Abstract   The overall aim of this paper is to examine the impact of ideologies and norms on a legal system. Against a background of a description of the hierarchy of norms in Swedish labour law and in European Union law, respectively, the paper aims to specifically demonstrate the problems caused by the different hierarchies of norms when implementing EU directives in Swedish labor law.   The research question examines how the trade unions’ right to industrial action towards an undertaker providing transnational services by posting of workers, is affected by the implementation of the Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. The paper answers the question under what conditions the Swedish trade unions have the right to take industrial action in situations of posting of workers.   Through the study of sources of law and adhering to traditional jurisprudence, this paper investigates the legislation regarding trade unions’ rights to take industrial action in situations of posting of workers.   In addition to the jurisprudential research, a glance at the history of ideologies is provided. The purpose of this is to explain the role of ideologies in the origins and history of Swedish labour law, as well as their role in the current development of law. With the ideological and historical discussion as a background, this paper investigates Swedish law and EU law using a comparative approach. The purpose is to illustrate how differences in ideological bases are determinant of differences in current legislation and legal practice.   The paper studies the development of law since the 1990s with regards to the right to industrial action in situations of posting of workers. The Swedish labour law has been revised since Sweden joined the European Union. The presentation looks particularly at the following cases in the Swedish Labour Court: AD 1989 No. 120 (the Britannia case) and AD 2005 No. 49 (the Vaxholm case). The paper studies the Posting of Workers Directive and presents an analysis of the European Court of Justice Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd (the Laval case). To allow for analysis and a broad discussion on the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, an account is made of the different government committee instructions, committee of inquiry reports, and governmental legislative proposals of importance for the implementation of the directive into the Foreign Posting of Employees Act, and for the legislative changes prompted by the Laval case (i.e. the lex Laval).   The main conclusion drawn from the study of the legislative development is that the level of legislation of the Swedish labour market will increase due to the tendency of europeanisation. The study also establishes the importance of ideologies, norms and values for the development of a legal system. This paper does not fully answer whether the set of norms on which Swedish labour law is based is about to change, but the trend is that on the whole no such changes have been observed. The existence of lex Laval has not affected the basic set of norms of Swedish labour law.

This thesis examines the general principles in European Union (EU) public procurement law, as they apply to Swedish direct awards of low value, outside the scope of the EU procurement directives. A combination of Swedish and EU legal methodology is used to investigate two overarching themes. Firstly, the two different legal bases of the general principles, in the light of the Court of Justice of the EU’s definition of cross-border interest, as well as the Swedish implementation. Secondly, the central substantive consequences imposed by the principles on direct awards. The only national precedent on the subject, HFD 2018 ref. 60 of the Supreme Administrative Court, is both utilised and criticised against the backdrop of EU law to paint a picture of the principles’ inner workings in a direct award context. Pertaining to the first theme, an analysis of the applicability of EU primary law on direct awards is undertaken in order to distinguish the legal bases of the principles. If a contract is of certain cross-border interest, the general principles flow directly from EU law. In the absence of such an interest, the principles are exclusively based in Swedish law, which nationally extends the EU principles to all procurement (gold-plating). Overall, contracts valued below a quarter of the applicable EU directive threshold usually lack certain cross-border interest, unless there are concrete indications of the opposite. As a result, most direct awards fall outside the scope of EU law. An awareness of the legal bases of the principles is relevant to avoid breaches of EU primary law. It is argued that the Swedish gold-plated implementation of the general principles causes unnecessary uncertainty, and that separate national principles should be introduced outside the scope of EU primary law. As for the second theme, a thorough analysis concludes that the principles do not prohibit direct awards given without any exposure to competition, as long as the contracts are of low enough value. Direct awards can therefore be conducted through direct contact with a single supplier, in accordance with the legislative aims of the procedure. This may not be the case for social and other specific services of relatively high value. Nonetheless, the principles still affect direct awards, for instance in prohibiting flagrant cases of differential treatment without objective justification, based in arbitrary or corrupt decision-making. Unfortunately, these requirements are able to be circumvented due to the wide discretion given to procuring entities. On the other hand, if a direct award procedure is voluntarily advertised, the principles have greater practical significance. Still, the requirements in such cases are more lenient than in ordinary procurement procedures.

