Suchergebnisse

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

The Presidency of the Council of the EU can be conceived as the one of tools implementing common policy of the EU. Member states try to profit this position meeting the issues relevant for their own country or region. Evolving economic, political and cultural relations in the Baltic Sea region may reveal a number of priorities of neighboring countries in shaping the agenda of the Council of the EU. In this research the Baltic Sea region means Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Lithuania. Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark) and Lithuania have quite different social and economic development models, and this may cause that their regional ties may not be as strong as the relationship with other EU countries. This can affect the attitude of the country in presidency of the EU. This investigation aims to confirm or refute the hypothesis that the Baltic Sea region states chairing the EU Council at the central room put the same and one of the most important regional issues. It is analyzing the most recent presidencies of the Baltic Sea region states (Finland in 2006, Sweden in 2009, Denmark is chairing currently, 2012, and Lithuania will hold presidency in the second half of 2013). Particular policy areas are chosen, precisely energy, environment and transport, as the main problems leading to regional cooperation. Based on these policies the aim is to find the link between the presidency priorities and regionalism and to describe the commonalities and differences of it.

Lithuania's joining of the European Union (EU) opened up the possibility to receive financial support from the EU Cohesion and Structural funds. Establishing a proper system for the management and control of EU financial support has become one of the most important tasks for the Lithuanian Government. Since non-eligible funds must be returned to the European Commission's account, the control system for EU financial support requires special attention. Since Lithuania entered the European Union, EU financial support has been included in the national budget. Since the budget of the Republic of Lithuania is subject to public financial control, EU financial support must come under public scrutiny as well. A control system for EU financial support was created during the 2004–2006 programming period. However, when defining the activities of the control subjects, insufficient powers were provided to ensure their effective work in the supervision of European Union funds.

Lithuania's joining of the European Union (EU) opened up the possibility to receive financial support from the EU Cohesion and Structural funds. Establishing a proper system for the management and control of EU financial support has become one of the most important tasks for the Lithuanian Government. Since non-eligible funds must be returned to the European Commission's account, the control system for EU financial support requires special attention. Since Lithuania entered the European Union, EU financial support has been included in the national budget. Since the budget of the Republic of Lithuania is subject to public financial control, EU financial support must come under public scrutiny as well. A control system for EU financial support was created during the 2004–2006 programming period. However, when defining the activities of the control subjects, insufficient powers were provided to ensure their effective work in the supervision of European Union funds.

Integration of the European Union (EU) does not cover unification of direct taxation through the Member States. Therefore, each Member State runs its own taxation model. Nevertheless, due to the fiscal obstacles being construed in the light of Common Market the Member States are to take account of directives and other legal acts. Concerning specific institutional organization of the European Community as international body one should perceive, that Community legislation may affect national systems in three ways: by unification, harmonization and coordination. The second one is chosen for attainment of the consistency of direct taxation in the EU (coordination shouldn't be excluded either). The proximate and basic aim for this way of implementation is to be regarded as avoidance of double taxation in the international scene, though, it is not always so in the working practice of Community institutions (where it seems to be greater objectives leading to unification). After long-drawn discussions some significant results in the field of the harmonization of direct taxation were finally achieved, namely these: the Member States were obliged to retain from withholding taxes on distributed profits and on payments of interests and royalties under certain conditions; also transactions of mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States were relieved from any taxes; Member States were required to make interests payers in their territory provide information to the tax authorities, to be exchanged automatically with the tax authorities of the States of residence of the individuals entitled to the interests payments. This system enables to arrive at the effective taxation of EU-sourced savings interests in the home State of the individual recipient only. Another achievement is to be mentioned the coordination of mutual agreement and arbitration procedure of the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises. Historical analysis of harmonization process leads to the conclusion, that regarding main steps in the sphere of EU-direct taxation to have been done, instruments of soft law (Commission's recommendations and others) and jurisprudence of the Eurepean Court of Justice are futher means of regulation of harmonization, wich also can lead to obligatory positive rules.

