With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European Court of Human Rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

In 1972 the regulations on tax surcharge were introduced. In the new system the sur-charge are imposed by the Tax Authority (skatteverket) and not the Court. Since 1995 the European Convention on Human Rights constitute law in Sweden, which means that Sweden is forced to guarantee its citizens the human rights in the Convention. Article 6 in the Convention states that everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, is entitled to a fair hea-ring within reasonable time. The Article also expresses the right for anyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (the presumtion of innocence).

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European Court of Human Rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

In tune with the cross-border trade the infringement of intellectual property rights has become a growing problem in Europe and the rest of the world. In June 2008 negotiations about a new international agreement was initiated between Europe, its member states and ten other countries, which will restrict infringements of intellectual property rights. The agreement is called ACTA, which stands for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. On January 26, 2012 the European Union (EU) and twenty-two of its twenty-seven member states signed a letter of intent to the agreement and the EU?s internal processes of the agreement began.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European Court of Human Rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

The freedom of establishment is a fundamental right on the internal market which enables companies to take up and pursue activity in other member states, ?host states?, in a non discriminatory way. In situations where a company wishes to use the right to establish in a host state, complications will be discovered since the member states are applying different principles for deciding the nationality of a company. Since the Treaty of the Function of the European Union recognize both principles, and both of the legal areas company law and European international private law lack harmonization regarding companies wishing to perform such a transaction, the situation today brings the possibility that such a company could be covered by the legal system of several member states, or maybe no legal system at all.The Court of Justice of the European Union has through case law contributed to make the scope of the freedom of establishment a little bit clearer but there are still difficulties regarding situations when a company wishes to transfer its seat to another member state with a change of nationality. Today?s measures, for example the SE-company, is not enough to satisfy the companies wishing to transfer their seat to another member state.

The purpose of this degree project was to examine which remedies are available to individuals when the State has violated their right to a fair trial as stated in article 6 in the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the aim was to, in cases where the remedy is determined to money, to clarify the indemnity rates that apply in determining the non-pecuniary damages. The starting point was a review of the European Court practice, domestic Swedish practice and relevant literature.The outcome of the review is that the remedies available to the individual?s disposal can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary remedies. Primary remedies mean compensation not consisting of money, and must be exhausted first.

The Swedish group contribution rules do not include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions unless the receiving company is taxable in Sweden. There has been much discussion regarding whether the rules are compatible with EC law. On 11 March 2009 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled ten cases concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions. In three of these judgments deduction for a group contribution from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA was allowed, despite that the subsidiary was not taxable in Sweden. The main purpose of this master thesis is to analyse whether the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions is compatible with EC law.

The VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) does not regulate Member States? opportunities to intervene against tax evasion. The European Court of Justice has clarified the situation in case C-255/02 Halifax. This case establish that the universal principle against the abuse of rights applies to VAT, which means that Member States have the opportunity to redefine transactions not involving a breach of law but nevertheless goes past what the legislature envisaged at the introduction of the provision.A debate has risen as to whether the principle against the abuse of rights is equally ap-plicable in Swedish domestic law on VAT. The administrative court of appeal in Go-thenburg, Case No.

AbstractThe purpose of this thesis has been to investigate if the Swedish legislation concerning taxation of dividends to foreign investment funds is in violation to EU law. Furthermore, the thesis will analyze if the Fondskatteutredningens suggestions to changes in the current legislation is appropriate to the purpose it tries to obtain.Today there is a difference in the taxation of dividends paid to Swedish investment funds and foreign investment funds. Dividends paid to foreign investment funds is being taxed in accordance with the Coupon Tax Act (1970:624), in which no deduction of the tax is possible. Swedish investment funds on the other hand have the possibility to deduct as much of the received dividends that they have given in dividends to its shareholders.The difference in the taxation between investment funds because of origin has been reviewed by both Swedish court and by The European Court of Justice. It has in these cases been up to the courts to review if a difference in taxation of dividends could constitute a violation of the free movement.

The purpose of this degree project was to examine which remedies are available to individuals when the State has violated their right to a fair trial as stated in article 6 in the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the aim was to, in cases where the remedy is determined to money, to clarify the indemnity rates that apply in determining the non-pecuniary damages. The starting point was a review of the European Court practice, domestic Swedish practice and relevant literature.The outcome of the review is that the remedies available to the individual?s disposal can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary remedies. Primary remedies mean compensation not consisting of money, and must be exhausted first.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9/11 attacks, the landscape of the freedom of religion has changed. The issues now facing freedom of religion varies greatly from the issues that the drafters of the universal declaration of human rights faced after World War II.In the light of the new issues that States face in the intersection of religion and societal interest, scholars have criticized the European Court of Human Rights to give too much leeway to the States in determining how the human rights should be implemented, by using the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Critics of the margin of appreciation claim that it is based on culture relativism and that the doctrine undermines the universality of the human rights. In order to decide if the margin of appreciation has indeed led to a relativization of the human rights I compared it to the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and its use of the Syracusa principles. My conclusion is that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights cannot be considered to be based on culture relativism.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.

Freedom of religion or belief is indisputable in Human rights discourse, more discussed is exactly what it is that is included in the concept of freedom of religion or belief (in Swedish: religionsfrihet). This thesis focuses on the freedom of religion or belief in a European context, in particular on the European court of human rights and article 9 in the European convention for human rights. Some criticism has been directed against the Court to the effect that its practice and verdicts don't answer to the pronounced desire to develop a pluralistic and inclusive form of freedom of religion or belief.My aim is to examine, analyse and test three different theories, which all try to develop alternatives to the expression freedom of religion or belief, in relation to six verdicts from article 9 in Europe convention. My basic purpose is to try to find new ways of talking about freedom of religion or belief that might lead to a more inclusive, pluralistic and equal interpretation of that concept.The three theories wich I use are elaborated by Richard Amesbury (associate professor at Claremont school of Theology); Hugo Strandberg (TD at Åbo Akademi) and Eberhard Herrmann (professor in philosophy of religion at Uppsala University); and Martha Nussbaum (professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago). The six cases from the European court are: X v.