detta skulle bli en följd av införandet av reglerna om näringsbetingade andelar, men förfarandet har ansetts vara alldeles för komplicerat att lagstifta emot. Det vanligaste paketeringsförfarandet är att fastigheter paketeras i dotterbolag. Fastigheter är den tillgång som generellt har högst värde, vilket gör det mycket lönsamt att sälja dem genom ett paketeringsbolag. Paketeringsförfarandet har under åren utvecklats till att bolagen använder oäkta bostadsrättsföreningar i vilka de paketera bostadsrätter. Det har inte varit helt klart hur andelarna i de oäkta bostadsrättsföreningarna skattemässigt ska klassificeras, vilket har lett till en omfattande rättspraxis som fram till år 2019 saknade prejudikat. Det avgörande för om det ska vara lönsamt för bolag att paketera tillgångar är om andelarna i paketeringsbolaget ska klassas som lagertillgångar eller som kapitaltillgångar. Om andelarna ska klassas som lagertillgångar ska andelsförsäljningen tas upp till beskattning, men om de ska klassas som kapitaltillgångar kan de ses som näringsbetingade andelar, vilka är undantagna från beskattning. En stor del av klassificering av andelar baseras på tidigare rättspraxis för när en verksamhet ska ses som en byggnadsrörelse, när handel med fastigheter ska anses föreligga samt paketering av fastigheter. Syftet med denna uppsats har varit att klargöra vilka kriterier den skattemässiga klassificeringen av andelarna i oäkta bostadsrättsföreningar baseras på och alltså när andelarna ska ses som lagertillgång respektive kapitaltillgång. Genom att analysera ett flertal rättsfall på området är slutsatsen att detta görs genom samma bedömning som för byggnadsrörelse, handel med fastigheter och paketering av fastigheter. Det som avgör om andelarna ska ses som lagertillgångar eller kapitaltillgångar är om bolaget kan anses bedriva yrkesmässig handel med bostadsrätter. Det avgörs i sin tur genom att beakta antal sålda bostadsrätter, försäljningsfrekvensen, innehavstiden och bolagets syfte med förvärvet av bostadsrätterna. Prejudikatet HFD 2019 ref 47 klargjorde att en bostadsrätt inte kan jämställas med ett värdepapper samt att vägledning i andelsklassificeringen kan hämtas från rättspraxis rörande handel med fastigheter.