Integration of the European Union (EU) does not cover unification of direct taxation through the Member States. Therefore, each Member State runs its own taxation model. Nevertheless, due to the fiscal obstacles being construed in the light of Common Market the Member States are to take account of directives and other legal acts. Concerning specific institutional organization of the European Community as international body one should perceive, that Community legislation may affect national systems in three ways: by unification, harmonization and coordination. The second one is chosen for attainment of the consistency of direct taxation in the EU (coordination shouldn't be excluded either). The proximate and basic aim for this way of implementation is to be regarded as avoidance of double taxation in the international scene, though, it is not always so in the working practice of Community institutions (where it seems to be greater objectives leading to unification). After long-drawn discussions some significant results in the field of the harmonization of direct taxation were finally achieved, namely these: the Member States were obliged to retain from withholding taxes on distributed profits and on payments of interests and royalties under certain conditions; also transactions of mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States were relieved from any taxes; Member States were required to make interests payers in their territory provide information to the tax authorities, to be exchanged automatically with the tax authorities of the States of residence of the individuals entitled to the interests payments. This system enables to arrive at the effective taxation of EU-sourced savings interests in the home State of the individual recipient only. Another achievement is to be mentioned the coordination of mutual agreement and arbitration procedure of the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises. Historical analysis of harmonization process leads to the conclusion, that regarding main steps in the sphere of EU-direct taxation to have been done, instruments of soft law (Commission's recommendations and others) and jurisprudence of the Eurepean Court of Justice are futher means of regulation of harmonization, wich also can lead to obligatory positive rules.

Integration of the European Union (EU) does not cover unification of direct taxation through the Member States. Therefore, each Member State runs its own taxation model. Nevertheless, due to the fiscal obstacles being construed in the light of Common Market the Member States are to take account of directives and other legal acts. Concerning specific institutional organization of the European Community as international body one should perceive, that Community legislation may affect national systems in three ways: by unification, harmonization and coordination. The second one is chosen for attainment of the consistency of direct taxation in the EU (coordination shouldn't be excluded either). The proximate and basic aim for this way of implementation is to be regarded as avoidance of double taxation in the international scene, though, it is not always so in the working practice of Community institutions (where it seems to be greater objectives leading to unification). After long-drawn discussions some significant results in the field of the harmonization of direct taxation were finally achieved, namely these: the Member States were obliged to retain from withholding taxes on distributed profits and on payments of interests and royalties under certain conditions; also transactions of mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States were relieved from any taxes; Member States were required to make interests payers in their territory provide information to the tax authorities, to be exchanged automatically with the tax authorities of the States of residence of the individuals entitled to the interests payments. This system enables to arrive at the effective taxation of EU-sourced savings interests in the home State of the individual recipient only. Another achievement is to be mentioned the coordination of mutual agreement and arbitration procedure of the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises. Historical analysis of harmonization process leads to the conclusion, that regarding main steps in the sphere of EU-direct taxation to have been done, instruments of soft law (Commission's recommendations and others) and jurisprudence of the Eurepean Court of Justice are futher means of regulation of harmonization, wich also can lead to obligatory positive rules.

Integration of the European Union (EU) does not cover unification of direct taxation through the Member States. Therefore, each Member State runs its own taxation model. Nevertheless, due to the fiscal obstacles being construed in the light of Common Market the Member States are to take account of directives and other legal acts. Concerning specific institutional organization of the European Community as international body one should perceive, that Community legislation may affect national systems in three ways: by unification, harmonization and coordination. The second one is chosen for attainment of the consistency of direct taxation in the EU (coordination shouldn't be excluded either). The proximate and basic aim for this way of implementation is to be regarded as avoidance of double taxation in the international scene, though, it is not always so in the working practice of Community institutions (where it seems to be greater objectives leading to unification). After long-drawn discussions some significant results in the field of the harmonization of direct taxation were finally achieved, namely these: the Member States were obliged to retain from withholding taxes on distributed profits and on payments of interests and royalties under certain conditions; also transactions of mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States were relieved from any taxes; Member States were required to make interests payers in their territory provide information to the tax authorities, to be exchanged automatically with the tax authorities of the States of residence of the individuals entitled to the interests payments. This system enables to arrive at the effective taxation of EU-sourced savings interests in the home State of the individual recipient only. Another achievement is to be mentioned the coordination of mutual agreement and arbitration procedure of the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises. Historical analysis of harmonization process leads to the conclusion, that regarding main steps in the sphere of EU-direct taxation to have been done, instruments of soft law (Commission's recommendations and others) and jurisprudence of the Eurepean Court of Justice are futher means of regulation of harmonization, wich also can lead to obligatory positive rules.

