The principle of non-regression is an novel concept in the EU rule of law area. The Court of Justice of the European Union ("Court" or "CJEU") has recently discussed it e.g., in Repubblika (Maltese Judges), Commission versus Poland (Disciplinary régime applicable to judges), Advocate General  Tanchev in his Opinion in A.K. v. KRS (Independence of the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court). This paper examines the non-regression principle with a focus on the rule of law and judicial independence in the EU not least because it is understudied. Its potential is underestimated for expanding the reasoning of the CJEU, and the Commission as regards their approach to addressing the sustained attacks on judicial independence in the two Central and Eastern European countris of Poland and Hungary, but also increasingly, judging from the rising number of judicial independence and rule of law cases, in Romania. Maltese Judges is the first ruling of the Court in which the principle of non-regression appeared. In this landmark judgement, acording to Leloup, Kochenov, and Dimitrovs, the Court asserted "an entirely new "non-regression" principle in EU law based on the connection between Arts. 49 and 2 TEU, (...) and addressed a well-known lacuna undermining the EU legal order". In light of that ruling, it is useful to set subsequent research questions: What is the substance and scope of the principle of non-regression in the rule of law and in relation to judicial independence in the EU, and what are the recent trends in the Court´s case law whereby this principle has been invoked to address the rule of law backsliding in the Member States? Can we discern the benchmarks, in the form of substantive standards and in terms of time, against which regression is measured? Considering that, until now, the principle of non-regression has been employed principally with regard to judicial independence, could we apply the concept with respect to other EU values such as democracy, or fundamental rights?

No description available.

Die EU befindet sich in einer Krise der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, die Gegenstand vielfältiger Konflikte zwischen ihr und einigen ihrer Mitgliedstaaten ist. Viele Analysen nehmen die Krise aus einem juristischen Blickwinkel unter die Lupe. Dieser Band erweitert hingegen den Fokus und bringt Perspektiven aus verschiedenen Disziplinen, Ländern und von außerhalb der Wissenschaft mit einem empirischen Schwerpunkt auf Deutschland, Polen und Tschechien in der EU zusammen. Die Beiträge liefern wichtiges Wissen über Rechtsstaatlichkeit und richterliche Unabhängigkeit in den untersuchten Ländern.

In October 2021, 137 countries and jurisdictions agreed on a common approach towards a global minimum tax of 15% on the profits of large multinational companies that is referred to as the Pillar Two Model Rules, ‘Anti Global Base Erosion’, or ‘GloBE’ Rules. This political agreement implies that member countries who wish to implement such a tax regime have to streamline its design by modelling it after the so called Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (‘GloBE’) that the IF has developed as ‘Pillar 2’ of its work program on tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy. On 17 June 2015, the European Commission presented an Action Plan for a fairer and more efficient corporate tax system in the European Union (EU). The powerful document re-defines the future course of corporate taxation in the EU. The GloBE Model Rules are an opportunity – an impulse – for the European Union to begin coordinating tax rates in corporate income tax among its Member States and to proceed further, in the near future, in the direction of harmonizing those rates. On December 22, 2021, the European Union (EU) announced the Proposal for a Directive to ensure a global minimum level of taxes for multinational groups. It follows the Pillar Two implementation planoutlined in the Inclusive Framework (IF) statement released on October 8, 2021, and the model rules published on December 20, 2021.5In this thesis the authors focus on whether the Global Anti-Base Erosion (‘GloBE’) rules, specifically Income Inclusion Rule, as set out in an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (‘OECD’) Blueprint of October 2020, comply with the EU fundamental freedoms. This compatibility is tested based on two differentscenario’s. In the first scenario the assumption is taken that the GloBErules will be implemented directly by the Members States (Assumption A). It will be addressed by the rule of reason doctrine by analysing which freedoms are getting affected then making a restriction test, then justification test and finally the proportionality test. In the second assumption is that the GloBE-rules will be implemented indirectly through an EU Directive (Assumption B). This analysis will show that, even though the GloBE-rules conflict with the freedom of establishment, they could still be implemented effectively because of the considerable discretion granted to the Union legislature by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).7 The directive at discussion in the thesis is the Minimum tax directive 2022/2523.

