En même temps que le traité de Lisbonne conférait valeur juridique contraignante à la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, il créait, par l’article 67, paragraphe 1, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, une obligation pour l’Union et les États membres de respecter les droits fondamentaux dans la construction de l’espace de liberté de sécurité et de justice. Parce qu’il vise chacune des normes composant cet espace, ce commandement interroge particulièrement dans l’espace judiciaire européen en matière civile et commerciale où les règles de coordination des ordres juridiques nationaux sont partiellement réfractaires à l’influence des droits fondamentaux. La polysémie de la notion de respect permet d’envisager divers modes d’articulations de la charte et du droit de l’espace judiciaire européen en matière civile et commerciale. Si le principe hiérarchique paraît la modalité la plus évidente pour assurer le respect de la charte, il s’avère inapte à y parvenir, tant par lui-même que par le contexte spécifique d’application de la charte qu’impose l’espace judiciaire européen. Aussi conviendrait-il d’y substituer un mode d’articulation plus souple, la combinaison, afin de conformer la construction de l’espace sous étude à l’article 67, paragraphe 1, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne. / When the treaty of Lisbon gave Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union its legally binding force, it gave rise, in article 67, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union, to a legal obligation to respect fundamental rights while building the Freedom, Security and Justice Area. As this legal obligation concerns all the rules of this space, it raises questions in the European Judicial Area in civil and commercial matter where rules coordinating national legal systems are partially resistant to the influence of fundamental rights. Polysemy of the notion of respect make it possible to consider different ways for the Charter and the European Judicial Area law to interact. If the hierarchical principle seems to be the most obvious way to ensure the respect of the Charter, it transpires to be inappropriate by itself and because of the specific context fort the application of the Charter commanded by the European Judicial Area. So, it would be more convenient to substitue the hierarchical principle with a more supple way of interaction, the combination, so as to conform the studied space to the article 67, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union.

När en investerare vill investera utomlands finns många risker som måste beräknas, analyseras och hanteras. Utöver olika ekonomiska risker finns politiska risker. En investerare kan, för att hantera dessa politiska risker, välja att investera i en stat med vilken Sverige har ett bilateralt investeringsskyddsavtal. Dessa avtal reglerar både materiellt investeringsskydd, det vill säga hur en investerare ska behandlas, och processuellt skydd, det vill säga möjligheten för en investerare att väcka talan mot staten investeraren investerar i genom ett internationellt skiljeförfarande. Sverige har idag 66 stycken bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal i kraft, varav tolv stycken är slutna med länder inom EU. Antalet bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal slutna mellan EU-länder, intra-EU BIT, ökade avsevärt i och med att unionen utvidgades år 2004 och 2007. Sedan dess har avtalens förenlighet med EU-rätten diskuterats i litteraturen, i skiljedomstolar och nyligen även i EU- domstolen i det så kallade Achmea-målet. I uppsatsen kartläggs och analyseras argumenten i diskussionen om relationen mellan intra-EU BIT och EU-rätten. Vidare analyseras vilken del av investeringsskyddet som intra-EU BIT-förespråkare anser vara mest betydelsefull. Från resonemanget och analysen i uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att det är ISDS-systemet, tvistelösningssystemet där en investerare kan väcka talan mot en stat, som kan anses utgöra den mest betydelsefulla delen av investeringsskyddet i intra-EU BIT:en. Därefter analyseras huruvida ett investeringsskydd innehållande ett ISDS-förfarande kan vara förenligt med principen om ömsesidigt erkännande och förtroende. I uppsatsen konstateras att ISDS-förfarandet inte kan vara förenligt denna princip och att problematiken inte kan lösas genom en juridisk debatt utan måste diskuteras på en politiskt hög nivå. / When investing abroad, an investor is faced with many risks that need to be thoroughly analysed in order to be mitigated. Risks are not only financial, but also political. An investor may, to mitigate these risks, choose to invest in states with which Sweden has a bilateral investment treaty, a so called BIT. BIT do not only regulate treatment of the investor and the investment, which is the material investment protection; but also the jurisdictional possibility of the investor to raise charges against the state of in which the investment has taken place in case of violation of investment rights, procedural investment protection. Today, Sweden has 66 BITs in force, out of which twelve are concluded with EU member states, so called intra-EU BIT. The number of intra-EU BITs grew significantly as a result of the enlargement of the union in the year of 2004 and 2007. Since then, the agreements’ compatibility with the EU legislation has been a subject of discussion within literature, investment arbitrations and recently in the European Court of Justice in the Achmea case. This thesis aims to establish and analyse the context of the discussions flourishing the relationship between the intra-EU BITs and the EU legislation. Additionally, the author intends to identify which argumentation regarding investment protection, that by intra-EU BIT praisers is considered to be the most impactful. As a result, the conclusion of the thesis is that it is the ISDS-system, the investor- state dispute settlement, in which an investor can raise charges towards a state, that is the most valuable part of the investment protection given by the intra-EU BITs. Accordingly, it is analysed weather investment protection containing an ISDS-system can be compatible with the principle of mutual trust and recognition. In the thesis it is concluded that the ISDS-system cannot be considered to be compatible with the principle and that this problem should be debated on a high political level and cannot be solved through a legal debate.