Snus förbjöds inom EU år 1992, men Sverige erhöll ett undantag från förbudet vid anslutning till EU år 1995. Anledningen till snusförbudet var att vissa medlemsstater redan infört förbud mot snus i nationell lagstiftning, vilket skapade en obalans på den inre marknaden. År 2016 lanserades vitt snus, en produkt som liknar snus men saknar tobak. Tobakssnus och vitt snus har sitt ursprung i Sverige. Vitt snus har nyligen förbjudits i flera medlemsstater, som Belgien, Nederländerna och delar av Tyskland. EU har ännu inte tagit ställning till frågan om vitt snus, vilket gör framtiden för vitt snus oviss. Syftet med EU:s tobakspolitik och regleringar är att tobaksvaror inte ska vara tilltalande och attraktiva för unga. EU har som mål att vara en tobaksfri generation år 2040 enligt Europas plan mot cancer. Denna uppsats undersöker om ett nationellt förbud mot vitt snus strider mot den fria rörligheten för varor och hur en framtida reglering kan se ut.  Genom analys av tobaksvaror, tobaksdirektiv, svensk lagstiftning, ställningstagande från medlemsstater, EU:s inre marknad, fri rörlighet av varor och handelshinder har följande slutsatser framkommit. Eftersom Tobaksdirektivet är från 2014 är det möjligt att ett nytt tobaksdirektiv kommer införas inom en snar framtid. I ett nytt tobaksdirektiv borde vitt snus regleras, såvida inte ett separat direktiv skapas för tobaksfria nikotinprodukter. Tobakspolitiken tar alltmer sikte på nikotin, eftersom nikotin är den beroendeframkallande komponenten. Det är möjligt att vitt snus kategoriseras som snus och därmed omfattas av Sveriges undantag från snusförbudet. En sådan kategorisering kan utlösa diskussioner i andra medlemsstater och äventyra det svenska undantaget. Det är viktigt att identifiera varan vitt snus för att avgöra huruvida det kan regleras enligt befintliga regleringar för tobaksvaror eller om vitt snus är en egen vara som saknar regleringar. Vitt snus saknar harmoniseringsåtgärder, vilket ger medlemsstaterna utrymme att fastställa sina egna skyddsnivåer för vitt snus förutsatt att det inte strider mot den fria rörligheten av varor. Ett nationellt förbud mot vitt snus är ett handelshinder, då det begränsar vitt snus och skapar obalans på den inre marknaden. Dock kan ett sådant handelshinder motiveras av folkhälsoskäl enligt artikel 36 FEUF. Slutsatsen är att ett förbud mot vitt snus i nationell lagstiftning inte strider mot den fria rörligheten av varor, förutsatt att det är ett motiverat handelshinder som godkänns av EU. Framöver kan en reglering av vitt snus förväntas. / Snus was banned in the EU in 1992, However, Sweden was granted an exception from the ban in 1995 when Sweden joined the EU. The reason for the ban on snus was that some Member States had already banned snus in their national legislation, creating an imbalance in the internal market. Nicotine pouches, which are similar to snus, were introduced in 2016. The distinction between snus and nicotine pouches is that nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. Both snus and nicotine pouches are Swedish products. However, nicotine pouches have recently been banned in Member States such as Belgium, the Netherlands and parts of Germany. The EU has not yet taken a position on the issue of nicotine pouches, making their future unpredictable. The aim of the EU's tobacco policy is to prevent tobacco products from being appealing and attractive to young people, with a target of achieving a tobacco-free generation by 2040. The thesis examines whether a national ban on nicotine pouches conflicts with the free movement of goods and what a future regulation might entail.  This thesis analyses the EU regulation of tobacco products and the Swedish legislation, as well as the position taken by Member States on the free movement of goods and trade barriers within the EU's internal market. It is expected that a new tobacco directive will be introduced in the near future, which will likely include regulations for nicotine pouches, unless a separate directive is created for tobacco-free nicotine products. Tobacco policy increasingly focuses on nicotine, as it is the addictive component. Nicotine pouches may be classified as snus due to their similar features, which means that nicotine pouches will be included in Sweden's exemption from the snus ban. It is possible that snus could then trigger discussions in other Member States and thus jeopardise the Swedish