No description available.

The European Court of Justice stated in judgement of 19 December 2018,Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato - Antitrust och Coopservice,C-216/17, EU:C:2018:1034 that a framework agreement by a contractingauthority must determine an indication of the quantity of the services which theframework agreement covers. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice statedthat a contracting authority can make commitments only up to a certain quantityand once that limit has been reached the agreement will no longer have any effect.The statement that a framework agreement would no longer have any effectonce the limit has been reached is not further developed by the European Courtof Justice which has led to many different interpretations. The purpose of thiswork is to clarify how the statement by the European Court of Justice should beinterpret regarding when the quantity needs to be determined, how it should beindicated and which consequences that follows if the quantity is not determined.The method for this work is the legal dogmatic method.The main conclusions from this work are that a limit for quantity should begiven for all framework contracts with one single or several economic operatorswith some exceptions and that the contracting authority has some room forflexibility when determining the quantity. The consequences that can followwhen a contracting authority does not indicate a quantity limit is that aprocurement process need to start over. The fact that a limit has not been givenshould not be a ground to invalidate a contract that already has been concluded.If the contracting authority passes the limit the exceeding part could beinvalidated by the court. An indicated limit that with disproportionate marginfalls below the contracting authority actual need is contrary to the principle oftransparency. Lastly, the obligation to determine a quantity limit does not affectthe party’s obligations according to the contract since that is a question of civillaw.

No description available.

Fastställande av utebliven vinst har visat sig vara komplicerat och de utdömda skadestånden har kritiserats för att vara låga.  I uppsatsen konstateras att detta huvudsakligen beror på att omfattningen av immateriella skador omöjligen kan bevisas i sedvanlig mening och då, i synnerhet, kausalitet mellan skadan och intrånget. Detta ger upphov till att rättighetshavaren enbart kan bevisa omständigheter som ger domstolen konkret underlag för antaganden om beloppets storlek.  Hur rättighetshavaren ska bevisa de relevanta omständigheterna är uppsatsens huvudsakliga syfte, med slutsatsen att höga krav ställs och bör ställas på rättighetshavarens utredning. Utifrån de problem som föreligger på området behöver domstolen använda en något kontradiktorisk metod där den vid behandling av bevisfrågor behöver vara sträng, strukturerad och transparent i sina resonemang. Medan domstolen vid antagandena om beloppets storlek måste ha ett flexibelt och förlåtande förhållningssätt där en överdriven rädsla för överkompensation undviks, eftersom utebliven vinst omöjligen kan fastställas och innefattar utebliven försäljningsökning. I uppsatsen fastslås även att obehörig vinst är en självständig ersättningsbestämningsfaktor, vilken grundar sig i intrångsgörarens förmögenhetsställning. Obehörig vinst är således inte, som lagstiftaren antog vid implementeringen av det så kallade sanktionsdirektivet, beroende av utebliven vinst. Slutsatsen om obehöriga vinstens självständighet anses följa av sanktionsdirektivets systematik och vara nödvändig för att uppfylla skadeståndsbestämmelsernas preventiva syfte. Möjligheterna med obehörig vinst utreds och betydelsen av obehörig vinst förutspås öka i rättstillämpningen framöver.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The possibility of judicial proceedings of administrative decisions are considered to be an important guarantee of legal certainty for individuals. Judicial proceedings are considered so important that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has provided for a right to judicial proceedings for civil rights and for criminal charges. The European Court of Human Rights has established a number of criteria that must be met in order for a right to judicial proceedings is considered to exist. Due to the imprecise design of the criteria and a lack of definitions, the criteria are difficult for national courts to apply. For the national courts, this is causing major problems. It is possible to classify something as a right or as a criminal charge only if the European Court of Human Rights makes a statement.  Despite the fact that according to the Convention there is a right to judicial proceedings, there is sometimes a prohibition on appeal to national law which means that certain decisions may not be appealed. The national supreme courts has stated that such a prohibition on appeal may need to be set aside if it is contrary to the Convention. This order does not appear other than in case law, which makes the order appear contradictory. This is because the legislation provides for a prohibition to appeal on a certain decision and the courts at the same time can accept a judicial proceeding with reference to the requirements of the Convention.  The current order means that it is difficult for individuals to understand that a decision with a prohibition to appeal can, after all, sometimes be appealed. The system is problematic, not only for individuals but also judges and decision-makers of the administrative authorities who must understand the regulation and be able to apply it. The Supreme Administrative Court has stated that it is not possible to give a general statement regarding all prohibitions on appeal. An examination must take place in relation to each individual provision. Such a system is not only unpredictable but also complicated and expensive.  The conclusion is that the current system is inappropriate. Most prohibitions on appeal in Swedish law are in conflict with the Convention. There is a high risk that not all judges will reach the same conclusion in the examination of whether the prohibition on appeal should be set aside and it entails that legal certainty is undermined. This paper proposes a change to the system which means that the national prohibitions on appeal should be completely removed. Instead, the appealability of administrative decisions should be examined in the light of 41 § of the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900).

No description available.

No description available.