The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the process of direct tax integration in the European Union (EU) has been widely discussed in the academic literature, while another important actor, the European Commission, has attracted much less attention. The Commission’s input is commonly perceived to be limited to the right of legislative initiative. This study questions such an oversimplified interpretation and draws a more nuanced picture of EU tax harmonisation by integrating an analysis of the complex regulatory approaches adopted by the Commission for the establishment and smooth functioning of the Internal Market. It is argued that the past decade brought a notable change in the Court-dominated pattern of direct tax integration. This change is apparent first in the evolution of enforcement strategies under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU; and second, in the increased reliance upon non-binding regulatory measures. Both developments have strengthened the role of the Commission, supplying it with more possibilities for influencing national direct tax systems, despite the reluctance of Member States to agree upon legislative harmonisation. Against this background, the procedural and substantive problems associated with these instruments require closer examination. The normative scope of this research covers the key procedural problems related to the infringement procedure and non-binding regulatory measures. The empirical component explores the Commission’s enforcement and coordination practices, drawing particular attention to two case studies: the tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations and exit taxation. Following the analysis of enforcement and coordination in the field of direct taxation, the study argues the need and proposes potential solutions for (i) the developing of a more comprehensive procedural framework for the infringement procedure and non-binding regulatory acts; (ii) the strengthening of accountability mechanisms; and (iii) the enhancing of the effectiveness of their application.

Depuis 2006, la politique énergétique extérieure de l’Union européenne a été significativement renforcée. Cette politique très ambitieuse vise à assurer la sécurité des approvisionnements énergétiques dans l’Union et à contribuer à une utilisation plus durable de l’énergie à l’échelle universelle. Si le dialogue politique et les aides économiques sont essentiels à ces égards, l’Union fait principalement appel au droit pour libéraliser les marchés énergétiques des États tiers se trouvant à sa périphérie et pour diffuser sa vision de l’utilisation durable de l’énergie sur la scène internationale. Pour quelles raisons l’Union a-t-elle essentiellement recours au droit dans le cadre de cette politique ? S’agit-il d’un instrument efficace ? C’est à ces deux grandes questions que cette étude est consacrée / Since 2006, the European Union’s external energy policy has been strengthening significantly. This ambitious EU policy is aimed at ensuring the security of energy supply in the EU and to contribute to more sustainable use of energy around the world. If political dialogue and economic aid are essential, the EU resorts principally to the law in order to liberalise energy markets of the third States in its periphery and to spread its vision of sustainable energy on the international stage. For which reasons does the EU use primarily the law in this policy? Is this instrument efficient? It is these two majors questions that this study addresses

La soutenance de thèse proposée est une soutenance sur travaux qui portent sur des questions de droit comparé des sociétés, de droit européen des sociétés et de l'arbitrage international. Les travaux portant sur le droit des sociétés s'interrogent sur les développements récents en matière de liberté d'établissement des sociétés en Europe suite à la jurisprudence rendue par la Cour européenne de justice et sur l'opération des Limited liability company de droit anglais en Allemagne et des questions de droit international privé que cela soulève. Le travail sur le droit de l'arbitrage s'interroge sur le sort des traités bilatéraux d'investissement conclus entre Etats devenus Etats membres de l'Union européenne face à la politique menée par la Commission Européenne qui vise leur annulation. / The papers submitted for the viva deal with various comparative company law, European company law and international arbitration related issues. The company law papers look at the recent developments in the freedom of establishment of companies in Europe resulting from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and at the operation of English law limited liability companies in Germany and certain of the private international law questions that arise in that context. The paper on international arbitration discusses the future of bilateral investment treaties concluded between EU member states in light of the European Commission's hostile approach to such treaties aiming at obtaining their annulment.