exemption. Classifying nicotine pouches as goods may determine whether banning them in national legislation would conflict with the free movement of goods. Nicotine pouches are not subject to harmonization measures. Therefore, Member States have the opportunity to determine their own levels of protection, as long as it does not conflict with the free movement of goods. A ban on nicotine pouches in national law is a barrier to trade under Article 34 TFEU because it restricts the product and creates an imbalance in the internal market. However, a trade barrier can be justified if it is justified on grounds of public health under Article 36 TFEU. Therefore, a national ban on nicotine pouches may be a justified trade barrier. The burden of proof for a justified trade barrier lies with the Member State, after which the EU approves it. The conclusion is that banning nicotine pouches in national legislation does not conflict with the free movement of goods, because a justified trade barrier should be approved by the EU. In the future, we may have to expect a harmonisation measure for the product nicotine pouches. / Le snus a été interdit dans l'UE en 1992. Cependant, la Suède a obtenu une exception à l'interdiction en 1995, lorsque la Suède a rejoint l'UE. La raison de l'interdiction du snus était que certains États membres l'avaient déjà interdit dans leur législation nationale, créant ainsi un déséquilibre au sein du marché intérieur. Les sachets de nicotine, similaires au snus, ont été introduits en 2016. La distinction entre le snus et les sachets de nicotine est que les sachets de nicotine ne contiennent pas de tabac. Les sachets de nicotine ont récemment été interdits dans des États membres comme la Belgique, les Pays-Bas et certaines parties de l'Allemagne. L'UE n'a pas encore pris position sur la question des sachets de nicotine, ce qui rend leur avenir imprévisible. L'objectif de la politique antitabac de l'UE est d'empêcher les produits du tabac d'être attrayants pour les jeunes, avec pour objectif d'atteindre une génération sans tabac d'ici 2040. La thèse examine si une interdiction nationale des sachets de nicotine est en conflit avec la libre circulation des marchandises et ce que pourrait impliquer une future réglementation.  Cette thèse analyse la réglementation de l'UE, la législation suédoise, la position prise par les États membres sur la libre circulation des marchandises et les barrières commerciales au sein du marché intérieur de l'UE. On s'attend à ce qu'une nouvelle directive sur le tabac soit introduite dans un avenir proche, qui comprendra probablement des réglementations sur les sachets de nicotine, à moins qu'une directive distincte ne soit créée pour les produits à base de nicotine sans tabac. La politique antitabac se concentre de plus en plus sur la nicotine, car c'est elle qui crée la dépendance. Les sachets de nicotine peuvent être classés comme snus en raison de leurs caractéristiques similaires et inclus dans l'exemption suédoise de l'interdiction du snus. Il est possible que le snus déclenche alors des discussions dans d'autres États membres et mette ainsi en péril l'exemption suédoise. Classer les sachets de nicotine comme marchandises peut déterminer si leur interdiction dans la législation nationale serait contraire à la libre circulation des marchandises. Les sachets de nicotine ne sont pas soumis aux mesures d'harmonisation au titre de l'article 114 du TFUE. Les États membres ont donc la possibilité de déterminer leurs propres niveaux de protection, pour autant que cela n'entre pas en conflit avec la libre circulation des marchandises. L'interdiction des sachets de nicotine dans la législation nationale constitue une barrière commerciale au sens de l'article 34 du TFUE, car elle restreint le produit et crée un déséquilibre sur le marché intérieur. Toutefois, une barrière commerciale peut être justifiée s’il est justifié par des raisons de santé publique au titre de l’article 36 du TFUE. Par conséquent, une interdiction nationale sur les sachets de nicotine pourrait constituer une barrière commerciale justifiée. La charge de la preuve d’une barrière commerciale justifiée incombe à l’État membre, après quoi l’UE l’approuve. La conclusion est que l'interdiction des sachets de nicotine dans la législation nationale n'est pas contraire à la libre circulation des marchandises, car une barrière commerciale justifiée devrait être approuvée par l'UE.