The submitted dissertation thesis analyses the principle of primacy of EU law from the basic point of view of legal theory. It points out different approaches to the primacy principle and examines the arguments on which these approaches are based. The fist part of the thesis deals with the examination of the primacy principle related to its legal basis, using the sources most frequently listed in the literature: the founding treaties, the case law of the Court of Justice, legal theory (Kelsen's basic norm, Hart's rule of recognition and the legal sociology approaches), and international and national law. I have focused on the historical documents (Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community), the concepts based on them (doctrine of the conferred powers and the principle of subsidiarity), and the non-ratified Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe and legally non-binding Declaration No. 17 attached to the Lisbon Treaty. I have applied a critical approach to the argumentation of the Court of Justice in the decisions establishing the principle of primacy: Van Gend en Loos, Costa, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, Simmenthal. Taking into account the existing objections against the arguments used by the Court of Justice, I have...

EU har gradvis utökat sin normgivningskompetens, ofta på bekostnad av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning. Detta har nyligen aktualiserats för Sverige på grund av Dataskyddsförordningen som i folkmun kallas GDPR. I och med att det traditionellt sett har funnits ett starkare dataskydd i EU-rätt jämfört med svensk rätt blir den inhemska lagstiftningen onekligen påverkad av förordningen. Den här uppsatsen avser analysera specifikt offentlighetsprincipen som är stadgad i Sveriges grundlag. Syftet är att identifiera huruvida rätten att ta del av allmänna handlingar, som är en del av offentlighetsprincipen, kan komma att inskränkas med hänsyn till principen om EU-rättens företräde. Syftet uppnås genom fyra etapper. Först sker en historisk tillbakablick av diskussionen vid det svenska unionstillträdet om offentlighetsprincipens fortlevnad. Efter detta görs en jämförelse mellan GDPR och intern rätt för att identifiera eventuella motsättningar. Vidare analyseras praxis från både Sverige och EU-domstolen för att visa på likheter och skillnader i avvägningen mellan offentlighet och sekretess. Till sist utreds hur principen om EU-rättens företräde kan tolkas tillsammans med andra unionsrättsliga bestämmelser för att antingen åsidosätta den nationella lagstiftningen eller hålla den intakt. Författaren föreslår slutledningsvis att effekten på offentlighetsprincipen är försumlig samtidigt som möjligheten att tolka mål härom delvis har skiftat från medlemsstaten till EU-domstolen. / The EU has gradually expanded its legislative competence, often at the expense of member state legislation. This has recently become highly relevant for Sweden due to the recent data protection regulation, the GDPR. Since there has traditionally been a stronger protection for personal data in the EU in comparison to Sweden, domestic Swedish law will become affected by the GDPR coming into force. Within this backdrop, the focus in this thesis will be the right to access public documents, which is established in the Swedish constitution. The aim with this work is to identify in what respect the right to access public documents will be affected considering the principle of primacy according to EU law. The aim is pursued in four steps. First, the former discussion on how the right to access public documents would be affected due to Sweden’s entrance to the EU will be presented. Secondly, the compliance of Swedish law in relation to the GDPR in order to identify potential conflict of norms will be reviewed. Thirdly, case law of the ECJ and Swedish courts in order to show the differentiation between balancing transparency and personal integrity will be reviewed. Finally, it will be analysed how the primacy of EU law can be interpreted together with other EU norms to either override the Swedish constitutional law or leave it intact. The findings suggest that while the effect of the GDPR on the Swedish “offentlighetsprincipen” is negligible, the right to interpret such cases has gradually shifted from relying partly on the member state to the EU.

Primauté absolue du droit de l’UE ou suprématie des dispositions constitutionnelles ? Consacrée à l’analyse des conflits nés ou à naître entre normes constitutionnelle et celles du droit de l’UE, cette étude doctorale s’est focalisée sur l’analyse du lien entre les termes primauté et recours pour relever que dans ce genre de litiges contentieux un syllogisme juridique inédit est appliqué. Il s’agit de celui qui préserve cumulativement le critère hiérarchique caractérisant les ordres juridiques internes des États membres, à son sommet le principe de suprématie des dispositions constitutionnelles sur toutes les autres et l’application effective de la primauté matérielle du droit de l’Union ; les évolutions récentes du droit interne de l’UE convergent toutes dans ce sens : dans le cadre d’un litige contentieux, la primauté n’est plus une problématique de légalité constitutionnelle, le conflit est contourné. En la matière, les débats sur l’autorité et la force du droit international classique sur le droit constitutionnel ne se pose plus. Il a été séparé entre la force et l’effet des traités du droit international de l’Union. Pourtant sur le plan des principes, même au sein d’un État fédéral, le contenu définitionnel et surtout le maniement du texte constitutionnel n’ont pas été revisités ; la Constitution est le fondement sans être le contenu de validité de la primauté du droit de l’Union, le texte suprême opère en tant que technique de renvoi, il cadre deux types de champs en fonction du critère de l’objet du litige contentieux. Suprématie et primauté sont deux principes de nature juridique différente qui ne s’affrontent pas. La prévalence de la primauté matérielle du droit de l’Union n’affecte nullement la suprématie au sommet de la hiérarchie pyramidale des normes de chacun des États adhérents. / Absolute primacy of Community law or supremacy of constitutional provisions ? Devoted to the analysis of the conflicts born or to be born between EU law and constitutional standards, this doctoral study focused on analysis of the link between the terms of primacy or preemption rule and jurisdictional actions to raise that in this kind of litigation disputes a unreported legal syllogism is applied. It's one that cumulatively preserves the hierarchical criterion characterizing the domestic legal systems of the Member States, at its peak the principle of supremacy of the Constitution over all others and the effective application of the material primacy of Union law ; recent developments in internal law of the Union converge in this sense : in a dispute litigation, primacy is no longer a problem of constitutional legality, the conflict is circumvent. Concerning this matter, the debate on the authority and the force of traditional international law on constitutional law no longer arises. It has been separated between the force and the effect of the treaties of international law of the Union. Yet in terms of principles, even within a federal State, the definitional content and especially the handling of the constitutional text have not been revisited ; the Constitution is the legal basis without being the content validity of the primacy of Union law, the supreme text operates as a reference technique, it fits two types of fields based on the criterion of the contentious issue. Supremacy and rule are two different legal nature principles which do not compete. The prevalence of the material primacy of Union law sets no supremacy at the top of the pyramidal hierarchy of standards of each of the acceding States.