Malgré les spécificités politiques de l’Union européenne, le fonctionnement du droit communautaire a généralement été assez traditionnel, s’appliquant obligatoirement à tous. Ces dernières années, toutefois, nous assistons à la création d’un corps de droit atypique dont l’application est optionnelle, et qui existe donc en parallèle au droit national normalement applicable. Ces hypothèses de choix sont essentiellement de deux types. D’abord, les instruments optionnels de droit européen peuvent être choisis comme alternative au droit national. Ensuite, le droit de l’Union européenne permet dans certaines hypothèses le choix de la loi nationale applicable à une situation. Dans ces deux cas, l’expression d’un choix mène à la portabilité du régime juridique choisi dans toute l’Union. Cette thèse vise à répondre à plusieurs questionnements autour de ce phénomène, en analysant les raisons politiques qui poussent à créer des droits d’option, en regardant l’impact véritable de l’exercice du droit d’option en termes de l’autonomie véritable des régimes optionnels et des contours de l’espace de liberté ainsi laissé aux sujets de droit de s’écarter du droit national normalement applicable, et en évaluant le taux d’utilisation de ces instruments juridiques particuliers. / Despite the specificities of the European Union’s political set-up, the operation of EU law has generally been relatively traditional, in the sense that EU law mandatorily applies to all. These last few years, however, a body of atypical law has been created which is applied optionally and therefore exists in parallel with national law. Legal regimes applicable by choice in this way essentially fall into two categories. Firstly, there are optional instruments of EU law, which can be chosen as an alternative to national law. Secondly, in some cases, EU law allows a choice of the national law to be applied to a given situation. In both cases, the expression of a choice leads to the portability of the chosen legal regime across the EU. This thesis aims to address various issues surrounding this phenomenon: by analysing the political reasoning which has led to the creation of a right to choose, by looking at the true impact of the use of the right to choose in terms of the real autonomy of optional instruments and the extent of the freedom to deviate from the national law applicable by default, and by evaluating the level of usage of these unusual legal instruments.

Depuis l’entrée en vigueur du Traité d’Amsterdam, le 1er mai 1999 et la « communautarisation » de la coopération judiciaire civile, l’Union européenne a adopté de nombreux instruments applicables aux litiges transfrontaliers, au point que l’on peut aujourd’hui parler d’un « droit judiciaire privé européen ». Or, il est permis de s’interroger sur les principes qui le gouvernent. Par comparaison, le Code de procédure civile français comprend un chapitre entier consacré aux principes directeurs du procès civil. De l’étude des instruments de l’Espace judiciaire civil européen, quatre principes directeurs ont été identifiés : le principe du contradictoire, le principe du rôle actif du juge, le principe de célérité et le principe du dialogue transfrontalier. Il est alors possible, dans une démarche prospective, de s’interroger sur leur éventuelle consécration en droit de l’Union. Un certain nombre d’obstacles ont été relevés mais aucun ne paraît dirimant. Possible, cette consécration semble également souhaitable. Ses différents apports ont en effet été mis en évidence. Il restait à déterminer la base juridique ainsi que l’instrument normatif de cette consécration. À ce titre, l’article 81 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne relatif à la coopération judiciaire en matière civile pourrait servir de base juridique. Par ailleurs, c’est lavoie du règlement et non celle de la directive qui a été ici privilégiée. / Since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on the 1st of May 1999 and the “communitarisation” of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the European Union has adopted many legal instruments relating to cross-border litigation, to the extent that one can now refer to a distinct “European International Private Law”, the governing principles of which have yet to be defined. By comparison, the French Code of Civil Procedure includes an entire chapter devoted to the governing principles applicable to civil trials. Based on a study of the European civil justice area, four governing principles can be identified: the adversarial principle, the principle of the judge’s active role, the principle of urgency and the principle of cross-border dialogue. In prospective terms, it follows that the possibility of these four principles’ being enacted in EU law is a matter worthy of examination. Several obstacles can be identified, none of which appears to be insuperable. Having been recognised as a possibility, such a consecration also seems desirable on the grounds of its several demonstrable advantages. The legal basis and vehicle of the above-mentioned four principles’ legal enshrinement remain to be determined. In this regard, article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pertaining to judicial cooperation in civil matters, couldserve as a legal basis. In terms of implementation, this study also argues in favor of regulations over directives.

The goal of this thesis is to explain the current dynamical development of the energy policy of the EU with the focus on the gas sector. Furthermore, this work examines what role in that process plays the European Commission. Lastly, it seeks to ascertain whether the EU's energy policy has a real impact on the development of the gas markets of Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Lithuania. The first two questions are answered with the aid of John W. Kingdon's Multiple stream theory. The conclusion has it that the key role in the creation of the EU's energy policy was taken up by the European Commission, which can be described as the Kingdon's policy entrepreneur. As a true entrepreneur the Commission attempted to build the way for the creation of the single EU gas market, which would be based on sufficient cross-border infrastructure and diversified gas imports. Such a conclusion is supported by the Commission's activities leading to the adoption of important energy legislation, as the third energy package, and essential funds as were European Energy Programme for Recovery and the Connecting Europe Facility. Latter, this work looks into the third research question. On the case studies of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania it proves, that the outputs of the entrepreneur activities of the Commission...