This study investigated the psychological approach and the classroom methodology needed by an educator to teach street children effectively in a special school created for them. Street children with their psychological trauma, their independent, self-sufficient outlook and educational deprivation make their adaption to the methods and educational environment of mainstream schooling difficult. To meet the special educational, psychological and emotional needs of street children, Masupatsela School was started. The study was carried out in this school. The qualitative research methodology used an action research design which consisted of a reconnaissance phase and three cycles. Each cycle made use of a planning, implementation and evaluation phase. A general plan was formulated after the reconnaissance phase and revised after each cycle. The teaching was done by the researcher using four grades of street children ranging form grade 7 to grade 10. Because of their specific psychological makeup, street children, who have lacked close, comforting and trusting relationships and role models, require a classroom environment, atmosphere and a relationship with the educator which is supportive, caring, warm and firm. To achieve this a client centred approach was used based predominantly on the therapeutic principles of congruence, empathetic understanding and unconditional positive regard. The interaction with the children was based on openness, tolerance, the affirmation of others and honest firmness. The teaching methodology was an eclectic one which made use primarily of a cognitive teaching style which was introduced incrementally over the three cycles. The main components of this style consisted of cognitive questioning, cooperative learning and strategic reading for information. The results of the study showed that both the psychological and educational approach in the classroom to be very appropriate and successful. However the wider negative contextual influences such as the school organization, staffing and curriculum made the classroom strategies difficult to sustain. It is recommended that a programme using these educational and psychological approaches and incorporating functional literacy and numeracy, vocational skills, recreation and a therapeutic programme be incorporated when designing a programme for street children in a formal setting. / Psychology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Psychology)

This study investigated the psychological approach and the classroom methodology needed by an educator to teach street children effectively in a special school created for them. Street children with their psychological trauma, their independent, self-sufficient outlook and educational deprivation make their adaption to the methods and educational environment of mainstream schooling difficult. To meet the special educational, psychological and emotional needs of street children, Masupatsela School was started. The study was carried out in this school. The qualitative research methodology used an action research design which consisted of a reconnaissance phase and three cycles. Each cycle made use of a planning, implementation and evaluation phase. A general plan was formulated after the reconnaissance phase and revised after each cycle. The teaching was done by the researcher using four grades of street children ranging form grade 7 to grade 10. Because of their specific psychological makeup, street children, who have lacked close, comforting and trusting relationships and role models, require a classroom environment, atmosphere and a relationship with the educator which is supportive, caring, warm and firm. To achieve this a client centred approach was used based predominantly on the therapeutic principles of congruence, empathetic understanding and unconditional positive regard. The interaction with the children was based on openness, tolerance, the affirmation of others and honest firmness. The teaching methodology was an eclectic one which made use primarily of a cognitive teaching style which was introduced incrementally over the three cycles. The main components of this style consisted of cognitive questioning, cooperative learning and strategic reading for information. The results of the study showed that both the psychological and educational approach in the classroom to be very appropriate and successful. However the wider negative contextual influences such as the school organization, staffing and curriculum made the classroom strategies difficult to sustain. It is recommended that a programme using these educational and psychological approaches and incorporating functional literacy and numeracy, vocational skills, recreation and a therapeutic programme be incorporated when designing a programme for street children in a formal setting. / Psychology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Psychology)

La recevabilité de la preuve est sans doute l’une des questions les plusimportantes de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union européenne,mais aussi une des plus complexes. Les difficultés relatives à l’utilisation d’unepreuve recueillie dans un État membre, devant les juridictions répressives d’un autreÉtat membre, semblent cependant avoir été sous-estimées par le législateureuropéen. En effet, l’amélioration de l’efficacité de la répression transnationale a étéune des priorités de la politique criminelle de l’Union ces quinze dernières années. Àce titre, le renforcement des mécanismes de coopération judiciaire, y compris ceuxvisant à l’obtention de la preuve transnationale, a été privilégié. Grâce au principe dereconnaissance mutuelle des décisions judiciaires en matière pénale, fondé sur laconfiance réciproque que les États membres se portent, les divergences etéventuelles incompatibilités entre les systèmes nationaux ont été tenues en échec,permettant ainsi la libre circulation des preuves dans l’espace pénal européen.Cependant, cette justification théorique n’est pas suffisante pour assurer larecevabilité mutuelle des preuves, la bonne administration de la preuve pénaledemeurant une question nationale, souverainement appréciée par le juge national.De plus, tant l’étude comparative des régimes probatoires nationaux que laprésentation des instruments de coopération judiciaire montrent des déficiencesprofondes, appelant ainsi à une protection accrue et harmonisée des droitsfondamentaux dans les procédures répressives au niveau européen, dans le butd’assurer la recevabilité mutuelle des preuves pénales dans l’espace pénaleuropéen. / Admissibility of evidence is one of the most crucial and complicatedissues in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. However, thedifficulties regarding the use of evidence gathered in one Member State inproceedings in another Member State through the mechanisms of judicialcooperation seems to have been underestimated by the European Union legislator,and this despite the success of criminal proceedings with a cross-border characterbeing considered a priority for the last fifteen years. Indeed, the EU’s criminal policyhas been striving for the strengthening of the efficiency of judicial cooperationbetween judicial authorities. This requires the improvement of the instrumentsdedicated to obtaining criminal evidence. Thanks to the principle of mutualrecognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, based on mutual trust betweenMember States, the differences between and potential incompatibilities of nationalsystems should not be an obstacle to the free circulation of evidence in the EUcriminal justice area.However, this theoretical justification is not sufficient to ensure mutual admissibility ofevidence, as the good administration of evidence remains a national issue, with awide margin of appreciation accorded to the national judge. Furthermore, both thestudy of national procedural norms and the study of the European Union legalframework show deficiencies, requiring a coherent concept for the protection offundamental rights in criminal proceedings at the EU-level. A better and harmonisedprotection of procedural guarantees is the path to ensure the mutual admissibility ofevidence, overcoming national differences.