This master thesis focuses on writing foreigners' surnames and the influence of European Union (EU) law. It analyses the concept, functions and features of name and discusses the place of name within the language system that often becomes a subject of dispute especially when a necessity of legal act in a field of foreigners' surnames arises. Special attention is paid to analyze the right to name. In order to find out the main features of regulation of surnames, analysis of international, EU and national regulation is provided. This thesis analyses a case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in a field of surnames. Particular attention is paid to cases Sayn-Wittgenstein and Runevič-Vardyn recently examined by the CJEU that are not analyzed in the doctrine yet. The main conclusion of this thesis is that there is necessary to adopt legislation at the EU level that would be able to resolve problems of writing foreigners'' surnames in the host member state, because existing differences in this sphere can lead to violations of main freedoms and rights granted to EU citizens.

This master thesis focuses on writing foreigners' surnames and the influence of European Union (EU) law. It analyses the concept, functions and features of name and discusses the place of name within the language system that often becomes a subject of dispute especially when a necessity of legal act in a field of foreigners' surnames arises. Special attention is paid to analyze the right to name. In order to find out the main features of regulation of surnames, analysis of international, EU and national regulation is provided. This thesis analyses a case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in a field of surnames. Particular attention is paid to cases Sayn-Wittgenstein and Runevič-Vardyn recently examined by the CJEU that are not analyzed in the doctrine yet. The main conclusion of this thesis is that there is necessary to adopt legislation at the EU level that would be able to resolve problems of writing foreigners'' surnames in the host member state, because existing differences in this sphere can lead to violations of main freedoms and rights granted to EU citizens.

The aim of this article is to analyse the differences of e-government development between a) member states of the Eastern Border of the European Union (EU-8) and member states of the old EU (EU-15); b) member states of EU-8 and the all countries of EU (EU-28); c) member states of EU-8 and countries, which became member states of EU after 2004 (EU- 5). Comparative analysis was used to determine and evaluate the tendencies of e-government development in EU-8 during the period of 2003-2012. Data of United Nations E-Government survey about e-government development was used in this article. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria compose EU-8. It was estimated that countries of EU-8 made significant progress in development of e-government. However the gap between member states of EU-8 and countries of EU-15, EU-5 and EU-28 still remains. Higher homogeneity in the area of e-government development in the countries of EU-8, EU- 15 and EU-5 compared to the countries of EU-28 was found.

The aim of this article is to analyse the differences of e-government development between a) member states of the Eastern Border of the European Union (EU-8) and member states of the old EU (EU-15); b) member states of EU-8 and the all countries of EU (EU-28); c) member states of EU-8 and countries, which became member states of EU after 2004 (EU- 5). Comparative analysis was used to determine and evaluate the tendencies of e-government development in EU-8 during the period of 2003-2012. Data of United Nations E-Government survey about e-government development was used in this article. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria compose EU-8. It was estimated that countries of EU-8 made significant progress in development of e-government. However the gap between member states of EU-8 and countries of EU-15, EU-5 and EU-28 still remains. Higher homogeneity in the area of e-government development in the countries of EU-8, EU- 15 and EU-5 compared to the countries of EU-28 was found.

The aim of this article is to analyse the differences of e-government development between a) member states of the Eastern Border of the European Union (EU-8) and member states of the old EU (EU-15); b) member states of EU-8 and the all countries of EU (EU-28); c) member states of EU-8 and countries, which became member states of EU after 2004 (EU- 5). Comparative analysis was used to determine and evaluate the tendencies of e-government development in EU-8 during the period of 2003-2012. Data of United Nations E-Government survey about e-government development was used in this article. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria compose EU-8. It was estimated that countries of EU-8 made significant progress in development of e-government. However the gap between member states of EU-8 and countries of EU-15, EU-5 and EU-28 still remains. Higher homogeneity in the area of e-government development in the countries of EU-8, EU- 15 and EU-5 compared to the countries of EU-28 was found.

The aim of this article is to analyse the differences of e-government development between a) member states of the Eastern Border of the European Union (EU-8) and member states of the old EU (EU-15); b) member states of EU-8 and the all countries of EU (EU-28); c) member states of EU-8 and countries, which became member states of EU after 2004 (EU- 5). Comparative analysis was used to determine and evaluate the tendencies of e-government development in EU-8 during the period of 2003-2012. Data of United Nations E-Government survey about e-government development was used in this article. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria compose EU-8. It was estimated that countries of EU-8 made significant progress in development of e-government. However the gap between member states of EU-8 and countries of EU-15, EU-5 and EU-28 still remains. Higher homogeneity in the area of e-government development in the countries of EU-8, EU- 15 and EU-5 compared to the countries of EU-28 was found.