This dissertation examines jury nullification - the ability of American juries in particular criminal cases to ignore or override valid law to be applied to defendants by acquitting them in cases in which the facts are undisputed or clear - as an exercise of sovereignty over the friend-enemy distinction as those terms are defined by Carl Schmitt. It begins with a biography of Schmitt and a description of his concept of sovereignty as ultimate decisional power. It then discusses sovereignty in the American context, with particular attention to the principles of the Founding and the nature of the fictively constructed American people. It next applies Schmitt's concept of decisional sovereignty to the American context, concluding that sovereignty in America is diffuse, and its exercise by particular governmental actors is to some degree cloaked, and that the sovereignty of the American people, while crucial to the founding moment, is largely latent in ordinary times. This application of Schmitt to sovereignty in America also demonstrates the deep tension between democratic popular sovereignty and rule-of-law liberalism. The dissertation then turns to Schmitt's understanding of the distinction between friend and enemy as the central political axis, and argues that the criminal in the American context is functionally the enemy, if not the absolute enemy of the polity. It then discusses in detail the mechanics and history of jury nullification, ultimately concluding that jury nullification both operates at the crucial political moment at which enemies are generated (or not) through the application of criminal law to defendants, and is an act of popular sovereignty, intended by the Founders to help preserve a balance between democracy and liberalism by maintaining a central political role for the people.

The obstacles that hinder democracy in Latin America are the topics of interest of this research. Loopholes within Latin American democratic systems of governance are a cause for concern, but also intrigue. In this research the specific loopholes and strengths of democracies in Latin America will be spotted and explained. More specifically, this research features a series quantitative method to help explain and evaluate the characteristics of strong democracies in Latin America as well as the characteristics of weak democracies in Latin America. A series of regression models show a causal relationship between rule of law and the overall democratic success of Latin American countries within the region. Therefore, it can be said that countries that hold robust judiciary systems are not more likely to reach and continue democratic success.

Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka upplevelsen av stress hos socialarbetare i relation till rättssäkerheten på arbetsplatsen. I studien har kvalitativ metod använts genom sex semistrukturerade intervjuer på två olika enheter inom socialtjänsten. Enheterna som inkluderats är Enheten för ekonomiskt bistånd och Beroendecentrum. Resultatet analyserades med hjälp av alienationsteori, systemteori och tidigare forskning för att tydliggöra mönster samt dra slutsatser. Resultatet visar att socialarbetare upplever stress i det vardagliga arbetet på båda enheterna. Faktorer som kan vara avgörande för stress i arbetet är arbetsbelastning, otillräcklig kunskap, tidspress och personalbrist. Studiens resultat visar också att det finns höga förväntningar på socialarbetare, i stor utsträckning från dem själva. Samtliga respondenter upplever även att rättssäkerheten påverkas av stress. Vidare visar resultatet att några respondenter upplever att klienter får felaktiga beslut och andra tror att det handlar om mer tekniska felaktigheter när stressnivån är hög. Slutsatsen vi kan dra är att upplevd stress hos socialarbetare kan påverka rättssäkerheten. / This study aims to discover the experience of stress among socialworkers and how it affects the rule of law. In this study qualitative method was used and six semistructured interviews were completed with socialworkes from two different departments. Three participants came from the financial aid unit and three from the addictioncenter. The result of this study was analyzed with help from previous research, theory of alienation and system theory to make it possible to see some kind of pattern that could lead to conclusions. The result shows that all six socialworkers experience stress in their daily work. Some things that could be cardinal is workload, insufficient knowledge, timepressure and staff shortage. Also that there’s high expectations on socialworkers and it’s connected to their own view of what should be good enough. The result also shows that some of the socialworkers believe that clients get wrong decisions and others think it’s more technical errors that gets visible when they’re stressed. Our conclusion is that there’s socialworkers who feel stressed in their work and that it can affect the rule of law.

