No description available.

No description available.

The chemisorption and anodic oxidation of hydroquinone (H2Q) and benzoquinone (BQ) at palladium electrode surfaces was studied by a combination of electrochemistry (EC), Auger electron spectroscopy (AES), high-resolution electron- energy loss spectroscopy (HREELS) and electrochemical-scanning tunneling microscopy (EC-STM) on a smooth polycrystalline and well-defined (single-crystalline) Pd(100) electrode surface. The results point to the following more critical conclusions: (i) Chemisorption of H2Q from dilute (less than or equal to 0.1 mM) aqueous solutions forms surface- coordinated BQ oriented parallel albeit with a slight tilt. (ii) At high concentrations (greater than or equal to 1mM), chemisorption yields an edge-vertical oriented diphenolic species. (iii) The extent of anodic oxidation of the chemisorbed organic strongly depends upon its initial orientation; only the flat-adsorbed species are oxidized completely to carbon dioxide. (iv) The rate of anodic oxidation is likewise dependent upon the initial adsorbate orientation; the rate for vertically-oriented species is more than twice that of flat- adsorbed species. (v) The chemisorbed species are not oxidized (to the same extent) simultaneously; instead, oxidation occurs one molecule at a time. That is, molecules that survive the anodic oxidation and remain on the surface retain their original identities.

<p>Most states within the EU have some kind of CFC-legislation that allows the state in question to tax its residents for gains accrued within foreign companies that they control. CFC-legislations are usually said to counteract tax avoidance and they generally target only income of companies in low tax regimes. Such tax regimes are however not only found in pure tax havens. Some of the member states of the EU have set up preferential tax regimes, often limited to foreign financial offshore activities. Can it be a restriction of the freedom of establishment in article 43 EC to tax a resident taxpayer on CFC-basis for the income of a company resident in another member state? In the affirmative, can such a restriction be justified and if so, on which ground? Can it perhaps be easier to argue in favour of CFC-rules after the recent judgment of Marks and Spencer where the ECJ seems to have applied a broader ground of justification in respect of the counteraction of tax avoidance?</p><p>These are some of the main questions dealt with in this thesis.</p>

<p>The European Union (EU) is built on the principle of freedom of establishment, meaning that companies have the possibility to establish themselves as a company or by setting up a secondary establishment in other Member States. This right has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice through case law.</p><p>A basic feature in domestic tax legislation is that losses are allowed to be set off against profits when calculating the tax liability of a company. At the moment cross-border loss compensation within the EU is restricted, unfeasible or just accepted on a temporary basis. This lack of recognition of loss-offset gives the fact that double taxation may occur and claims form two or more national tax systems leads to uncertainty in the way a company will be taxed. Depending on whether the secondary establishment is a subsidiary or a branch, the rules relating to loss compensation differs.</p><p>Taxation of secondary establishments is based on the principle of whether or not they are considered as a resident or a non-resident of the state. In regards to taxation of secondary establishments, the PE is considered to be a non-resident and a subsidiary considered to be a resident. However, the European Court of Justice approach of non discriminatory treatment and equal treatment that has been developed and seen in the history of case law leads to the question if the Marks & Spencer ruling that concerned secondary establishments in form of subsidiaries can be applied to permanent establishments.</p><p>The most vital difference between a subsidiary and a permanent establishment is connected to the taxation of the two. The subsidiary is considered to become a resident of the establishing state while the permanent establishment is seen as a non-resident. This legal difference between the two leads to different treatment under tax law. Taxation under a tax treaty leads to the situation where one of the contracting states will either credit or exempt the income deriving from the permanent establishment. Permanent establishments are often taxed under the method of exemption.</p><p>In the Marks & Spencer case it was held that losses and profits were two sides of the same coin. Applying this statement to permanent establishments gives the notion that if a contracting state exempts an income, there will be a set off of the symmetry of having losses and profits within the same tax system. This lead to the fact that if applying the Marks & Spencer ruling on permanent establishments that are taxed under the exemption method, allowing terminal losses to be taken into account at the head office will set off the symmetry. Therefore it can be considered as the Marks & Spencer ruling shall not apply to permanent establishments.</p>

