This diploma thesis deals with mechanisms which can be used to resolve crisis of a bank. The first chapter introduces the reader to essential theoretical background and basis for following chapters. The second chapter describes and analyzes measures used by governments to support their financial sectors in 2008 -- 2012. The first part of third chapter deals with insolvency regimes for banks and general description of new recovery and resolution regimes. The other part of third chapter contains qualitative analysis of recovery and resolution regimes adopted by European Union member states in the form of BRRD. Final chapter analyzes on the sample of ten systematically important banks applicability of bail-in tool to resolution of their crisis.

Le patriotisme économique, souvent brandi comme un étendard afin de justifier l'intervention de l’État dans la sphère économique, est en cela une expression d'origine essentiellement politique. Ainsi ressort-il de manière régulière sur la scène médiatique française au gré d'offres publiques d'achat faites sur des fleurons nationaux. La traduction dans la sphère juridique de ce concept passe alors nécessairement par l'identification des instruments juridiques permettant sa mise en œuvre. Cette traduction se voit alors encadrée et dans une certaine mesure orientée par un impératif tenant à la détermination des limites du concept. Celui-ci n'a de sens, de manière autonome, que s'il parvient à se distinguer du protectionnisme. Dans cette optique, l'arsenal juridique du patriotisme économique désigne ainsi plus spécifiquement les moyens permettant à L’État de détenir un contrôle sur les entreprises qu'il juge « stratégiques » ou « essentielles » afin de veiller à garantir les intérêts nationaux vis-à-vis de prises de participation étrangères. De cette façon, le patriotisme économique s'affirme tant par son champ d'application, la protection de secteurs économiques stratégiques, que par son objet, en étant conçu à la lumière d'un élément tenant à l'extranéité, les capitaux étrangers. Dès lors, les instruments juridiques auxquels renvoie ce concept sont loin d'être propres à un État en particulier, bien au contraire. Étant donné qu'ils s'entendent sous le prisme de la souveraineté étatique, il s'agit même de se demander si leur mise en œuvre n'est pas inhérente à l’État. Parallèlement, la conception internationale de la souveraineté de l’État implique que celui-ci est libre de se limiter par la conclusion d'engagements internationaux. La construction européenne, caractérisant le processus dynamique d'édification d'une organisation d'intégration, est le fruit de l'exercice de cette souveraineté internationale. À mesure des transferts de compétences des États membres vers l'Union européenne, un point de jonction entre le patriotisme économique pratiqué par les États membres et la construction européenne s'est créé. Cette étude a donc pour objet d'étudier la dialectique entre le concept de patriotisme économique et la construction européenne, sous la forme d'une exigence de compatibilité. Cette dialectique doit alors s'analyser en miroir de la souveraineté de L’État. Si le patriotisme économique ne fait qu'exprimer la souveraineté territoriale et in fine la souveraineté interne de l’État, il porte en lui une certaine opposition au mouvement de libéralisation des échanges et des investissements, auquel l’État membre de l'Union européenne a lui-même consenti par le biais d'engagements internationaux. En cela des tensions peuvent être perceptibles entre la souveraineté interne et la souveraineté externe de l’État. / On the one hand, economic patriotism is often merely a ploy, flourished to justify State intervention in the economy. That is why it is first of all a political expression. Therefore, the matter routinely appears in the French media through the takeover bids made on national champions. The expression into the legal sphere of this concept requires an identification of legal instruments, which will make possible its implementation. This definition is framed and coloured by the necessity to distinguish economic patriotism from protectionism. As a result, the legal definition of economic patriotism refers to the means for the State to keep some control over the companies that it considers "strategic" or "essential" to ensure national interests are not jeopardized by foreign ownership. Therefore economic patriotism is asserted both through its scope, the protection of strategic economic sectors, and through its purpose, as an answer to an external threat: foreign capital. In this way the legal instruments to which this concept refers are far from being specific to a particular State. Since they are understandable through the State sovereignty, one even wonders if their implementation is not inherent to the State. On the other hand, external sovereignty implies that the State is free to restrict itself by entering into international commitments. European construction characterizes the dynamic process, which aims to build an integration organization and therefore it is the result of the exercise by the State of this international sovereignty. Even as jurisdictions have been transferred from member states to the European Union, economic patriotism practiced by the member states gradually fell into European integration realm. This study aims to explore the dialectic between the concept of economic patriotism and European integration as a compatibility requirement. This dialectic must be analysed from the State sovereignty point of view. Economic patriotism expresses the State territorial sovereignty whereas European integration is the result of its external sovereignty, which notably led to liberalize trade and investments. Therefore, tensions may appear between internal and external State sovereignty.

Jurisdictions around the world currently compete to attract mobile capital of multinational companies by providing them the most favourable tax conditions. Some EU member states actively participate in tax competition. Over the past decade, the European Commission has successfully enacted a number of measures aimed at preventing multinational companies from implementing aggressive tax planning schemes. These measures aim to establish fair conditions for competitors on the internal market and to meet the demand of the public and of the international community for suppression of aggressive tax planning. The theoretical background of the thesis derives from the field of Law and Economics, specifically by using the concept of transaction costs and means of Economic analysis of criminality. This thesis aims to answer the question of whether the new EU legislation leaves room for the member states to continue in allowing multinational companies to optimize taxes in the ways targeted by the EU measures. The thesis consists of two case studies, which evaluate the impact of the rules on known tax optimization schemes. The first one analyses the impact of state aid proceedings on tax rulings and the second one analyses the influence of the controlled foreign company rule on harmful IP boxes. The objective...