No description available.

Ombildning av hyresrätt till hyresrätt är en komplicerad process. Nödvändiga juridiska och andra behövliga kunskaper saknas ofta hos hyresgästerna. Ombildningsfusk förekommer och rapporteras allt oftare i media. Uppsatsen undersöker hur en ombildningsprocess går till och vilka problem som eventuellt finns i processen liksom i författning. I synnerhet aspekter av rättsäkerhet, möjlighet att överklaga och få insyn i processen för de olika parterna i ombildningsprocessen.

Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka lärares didaktiska val avseende undervisning om rättsstatens principer samt de rättsstatsprinciper som kommer till uttryck i deras undervisningsmaterial. Detta har bakgrund i frågans relevans i koppling till samhällskunskapsämnets syfte och innehåll, och till ett samhällstillstånd där frågan om rättsstatens utformning blivit alltmer aktuell. Studieobjektet är lärares undervisningsmaterial i samhällskunskap samt intervjusvar från lärare som undervisar i ämnet. Kunskapsobjektet är hur rättsstaten och dess principer manifesteras som ämnesinnehåll, samt hur lärare resonerar kring deras didaktiska val i moment där rättsstatens principer kan ingå. I studien har följande frågor avsatts att besvaras: ”Hur beskriver lärare sina didaktiska val i moment där rättsstatens principer kan ingå?” samt ”Hur beskrivs och används rättsstaten och dess principer i samhällskunskapslärares undervisningsmaterial?”. Studien har delats upp i två delstudier. I den första delstudien har åtta gymnasielärare i samhällskunskap intervjuats om deras didaktiska val i kursen Samhällskunskap 1b. Intervjusvaren har därefter analyserats utifrån en didaktisk analys. I den andra delstudien har ett urval av undervisningsmaterial samt läroböcker från de intervjuade lärarnas undervisning analyserats, för att undersöka hur rättsstaten och dess principer beskrivs i undervisningsmaterialen respektive läroböckerna. Delstudierna ger mångfasetterade resultat; rättsstatens vara eller inte vara ses olika betonade inom respondenternas material och didaktiska val. Trots undantag syns rättsstaten sällan behandlas på ett explicit och samlat sätt. Där rättsstatsprinciper formuleras på ett enhetligt och samlat sätt, görs detta dessutom främst utifrån en formell (och inte gängse akademisk) framställning av rättsstatsbegreppet inom undervisningsmaterialen. Dess kärnvärden framställs emellertid hos samtliga respondenters undervisningsmaterial i fragmenterade former, och ofta utan uttrycklig koppling till rättsstat. Rättsstaten och dess principers relevans går emellertid inte att förbise; liksom 2025 års kommande kursplan i Samhällskunskap 1b (version 1) betonar respondenterna att rättsstaten och dess principer är viktiga inom de ämnesområden där de kan tänkas ingå. Respondenternas olika betoningar och förhållanden till bland annat kursens centrala innehåll och deras anpassning till elevers olika möjligheter och svårigheter i klassrummet, har visat hur lärares didaktiska val spelar in i frågan om hur eller huruvida rättsstaten och dess principer tar plats i klassrummet. Även tidsbristen på detta annars innehållstäta ämne har belysts, vilket också ger insikti denna fråga och lärarnas didaktiska val. Även om dessa fragmenterade framställningar inom undervisningsmaterialen kan ses försvåra elevens inlärning av och förståelse för rättsstatens betydelse i demokratin, visar undervisningsmaterialen samt respondenternas berättelser på rättsstatens relevans inom kursen Samhällskunskap 1b:s nuvarande utformning.