For the past 20 years, the European Union has extended its political cooperation and bilateral trade agreements with Morocco, while not taking a clear stance against the occupation of Western Sahara. Bound by EU law as well as principles of human rights and international law, the institutions of the EU are obligated to respect human rights in the EU external action. This includes the right to self-determination, a customary principle of international law. In two rulings, the Court of Justice of the European Union has concluded that agreements between the EU and Morocco do not apply to Western Sahara. But since then, two new agreements have been concluded whose respective scope include the territory and the waters of Western Sahara. Yet, the people of Western Sahara are not party to any of the agreements which authorises the exploitation of its natural resources. Drawing upon this context, this thesis examines the human rights aspect of the EU’s international agreements using a set of different research methods. The research question, if and how the EU’s external action affecting Western Sahara complies with EU law, is answered through a doctrinal analysis of the human rights clause of three separate agreements between the EU and Morocco, and the relevant case law of the Court. The conclusions are discussed in a following extrajudicial assessment based on Nancy Fraser’s critical theory of social justice.  The thesis finds that the EU external action as manifested in the three agreements with Morocco, by including the territory of Western Sahara, does not comply with EU law. Further, the analysis discovers that the lack of coherence between the institutions creates a fragmented external policy, whose legal basis and objectives in regard to respect for human rights is not reflected in its implementation. The discussion discovers that the EU fails to recognise the people in Western Sahara as equal subjects of social justice by upholding an unjust political frame. This framing maintains the status quo and obstructs the people’s claims for redistribution, recognition and political representation. The thesis therefore concludes that the EU should change its policy regarding Western Sahara, and align with the guiding principles for the external action stated in the treaties (Article 21 TEU). The thesis suggests that the EU adopts a comprehensive critical democratic and inclusive approach, in order to improve its institutional framework for how international agreements are negotiated, implemented and monitored in occupied territories.

Human rights universality has been questioned due to the lack of accountability in both international human rights law and States’ domestic laws when companies violate human rights. In response, the European Commission has proposed a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D), which imposes obligations on companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for human rights impacts. The aim of this study is to examine whether the credibility of human rights universality, as defined by Jack Donnelly, is strengthened by the implications of the CS3D. The study also analyzes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the CS3D refers to when defining human rights impacts, and explores the legal implications of this on Swedish domestic law and international human rights law. This study uses a legal dogmatic and legal analysis method to interpret the implications of the CS3D. Throughout the study, a fictional Swedish company and its subsidiary in China are used as examples to illustrate the legal and international implications of the CS3D. The results of this study suggest that the implications of the CS3D contribute to strengthening the credibility of human rights universality, as it addresses the legal gap of accountability in both international human rights law and domestic laws of EU Member States. However, the CS3D could also be perceived as coercive on third States and their natural and legal persons, which may potentially undermine the credibility of human rights universality in the future.

Digitalisation has fundamentally changed the way we communicate, conduct trade and consume goods and services. It has also enabled new business models to evolve. Some firms in the digital sector have developed and are now operating large conglomerate-like networks commonly referred to as ‘digital ecosystems’. Most digital ecosystems involve several autonomous, yet interdependent, firms. They offer diverse sets of different goods and services that often are technologically or economically interlinked and thus provide more value when bought or used together. Ecosystem business structures exist in many industries but a distinct feature of those in the digital sector is that the interdependencies within them are driven by digital technology and data connectivity. This affects how digital ecosystems function and how they need to be assessed under competition law. One of the ways in which digital ecosystems can expand and broaden their product portfolios is through mergers and acquisitions. The world’s five largest digital ecosystem operators – Alphabet (formerly Google), Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), Amazon, and Microsoft – have together acquired over 800 firms during their relatively short lifetime. The intense merger and acquisition activity observed in the digital sector in the past years has raised concerns about the ability of European Union merger control to ensure that competition in this sector is not distorted by digital ecosystems’ expansion strategies. These concerns relate both to the adequacy of the current procedural system and to the precision of the analytical framework for assessing digital ecosystem mergers. This paper focuses mainly on the latter issue, and more specifically, on the theories of harm that have been applied in assessments of acquisitions by the five digital ecosystem operators mentioned above as well as on the need for alternative approaches or theories of harm for these mergers. It is shown that the assessments largely follow the traditional analytical framework of European Union merger control but that many of the special characteristics of digital markets and digital ecosystems are also taken into consideration. Yet, it is argued in this paper that there is a need for alternative approaches and theories of harm to better account for the competitive implications of digital ecosystem mergers.

