Kvinnor börjar i allt större grad slå sig in på den internationella politiska arenan. En arena som traditionellt endast haft plats för män i svarta kostymer. Att kvinnor tar plats på den internationella politiska arenan har också påverkat utrikesjournalistiken. Fler kvinnor syns i dag på dagspressens utrikessidor än vad det gjordes för 20 år sedan. Men hur framställs de kvinnliga politikerna i medierna när de framträder på en traditionell manlig arena? Genom att undersöka hur två EU-ordföranden, Angela Merkel och Matti Vanhanen, framställdes i textform under tre månader på Dagens Nyheters och Svenska Dagbladets utrikessidor försöker denna uppsats finna svaret på den frågan. Med en kvantitativ innehållsanalys och en kritisk diskursanalys har artiklar analyserats utifrån ett genusperspektiv. Det är svårt att hitta ett tydligt mönster i resultaten. Den kvantitativa delen av studien visar att Merkel får väsentligt mycket mer uppmärksamhet som EU-ordförande än Vanhanen. Den kvalitativa studien visar emellertid att en typ av ifrågasättande omgärdar framställningen av Merkel. Merkel fick även stå till svars för sina uttalanden själv. Motsvarande tendens gäller inte för Vanhanen. Även om det kan vara svårt att dra några säkra slutsatser av undersökningen så har jag funnit att det finns en skillnad utifrån ett genusperspektiv i hur Merkel och Vanhanen framställdes på de två undersökta tidningarnas utrikessidor. Denna skillnad kan dock bero på andra orsaker, som till exempel maktförhållanden mellan små och stora länder inom EU.

In the strive towards a highly competitive market, the European Commission has long promoted an extensive use of so-called private enforcement, where individuals claim their rights, as guaranteed by the acquis communautaire, before national courts. The incentive to litigate is, mostly, the right to receive damages for loss suffered due to another private party’s violation of the EU antitrust rules, established by the CJEU in its famous ruling in Courage, in 2001.          Lately, the Commission seems to believe that the aim of a more effective private enforcement of antitrust law justifies rather extensive intrusions into the internal legal systems of the Member States. In a White Paper of 2008, the Commission proposed several measures aimed at enhancing the possibilities for individuals to be awarded with compensation for having suffered from a breach of the antitrust rules. These measures include the harmonization of certain national procedural laws, to facilitate inter alia damages claims at a national level. One year later, in 2009, an internal document with a draft for a directive was leaked out from the Commission, which suggests that there are advanced plans for issuing a harmonizing legislation.          Extensive critique has been aimed at the Commission’s proposal, mainly on the basis that procedural rules should be left unaltered by the European Union. Procedural rules are often considered to be the result of careful considerations of specific domestic characteristics and problems, which over time have resulted in a well-balanced internal system based on legal traditions and culture. Even though national rules would still apply in purely domestic situations, it is said that the internal balance of the national procedural systems would be undermined if certain procedural rules were to be harmonized throughout the Union.          This thesis aims at analysing whether the aim of an effective private enforcement of Union competition law does justify a harmonization of procedural rules that could facilitate inter alia private damage claims before national courts. In the case of a confirmative answer, the work also aims at answering to the question of what form such a harmonization should take: should the Commission initiate a legislative process or should it be left to the CJEU to continue developing the state of law through sporadic rulings on the matter? Recourse is made throughout the work to several important general principles of Union law, such as the principles of national procedural autonomy, subsidiarity, and equality. / I sin strävan efter att åstadkomma en marknad med hög konkurrenskraft har Europeiska kommissionen länge förespråkat ett mer extensivt nyttjande av så kallad private enforcement (ung. privat genomförande) där individer åberopar sina rättigheter, som följer av acquis communataire, inför nationella domstolar. Incitamentet för att driva processer består i dessa fall mestadels av rätten att erhålla skadestånd för den skada som klaganden lidit på grund av en annan privat aktörs brott mot konkurrensreglerna, grundad av EU-domstolen (EUD) i målet Courage, 2001.          På senare tid tycks kommissionen anse att målet med en mer effektiv private enforcement rättfärdigar relativt djupa intrång i medlemsstaternas interna rättssystem. I en Vitbok från 2008 föreslog kommissionen flera medel för att förbättra möjligheterna för individer att erhålla kompensation för skada orsakad av konkurrensöverträdelser. Förslagen skulle innebära en harmonisering av vissa processuella regler för att underlätta bland annat skadeståndstalan på nationell nivå. Ett år efter Vitbokens publicering läckte ett annat dokument ut från kommissionen, innehållande ett utkast på ett direktiv som föreslår liknande regler som Vitboken. Detta tyder på att det finns långt skridna planer för att skapa en harmoniserande lagstiftning på EU-nivå.          Omfattande kritik har riktats mot kommissionens förslag, mestadels på grunden att processuella regler bör undanhållas från Europeiska Unionens inflytande. Processuella regler anses ofta vara en produkt av noggranna överväganden av nationella särdrag och problem, som under tidens gång lett till ett välbalanserat internt system baserat på gamla rättstraditioner och rättskultur. Trots att nationella regler skulle fortsätta att gälla för rent interna situationer, påstås det att den interna balansen inom de nationella processuella systemen skulle undergrävas vid en harmonisering.          Denna magisteruppsats syftar till att analysera huruvida målet med en effektiv private enforcement av Unionens konkurrensregler rättfärdigar en harmonisering av processuella regler, för att underlätta bland annat privata skadeståndstalan i nationella domstolar. Om så visar sig vara fallet skall arbetet även undersöka vilken form en sådan harmonisering borde ta: skall kommissionen initiera en lagstiftningsprocess eller skall det vara upp till EUD att fortsätta utveckla det relevanta rättsläget? Under arbetet används genomgående några viktiga generella EU-rättsliga principer som referensramar. Dessa är bland annat principen om nationell processautonomi, subsidiaritet och likabehandling.

