The protection of the rule of law has been on the agenda in the EU during the last years because states like Poland, through legislative changes, have been dismantling the democracy and the rule of law. The legislation in Poland concerns for example, the appointment of judges, reduced retirement age for judges, and changes in the powers of the president and the minister of justice. These legislations have later on been assessed by The European Court of Justice as part of several infringement processes initiated by the EU-commission. The court has considered that these laws does not comply with the right to an independent and impartial tribunal set forth in article 19.1 TEU and article 47 in the EU-charter, which means that they are also contradictory to the values of the rule of law set up in article 2 in the TEU.  Even though the rule of law is frequently referred to in jurisprudence, there is no legal or official definition of the concept. By analyzing and examining different sources concerning the content of the rule of law, it is conceivable to find the core content of the concept. The core of the rule of law can be described by saying that it presumes that equality before the law shall be respected and decisions and judgements made by public authorities need support in legislation. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance that the right to an independent and impartial tribunal is respected and protected, which also assumes a certain degree of division of power. In order to respect the rule of law it is also important that the state respects human rights and that it is a stability of the legislation, which creates predictability. The fact that there is no legal definition of the rule of law is possibly a reason of why rule of law-issues are such complex issues to deal with. The no-definition creates space for the member states’ own interpretations, which do not always correspond with the interpretation made by the EU-institutions.  The EU-commission has been assigned the responsibility to monitor the application and interpretation of the EU-law, according to article 17.1 TEU. They have the responsibility to protect the rule of law set forth in article 2 TEU, which has been more important than ever during the last years. Besides the infringement processes, the EU-commission has several different possibilities for action against a member state that constitutes a threat to the rule of law. However, their possibilities for action are not powerful enough to contribute to the protection of the rule of law in a desirable manner, which is shown by the fact that the problem is not solved yet and that it is an ongoing dispute between the EU and the member states.

En medlemsstat inom Europeiska Unionen (EU) ska anpassa de nationella bestämmelserna för att möta de EU-rättsliga bestämmelserna. Ett exempel på en sådan reglering är mervärdesskatten. Syftet med regleringen av mervärdesskatten har varit att skapa och stimulera en inre marknad inom EU, utan skillnader mellan medlemsländerna. Mervärdesskatten har harmoniserats genom mervärdesskattedirektivet som medlemsstaternas är förpliktigade att implementera. Implementering av ett direktiv ger medlemsstaterna möjligheten att själva tolka och avgöra tillvägagångssättet, så länge direktivets syfte uppnås. Dock har flertalet talan om fördragsbrott uppkommit i Europeiska Unionens domstol, grundat på kommissionens åsikt om att medlemsstater har underlåtit att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt mervärdesskattedirektivet. Därav uppkommer frågan hur den konstitutionella grunden för EU ger medlemsstaterna eget handlingsutrymme att tolka och implementera bestämmelserna i mervärdesskattedirektivet utifrån EU:s fördrag, rättspraxis och principerna om neutralitet, legalitet, likabehandling och lojalitet. Rättspraxis behandlar områdena för mervärdesskattegrupper och reducerade skattesatser. Det kan konstateras att medlemsstaterna har ett begränsat handlingsutrymme för implementering av mervärdesskattedirektivets bestämmelser. EU:s fördrag, principer och praxis ger inte medlemsstaterna något större utrymme att själva tolka och implementera bestämmelserna. Vidare framgår att det finns en osäkerhet kring tillämpningsområdet och vidden av neutralitetsprincipen, vilket gör att medlemsstaterna inte kan försäkra sig ett större skydd mot fördragsbrott i frågan om implementering av mervärdesskattedirektivet. Därmed finns en rättsosäkerhet i frågan om medlemsstaternas handlingsutrymme gällande implementeringen av mervärdesskattedirektivet bestämmelser vilket även påverkar varje enskild medborgare inom EU. / As a member of the European Union (EU), nations commit to accommodate its national legislation to EU law. An example of this is the regulation of value added tax (VAT). The purpose with the regulation of VAT is to create and stimulate the internal market within EU, without differences between the member states. The VAT is harmonized through the VAT Directive, which every member state is obligated to comply with. The implementation of a directive imposes an opportunity for the member states to make their own interpretations and determine how the implementation shall be handled, as long as the result of the directive is fulfilled. However, several claims have been raised in the Court of Justice of the European Union, claiming failure to fulfil an obligation under the Directive on the common system of VAT. This is based on the Commission’s view that member states do not comply with its obligations within the VAT Directive. Thereby arises the question of; how the constitutional rights of EU actually gives the member states an opportunity to interpret the implementation of the VAT Directive into national legislation. In the thesis this question is set in relation to EU Treaties, legal principals and an analysis of case law in the areas of VAT groups and reduced tax rates. The thesis concludes that the member states have a limited discretion for implementation of the VAT Directive. EU Treaties, principles and case law do not give the area of discretion that has been interpreted. Furthermore there is an uncertainty about the area of application and the principle of neutrality. Therefore member states cannot ensure protection against failure to fulfil an obligation under the Directive on the common system of VAT. Thus, there is a legal uncertainty in the question of discretion regarding the implementation of the VAT Directive, which affects all citizens within the EU.