Från och med år 2024 kommer stora och vissa små/medelstora företag (SMEs) i EU bli hållbarhetsrapporteringsskyldiga enligt det nya EU-direktiv, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (2022/2464/EU). Direktivet medför lagkrav på att företagen som omfattas ska rapportera om deras påverkan på människor, miljö och vilka ekonomiska risker samt möjligheter som kan uppstå till följd av klimatförändringar. Direktivet medför krav på företag att ställa om sina rapporteringsrutiner vilket innebär att de står inför stora utmaningar och implementeringsbarriärer. Denna studie presenterar och analyserar de utmaningar och möjligheter företag kan komma stå inför med det nya rapporteringskravet. Därav lyder studiens forskningsfrågor: Vilka externa möjligheter och hot kan företag tänkas möta till följd av CSRD? Vilka interna styrkor och svagheter kan företag tänkas identifiera till följd av CSRD? Hur påverkar tidigare kommunikation kring hållbarhet organisationens syn på utmaningar som uppstår vid förändringar i hållbarhetsarbete? Studien baseras på intervjuer från ett svenskt företag som omfattas av CSRD, Parks and Resorts (PRS). Intervjusvaren har genomgått en innehållsanalys med ett analytiskt ramverk baserat i SWOT-analys. Analysen visar att informanterna upplever utmaningar med datainsamling, resurser och kommunikation. Mot bakgrund av den tidigare forskningen visar studien att företags rutiner, resurser och befintliga praktiska hållbarhetsarbete hotas under implementeringsfasen. Studien visar att CSRD bidrar med möjligheter för företag att utveckla sitt långsiktiga hållbarhetsarbete, och öka statusen för hållbarhetsfrågor inom företag. Vidare visar studien att företag som har god kommunikation blir mer mottagliga för förändringar i hållbarhetsarbete, då det finns en acceptans, ett redan etablerat kontaktnät och ett hållbarhetsengagemang inom organisationen. Studien bidrar till forskningsläget genom att påvisa utmaningar företag kan uppleva vid implementering av ny lagstiftning, i detta fall CSRD. Studien visar också hur organisationers tidigare kommunikation kring hållbarhet påverkar dess anpassningsmöjlighet till externt pålagda krav som medför förändringar för företaget. Till skillnad från tidigare forskning visar denna studie att jämförbarhet i mätdata upplevs svåruppnått, och därav finns det en risk att CSRD inte uppfyller sitt syfte att öka transparens. / From the year 2024, large enterprises and some small/medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU will be obliged to report on sustainability according to a new EU directive, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (2022/2464/EU). The directive sets legal requirements that the companies covered must report on their impact on people, the environment and the financial risks and opportunities that may arise as a result of climate change (European Commission, u.å). The directive requires companies to change their reporting routines, which means that they face major challenges and implementation barriers (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017). This study presents and analyzes the challenges and opportunities companies may face with the new reporting requirement. Hence the study's research questions are: What external opportunities and threats can companies face as a result of CSRD? What internal strengths and weaknesses can companies identify as a result of CSRD? How does previous communication about sustainability affect the organization's view of challenges that arise from changes in sustainability work? The study is based on interviews from a Swedish company covered by the CSRD, Parks and Resorts (PRS). The responses have been analyzed through content analysis with an analytical framework based on SWOT analysis. When compared to previous research, the study shows that companies' routines, resources and existing practical sustainability work are threatened during the implementation phase of the CSRD. The study shows that the CSRD can contribute to opportunities for companies to develop their long-term sustainability work and increase the status of sustainability issues within companies. Furthermore, the study shows that companies that have good communication become more resilient to changes in sustainability work, as there is acceptance, an already established network of contacts and a commitment to sustainability within the organization. The study contributes to research by identifying challenges companies may experience when implementing new legislation, in this case CSRD. The study also shows how organizations' previous communication about sustainability affects its ability to adapt to externally imposed requirements that bring about changes for the company. In contrast to previous research, this study shows that it is difficult to achieve comparability in climate-data, and hence there is a risk that CSRD does not fulfill its purpose of increasing transparency.