<p>Direct taxation is an area which has not been harmonized entirely within the European Community. Nevertheless, the ECJ has in its case law stated that even though direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they may not exercise that competence by breaching EC law. At the same time the EC Treaty provides certain exceptions in the form of justifications for national measures resulting in such breach of EC Law. The justification grounds provided by the EC Treaty are, however, limited and general and not suitable for justifying tax measures. That is why the rule of reason has played such an important role within the area of direct taxation. The rule of reason made it possible to in-voke justification grounds that were not expressly mentioned in the EC Treaty. Since the list of justifying grounds, not provided by the EC Treaty, is open-ended, Member States have been invoking several different justifying grounds which were suitable for tax measures. One of those justification grounds which has been used the most is the preservation of the cohesion of the national tax system.</p><p>The first time the cohesion of a national tax system was brought forward as a justifying reason for a restrictive measure was in the Bachmann case. There the ECJ held that the Belgian legislation could be justified on the ground of the cohesion of the national tax system. However, the ECJ has been applying the cohesion justification very restrictively and never accepted it as a valid justification ground after the Bachmann case. What the ECJ has done in subsequent cases is to develop the meaning of the principle and adding new criteria which must be fulfilled in order for the cohesion justification to be successfully invoked. However, during this course the ECJ has been very unclear and inconsistent, harming legal certainty, which taxpayers are supposed to expect. Even in the doctrine, authors have been questioning the validity of the cohesion justification due to the ECJ’s reluctance to accept it again. In connection with recent case law concerning cross-border dividend taxation, voices have been heard, demanding the ECJ to address the cohesion justification once more in order to set out clear boundaries for its application and to disperse the current legal uncer-tainty regarding the matter. As a consequence the aim of this paper is to analyze the appli-cation of the cohesion justification to cross-border dividend situations from a legal certainty perspective. As becomes clear from analyzing recent cross-border dividend cases, the ECJ seems to have departed from earlier established criteria and a new line of thought seems to direct the development towards the introduction and application of new criteria.</p><p>Conclusively, we have found that the application of the cohesion justification by the ECJ has been very inconsistent and that this inconsistency has led to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, making it difficult to predict the outcomes of future cases. Therefore, we conclude that the ECJ should take the opportunity, which has presented itself in recent cases concerning cross-border dividend taxation, to clarify the cohesion justification and set out clear definitions for how to apply it.</p>

<p>The free movement of goods constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the European Union and entitles goods entrance to the internal market. Sweden had before 1995 few monopolies concerning the import, export, manufacturing, distribution and retail on alcohol, and had to as a result of entering EU abolish four of these. The monopoly on retail, Systembolaget, was retained, and is still today strictly controlled by limited number of stores as well as restricted openly-hours. Systembolaget contributes an important part of the Swedish Alcohol Policy, which main purpose is to limit the accessibility of alcohol in Sweden. Another essential purpose is to prevent alcohol to reach people under the age of twenty, and this is upheld by strict age-controls when purchasing alcohol from Systembolaget.