The purpose of this study is to examine how EU-migrants visiting the social project Crossroads experience their life situation in the Swedish society. Two questions were formulated: (1) How do the respondents describe their situation when it comes to work, housing and social network? (2) How do the interviewees describe and experience the social project Crossroads? The method used was qualitative interviews conducted with five EU-migrants who visited Crossroads. The theoretical framework is the concept of integration and Bauböcks (1996) theoretical model of the ideal society. The results show that none of the interviewees had their own accommodation. Most of theme were living under stress because of their job seeking situation. The results also show that the interviewees’ social networks consisted of small groups of individuals who speak the same language.  According to the interviewees. The results show that Crossroads provides a welcome but acute help to relive problems with everyday life. The interviewees perceived their situation as complex and frustrating, and it appeared as if their situation as regards work, accommodation, and social contacts was interrelated.  It is concluded that EU-migrants would benefit from structural changes that made it easier for theme to improve their life situation more lastingly.

Abstract Ever since Sweden joined EU Swedish law has to be compatible with EU law. Swedish law cannot state anything that may restrict the freedom of establishment. This means that companies are free to change their resident within the EU without any restrictions. National rules regarding exit tax states that companies who wants to move their business out of Sweden is taxed as if their assets has been disposed of at the exit time. These rules have been found to restrict EU law according to case RÅ 2008 ref 30. Because of this a new set of rules has arisen which regards respite of payment of the tax. The rules regarding companies who wants to establish business in Sweden is stated in chapter 20a IL. This chapter states how purchase value and acquisition cost shall be calculated when a company enters taxation in Sweden. A company who enters taxation in Sweden is taxed as if the assets have been acquired at the time of the move. The Swedish rules can be incompatible with EU law if the rules restrict the freedom of establishment. In the analysis of this essay the conclusion is that Swedish national rules in question are restricting the freedom of establishment, because when a company is taxed though it vacates a Member State it can discourage companies from establishing in other member states. The determination of tax of entering can also discourage establishment, therefore the Swedish national rules conflicts with EU law. The question that occurs is whether the rules can be justified. The rules regarding taxation entry cannot be justified through the justification grounds, because the rule did not have an object of public interest and the rule was not likely to achieve the objective. Exit taxation can be justified through the principle of territoriality, however, the rule did not fulfill the requirement of proportionality and where therefore not accepted.

<p>Europeiska unionen har en lång historisk bakgrund. Syftet med ett integrationssträvande var till stor del att säkerställa att en upprepning av de stora krigen inte skulle ske. Ändringar av EU fördragen har tidigare skett genom Maastricht-, Amsterdam- och Nice-fördragen. Lissabonfördraget ratificerades den 1 december 2009 av samtliga 27 medlemsstater inom EU för ett enat överstatligt samarbete. Därmed antogs en serie ändringar i Europeiska unionens fördrag. Avsikten med reformen är att göra EU mer demokratiskt, effektivt och öppen för insyn. Syftet med uppsatsen är att beskriva om ratificeringen av Lissabonfördraget medför en effektivisering i EU:s institutioner samt huruvida de ändrade beslutsprocesserna effektiviserar EU:s institutionella arbete. Blir EU en mer välfungerande organisation? Ratificeringen av Lissabonfördraget medför att Europeiska unionen innehar en uttrycklig status som juridisk person vilket ersätter den tidigare pelarstrukturen.</p>