La tesi ha per oggetto l’autotutela amministrativa, specialmente quella c.d. decisoria “spontanea”, ovvero quell’insieme di poteri che consentono all’amministrazione di riesaminare i propri provvedimenti e di rimuoverli a vario titolo.
Di questi poteri si è indagato il fondamento dogmatico e positivo. La questione del fondamento è stata per lunghi anni affrontata dalla dottrina e dalla giurisprudenza in termini totalmente pre-critici e non problematici: l’esistenza di questi poteri era semplicemente scontata e le riflessioni sulla loro base giuridica si esaurivano perlopiù nella constatazione della loro necessità nell’immemore consenso circa la loro ammissibilità. Negli ultimi anni, invece, una parte degli Autori ha disconosciuto la natura implicita e per così dire “originaria” di questi poteri e ne ha perciò patrocinato la stretta riconduzione al principio di legalità: in altre parole, l’annullamento e la revoca non sarebbero affatto conseguenza della c.d. inesauribilità del potere amministrativo – negata da questa dottrina – e sarebbero perciò oggi ammissibili unicamente nei casi e nei modi disciplinati dalle due norme introdotte nella legge sul procedimento nel 2005. Ciò a garanzia della certezza dei rapporti giuridici e del legittimo affidamento dei destinatari dei provvedimenti ampliativi. Secondo un filone ricostruttivo in pare contrastante con il primo, altri Autori hanno inteso valorizzare gli elementi de iure condito a favore della obbligatorietà dell’avvio del procedimento di riesame, auspicandone contemporaneamente la generalizzazione, nell’ottica di una più complessiva trasformazione dell’annullamento d’ufficio in un nuovo istituto ibrido, rispondente alla funzione di alternative dispute risolution system o, se si vuole, di ricorso gerarchico. Per le stesse ragioni, l’istituto dovrebbe perdere il carattere ampiamente discrezionale, in favore di una vincolatezza totale o parziale. Questo secondo “fronte di attacco” alla ricostruzione tradizionale intende offrire soluzione al venir meno del sistema dei controlli di legalità sull’azione amministrativa. Lo studio ha sottoposto a verifica entrambi i filoni evolutivi richiamati, discostandosi dal secondo e, pur accogliendo parte delle argomentazioni ad esso sottostanti, anche dal primo. Quanto alla teoria dell’esauribilità del potere amministrativo, oggetto della prima linea evolutiva, si è ritenuto di condividere le considerazioni circa la tutela dell’affidamento degli interessati e della stabilità dei rapporti giuridici. È parsa tuttavia meglio rispondente alle categorie generali e alle esigenze del sistema (anche sulla base di una visione del diritto amministrativo quale “diritto dei terzi”, per natura volto alla tutela dell’interesse generale e non solo dell’interesse privato particolare coinvolto dall’esercizio del potere) la conservazione della tradizionale inesauribilità del potere, seppur assai mitigata, nella pratica, con riferimento all’esercizio dei poteri di ritiro degli atti favorevoli ai privati il cui affidamento sia concretamente meritevole di tutela. La natura discrezionale dell’annullamento d’ufficio (e della revoca), sottoposta a critica dalla seconda linea evolutiva, viene difesa sia sul piano del diritto positivo e pretorio (attraverso la riconduzione dei principali casi di annullamento c.d. doveroso al modello generale), sia sul piano delle categorie generali, a partire dalla natura dei poteri coinvolti e dall’analisi delle posizioni giuridiche dei soggetti interessati dai procedimenti di secondo grado. / The thesis focuses on the Italian system of so called autoprotection or selfprotection. This expression refers to the powers of public administration to revoke its own acts when deemed necessary to repair a vice of legitimacy or a vice of opportunity, without being bind to resort to the courts. Given the aim of this powers – the same of first grade powers plus a semi-judicial one – they are usually meant by judges and scholars as “widely discretionary”. Furthermore, it has always been believed that the choice to activate the correspondent proceeding is totally free for public administration; consequently, a demand of interested parties does not make binding the start of the procedure, opposite to what happens with administrative appeal proceedings. In recent years ECJ, ECHR and national case law has emboldened the limits to selfredress, making clear that legitimate expectations and the public interest to legal certainty must be taken into consideration and given sufficient protection. Lately, also the Legislator followed, making the annulment and the revocation harder to be put in effect when the first act is favorable to the addressed subject. In such cases, the revocation cannot be ordered for a mere reconsideration of already known circumstances (ius poenitendi) but only if new ones show up. At the same time, ex officio annulment is precluded after 18 months from the issuing of the first act, instead of the previous general limit of a “reasonable time”. On the other hand, the case law has apparently pointed out some hypothesis of mandatory annulment, such as for “anticomunitarian acts” and cost-producing acts. Based on these two orientation, some scholars suggested a global rethinking of the self-protection, its bases and its rules. The study analyzes the case law and the latest legislative reforms, proving that no mandatory annulment exists in the Italian legal system. Therefore, nor the ECJ principle of equivalence nor other principles require that selfredress become generally obliged. The thesis also aims to prove that selfprotection remains a discretionary power, in order to ensure that the contrasting needs (the rule of law on the one hand, and the legal certainty and legitimate expectation on the other hand) can be properly balanced in every decision, according to the Constitutional provision of article 97, which requires that both impartiality and good administration are pursued.