</p><p>Lately it has been argued that the Swedish prohibition of private import of alcohol con-stitutes a restriction of the free movement of goods and in breach of Article 28 EC. The exception of such restriction is presented in Article 30 EC and allows Member States to obtain national trade barriers if a justification based on the protection of the public health could be made. The Commission is of the opinion that the Swedish prohibition constitute such a restriction referred to in Article 28 and is not willing to accept the justification to protection of the public health. The Swedish government however, is reluc-tant to remove the prohibition and argues that consumers that require a certain product can import alcohol through Systembolaget. An elimination of the ban would undermine the core purpose with Systembolaget which is to protect the public health and prevent alcohol to be distributed to people under the age of twenty.</p><p>According to the Alcohol Act a person who has turned twenty can legally import alco-hol to Sweden when he is travelling with the goods if those products are for his personal use. A proposal has been presented to a redefinition of private import, which would in-clude situation where the buyer is not personally travelling with the goods, yet the transportation is carried out on the buyer’s behalf. Such purchases are often referred to distance purchase, and in those situations should the excise duty be laid down in the coun-try where the good was released for consumption. In distance sales the seller is respon-sible for the transportation of the goods but also to pay excise duty on the products in the country of destination.</p><p>A redefinition of private import to include transportation made on the buyer’s behalf could create problems since there is no actual contract between the seller and the transporting-company. Problems can then arise since the seller has no possibility to control that the buyer is of the legal age or guaranteeing that the alcohol is for that person’s use</p> / <p>Den fria rörligheten av varor utgör en grundstomme inom den Europeiska Unionen, vilken erkänner varor från medlemsstaterna tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Sverige hade fram till 1995 fem olika monopol som reglerade importen, exporten, tillverkningen, distributionen och försäljningen av alkohol, men var tvungen som ett led i inträdet till EU att avveckla fyra av dessa. Kvar återstod försäljningsmonopolet, Systembolaget, vilket än idag är strikt reglerat genom begränsat antal butiker och öppet-tider. Systembolaget utgör in viktigt beståndsdel i den svenska alkoholpolitiken, vilken har till syfte att begränsa alkoholen och dess skadeverkningar i Sverige. Ett viktigt mål är också att motverka att alkoholen når ut till ungdomar under 20år, varvid strikta kon-troller av ålder sker vid köp på Systembolaget.</p><p>På senare tid har det diskuterat huruvida det svenska förbudet mot privat införsel av alkohol skall anses vara förenligt med den fria rörligheten av varor och den uppställda artikel 28 i EG-fördraget. Där stadgas det att inga importrestriktioner skall hindra varor tillträde till den gemensamma marknaden. Det uppställda undantaget i artikel 30 berättigar medlemsstaterna att behålla en sådan restriktion om det kan anses nödvändigt till skyddet för den allmänna hälsan. Kommission har i ett motiverat yttrande upplyst Sve-rige att förevarande förbud utgör en sådan restriktion som avses i artikel 28 och att förutsättningarna att behålla ett sådant förbud inte kan anses uppfyllda. Den svenska regeringen anser att förbudet fyller en viktig funktion genom att begränsa tillgängligheten av alkoholen på den svenska marknaden, samt upplyser att en konsument som önskar importera särskilda produkter kan göra detta genom Systembolaget. Att tillåta konsumenter att importera fritt skulle försvaga det ursprungliga syftet med Systembolaget, vilket är att skydda den allmänna hälsan och minska risken för att alkohol blir tillgänglig för ungdomar.</p><p>Enligt Alkohollagen kan en person som har fyllt 20 fritt importera alkohol till Sverige under förutsättning att denne reser in med varorna till Sverige och att dessa varor är för hans personliga nyttjande. En föreslagen utvidgning av definitionen privat import kan komma att inkludera varutransporter vilka sker för köparens räkning, ofta kallade distans köp. Detta skiljer sig då nämnvärt från distansförsäljning där säljare står för transporten, och är skyldig att betala punktskatt i destinationslandet för dessa varor. Vid distans köp skall ingen beskattning ske i destinationslandet, under förutsättning att dessa avgifter har betalts i varans ursprungsland.</p><p>En utvidgning av definition av privat import till att innefatta varutransporter organiserade av köparen kan skapa problem då inget riktigt kontrakt föreligger mellan säljaren och transportbolaget. Svårigheter kan då uppstå för säljarens då denne saknar möjlighet att kontrollera att köparen är av påstådd ålder och att alkoholen är avsedd för dennes personliga konsumtion.