<p>The EU guarantees the free movement of persons. The citizens of the EU Member States have the right to move freely without barriers within the EU borders and this result in an integration of the peoples in Europe. The integration result in several international family relationships. It is not unusual in the present situation that families have international relations. For example, spouses in a married couple may have different nationality. The international family law in Europe is applicable in case of a cross-border family dispute.</p><p>The international family law consists of specific common rules on jurisdiction and rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments. There is no substantive family law or conflict-of-law rules in the international family law in the present situation. National law regulates the substantive law and the conflict-of-law rules. Since all Member States applies its own substantive family law, and the fact that national family law rules may differ in many cases, the absence of a common substantive family law in the EU cause issues in international family law. The differences in the substantive family laws affect citizens negatively in case of one Member State imposes less favorable legal effects compared to the internal law of another Member State. The national conflict-of-law rules apply since the international family law does not include any conflict-of-law rules. The conflict-of-law rules identifies the applicable national substantive law which gives rise to the problems in cross-border disputes. The international family law has no substantive solution to the cross-border disputes. The issues in international family law are that EU citizens are not necessarily treated the same way in all Member States even if the circumstances in a family law situation are identical. Legal uncertainty, risk of discrimination on grounds of nationality and possible obstacles to the free movement of people in the EU are examples of how citizens are affected by the divergences in international family law in the EU.</p><p>A harmonisation of substantive family law is required to meet the citizens' rights under similar conditions in all Member States. However, the EU should not strive for common conflict-of-law rules since these rules only specify the substantive law. Differences in judicial practice arise in the substantive family law. A harmonised substantive law in the EU is required to avoid such differences. A harmonisation of these rules is complex due to the differences in national law. For example, the differences in the substantive law give rise to difficulties to harmonise the substantive rules by means of regulations. An appropriate solution for the harmonisation of substantive law is to let the Court of Justice of the European Union and the literature achieve a harmonised international family in Europe in due time.</p>

<p>Vid införandet av Lissabonfördraget var unionens tanke att införa flertalet förändringar i syfte att bland annat effektivisera och klargöra unionens arbete. En stor förändring var också införandet av de ändringar som har till syfte att göra EU mer demokratiskt. Europaparlamentet får i och med införandet av Lissabonfördraget befogenheter inom fler områden och det förra medbeslutandeförfarandet blir nu det ordinarie. Den största förändringen är dock införandet av medborgarinitiativet. Våren 2010 lade kommissionen fram ett lagförslag med krav på vad ett medborgarinitiativ ska innehålla. Detta var ett förslag som skilde sig mycket mot det som stadgas i fördragstexten och gör det mycket mer komplicerat att genomföra ett initiativ. Syftet med uppsatsen är därför att undersöka om de införda förändringarna kommer leda till ett mer demokratiskt EU och om den föreslagna förordningen kommer inskränka medborgarinitiativet så mycket att det kan anses som en fördragsändring. I uppsatsen beskrivs de olika förändringar som gjorts i och med införandet av Lissabonfördraget för att sedan följas upp av en analys av de förändringar som har gjorts i syfte att göra unionen mer demokratisk. De införda ändringarna kommer enligt författaren att leda till ett mer demokratiskt EU men inte med den verkan som kanske hade hoppats när fördraget skrevs under. Medborgarinitiativet kommer möjliggöra påverkan från nytt håll även om den föreslagna förordningen kommer göra det mer komplicerat än det som stadgas i FEU. De införda kraven är omfattande men de är inte oproportionerliga och de kan rättfärdigas bland annat med tanke på risk för förfalskning av namnunderskrifter och minskad seriositet i förslagen. Förändringarna kommer mer att utöka unionsmedborgarnas möjlighet att påverka än att utöka den reella påverkan.</p>

Univ., Diss.--Essex, 2000.

No description available.

The EU guarantees the free movement of persons. The citizens of the EU Member States have the right to move freely without barriers within the EU borders and this result in an integration of the peoples in Europe. The integration result in several international family relationships. It is not unusual in the present situation that families have international relations. For example, spouses in a married couple may have different nationality. The international family law in Europe is applicable in case of a cross-border family dispute. The international family law consists of specific common rules on jurisdiction and rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments. There is no substantive family law or conflict-of-law rules in the international family law in the present situation. National law regulates the substantive law and the conflict-of-law rules. Since all Member States applies its own substantive family law, and the fact that national family law rules may differ in many cases, the absence of a common substantive family law in the EU cause issues in international family law. The differences in the substantive family laws affect citizens negatively in case of one Member State imposes less favorable legal effects compared to the internal law of another Member State. The national conflict-of-law rules apply since the international family law does not include any conflict-of-law rules. The conflict-of-law rules identifies the applicable national substantive law which gives rise to the problems in cross-border disputes. The international family law has no substantive solution to the cross-border disputes. The issues in international family law are that EU citizens are not necessarily treated the same way in all Member States even if the circumstances in a family law situation are identical. Legal uncertainty, risk of discrimination on grounds of nationality and possible obstacles to the free movement of people in the EU are examples of how citizens are affected by the divergences in international family law in the EU. A harmonisation of substantive family law is required to meet the citizens' rights under similar conditions in all Member States. However, the EU should not strive for common conflict-of-law rules since these rules only specify the substantive law. Differences in judicial practice arise in the substantive family law. A harmonised substantive law in the EU is required to avoid such differences. A harmonisation of these rules is complex due to the differences in national law. For example, the differences in the substantive law give rise to difficulties to harmonise the substantive rules by means of regulations. An appropriate solution for the harmonisation of substantive law is to let the Court of Justice of the European Union and the literature achieve a harmonised international family in Europe in due time.