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>The freedom of establishment in Articles 43 and 48 EC is a fundamental freedom within the EU meaning that companies are free to set up secondary establishments in any other Member State. The freedom of establishment is an important means to achieve the com-pletion of the internal market and therefore it is important that this freedom is protected. Member States are obliged to legislate in accordance with the objectives of the fundamental freedoms, still Member States are restricting Articles 43 and 48 EC by applying discrimina-tory national legislation regarding direct taxation. In the Cadbury Schweppes judgment from September 2006 the ECJ found the British CFC legislation to be contrary to Community law. The purpose of CFC legislation is to prevent tax avoidance by conferring additional tax upon companies having subsidiaries in low tax states. According to the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes, if the CFC rules are too general in its application they are violating the freedom of establishment. Hence, the CFC legislation must be aimed specifically at “wholly artificial arrangements” aimed at circumventing national tax normally payable. Therefore it is of importance, in the context of applying CFC rules, to clarify the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment. It is also important to note that the CFC rules ap-ply even when a subsidiary is established outside the EU.</p><p>The concept of abuse of Community law has been developed through case law and prohib-its companies to improperly use the provisions of Community law in order to circumvent national legislation. Even if an establishment in another State is made to avoid tax in the State of origin, it is not necessarily abuse of the freedom of establishment since companies are allowed to choose to establish subsidiaries in the Member States with least restrictive rules. The ECJ stated that establishing subsidiaries with the sole purpose to benefit from the lower tax regime do not constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment as long as the subsidiaries pursue genuine economic activity. The criteria for what is regarded as eco-nomic activity has been discussed in both value added tax and direct tax cases. The re-quirements so far is that the subsidiary established has to be physically present in the host State on a durable basis and have staff and equipment to a certain degree. The ECJ has as-sessed the criteria similarly in value added tax and direct tax cases and stated that the activ-ity has to be considered per se and without regard to its purpose or result. The activity also has to be based on objective factors and be ascertainable by third parties.</p><p>The Cadbury Schweppes case is the first case in the area of CFC legislation and the Court has provided little guidance regarding what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement”. As a consequence of this judgement some Member States have already changed their CFC legis-lation to comply with Community law. Nevertheless, there are cases pending before the ECJ that are further questioning the application of CFC rules and how to define a “wholly artificial arrangement”. The judgement of these cases may result in more changes in the na-tional legislation of the Member States. The future development of the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment is important for the protection of the principle of legal certainty. A clarification of what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement” will improve the foreseeability for companies and their cross-border transactions will be more efficient.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>Etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 och 48 EG är en av de grundläggande friheterna inom EU som innebär att företag är fria att etablera dotterbolag i andra medlemsländer. Etable-ringsfriheten är ett viktigt medel för att uppnå målen med den gemensamma marknaden och därför är det viktigt att denna frihet respekteras. Medlemsländerna är skyldiga att lag-stifta i ljuset av de grundläggande friheterna, trots det finns diskriminerande skattelagstift-ning som strider mot artiklarna 43 och 48 EG. I Cadbury Schweppes domen från september 2006 fann EG-domstolen att de brittiska CFC reglerna strider mot gemenskapsrätten. Syf-tet med CFC regler är att förhindra skatteundandragande genom att löpande beskatta in-komster från dotterbolag etablerade i lågbeskattade länder. CFC regler som tillämpas gene-rellt är enligt Cadbury Schweppes domen i strid med etableringsfriheten. Därmed måste CFC reglerna tillämpas specifikt på ”konstlade upplägg” som har som enda syfte att undvika na-tionell skatt. Det är därför viktigt att klargöra skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av eta-bleringsfriheten. I detta sammanhang är det viktigt att poängtera att CFC reglerna är till-lämpliga även på dotterbolag som är etablerade i ett icke-medlemsland.</p><p>Konceptet om missbrukande av EG-rätten har utvecklats i praxis och förbjuder företag att missbruka bestämmelserna i gemenskapsrätten för att kringgå nationell lagstiftning. Även om ett dotterbolag har etablerats i ett medlemsland enbart för att utnyttja den låga skatteni-vån är det nödvändigtvis inte missbruk av etableringsfriheten eftersom företag har rätt att etablera dotterbolag i det land som är mest fördelaktigt ur skattehänseende. EG-domstolen har fastställt att etablering av dotterbolag enbart för att utnyttja en mer fördelaktig skattere-gim inte utgör missbruk av etableringsfriheten om dotterbolaget bedriver verklig ekono-misk verksamhet. Kriterierna för vad som anses utgöra verklig ekonomisk verksamhet har diskuterats i såväl mervärdesskatterättsliga som företagsskatterättsliga mål. Hittills uppställ-da krav är att det etablerade dotterbolaget måste vara varaktigt fysiskt närvarande i värdsta-ten samt till en viss grad ha personal och utrustning så att tredje part kan förvissa sig om dess ekonomiska verksamhet. Utvärderingen av den ekonomiska verksamheten måste ske självständigt utan hänsyn till dess syfte och resultat.</p><p>Cadbury Schweppes är det första målet angående CFC lagstiftning och EG-domstolen har endast tillhandahållit begränsad vägledning om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg”. Som en konsekvens av denna dom har några medlemsländer redan ändrat sin CFC lagstiftning så att den överensstämmer med EG-rätten. Icke desto mindre finns det en del oavgjorda mål som ytterligare ifrågasätter CFC reglernas tillämpning och definitionen av ”konstlade upplägg”. Avgöranden i dessa mål skulle kunna resultera i att medlemsländerna måste göra ytterligare ändringar i sin lagstiftning. Den framtida utvecklingen av vad som är skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av etableringsfriheten är viktig för rättssäkerheten. Ett klargö-rande om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg” kommer att öka förutsebarheten för före-tag vilket leder till en effektivisering av deras gränsöverskridande transaktioner.</p>

在本研究，筆者針對以下三項重點： 一、 歐體及歐盟人權政策兩項基本研究問題 二、 歐體及歐盟人權政策四項比較議題 三、 歐盟未來對中國人權政策發展之評估 一、 歐體及歐盟人權政策兩項基本研究問題： (一) 歐體及歐盟對外人權政策為何，其決策如何？歐體及歐盟對外人 權政策存有何種結構性問題？ (二) 歐體及歐盟對中國人權政策為何，其目標為何？歐體及歐盟因何選擇執行如此的中國人權政策？歐體及歐盟對中國人權政策存有何種問題，又其效率為何？ 二、　歐體及歐盟人權政策四項比較議題： (一) 歐體與歐盟的對外人權機制、決策與政策工具 (二) 六四事件前後歐體對中國之人權政策 (三) 歐體與歐盟對中國的人權政策及其效能 (四) 歐盟第一支柱與第二支柱對中國執行的人權政策及其效能 / This dissertation deals with the human rights policy of the EC and EU towards China. In a first part, underlying principles of European human rights policy are analyzed, as well as the decision making process, the available tools and characteristics of EC and EU human rights policy. In chapter 3, the author analyzes EC policy towards China, and in chapter four, the author deals with EU policy towards China

This study was undertaken to answer the question, “In a cross-section of the featured creative entrepreneurs from Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY, Art, Craft, and Design, what kind, if any, of art education did these full time, handmade-craft business owners receive in EC-12 schooling and how has it affected their adult lives as successful craft business owners? In what ways, if at all, does it appear their formal art education led to their successful creative ventures in their adult years?” In order to answer this question, a survey was conducted of a cross-section of the participants featured in the book (Levine & Heimerl, 2008) and film (Levine, 2009) Handmade Nation: The Rise of DIY, Art, Craft, and Design about their art educational backgrounds, including what amount of art instruction they received in EC-12 schooling, as well as in informal or community settings. Based on the survey results, four representative participants were interviewed. Their responses were then constructed into narratives so as to portray holistic portraits of their individual paths through art instruction to entrepreneurship. In doing this it was revealed that while EC-12 can be attributed with furthering the participants’ interest in art, and giving them a grounding in many technical skills still used in their daily lives, in most cases, formal art education alone has not seemed to provide enough training on its own to promote the participants’ future successes as creative business owners. It is only through the blending of the sum total of their formal, familial, and informal art education that successful outcomes have been found. / text