Suchergebnisse

Which rights and obligations arise from the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment? This is the first publication to thoroughly examine the consequences this principle has - or may have - for private law relationships. An illuminating analysis, bearing both academic and practical importance. As the interplay between EU law and national private law intensifies, the question arises how the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment plays into various legal relationships involving one or more individuals. Unjust enrichment in European Union law takes a pioneering step in addressing this pressing issue. The author puts forward a compelling analysis, taking into account the functions of unjust enrichment in a number of national law systems and the functions of general principles of EU law, as well as case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. For analytic purposes, links are identified between EU causes of action based on undue payment, unjust enrichment and unlawful act, respectively. This is followed by a discussion whether or not such actions should be founded on violation of an EU provision having direct (horizontal) effect. Insight into the possible consequences of the EU principle prohibiting unjust enrichment has both academic and practical importance. The reader gains a deeper understanding of how the Court of Justice may further develop EU law on the basis of private-law principles. The study illuminates which rights individuals may derive from such legal principles and - if they can do so - under which circumstances

Die Vorbereitungen laufen bereits viele Jahre, nun liegt er endlich vor: der Entwurf der Europäischen Kommission für ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht als Optionales Instrument. Beteiligte an den Vorarbeiten und wichtige Kritiker derselben setzen sich in diesem höchst empfehlenswerten Buch mit dem Kommissionsentwurf auseinander. Wie wird die Harmonisierung des europäischen Vertragsrechts durch den Entwurf vorangetrieben? Wie "schlägt" sich der Entwurf im Vergleich zum BGB, zum DCFR oder zu den Acquis-Principles? Beleuchtet werden insbesondere Irrtumsanfechtung, AGB-Kontrolle, allgemeines und besonderes Leistungsstörungsrecht beim Kauf und bei verbundenen Dienstleistungen sowie übergreifende Fragestellungen zum Verbraucherrecht. Der Band wird abgerundet durch eine Synopse des Kommissionsentwurfs und der vorangegangenen Machbarkeitsstudie, in der die Entwicklung des Textes deutlich wird.

Adapted from the source document.

Language is part of ethnic identity, and ethnic identity in many cases, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, where ethnic nationalism is the prevailing form of nationalism, constitutes an integral part of nationalism (its other part consists of national interests as perceived by dominant groups and/or the majority). However, in the context of regional integration, the relationship between these categories undergoes a major change alongside with shifts in the identity structure.

Language is part of ethnic identity, and ethnic identity in many cases, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, where ethnic nationalism is the prevailing form of nationalism, constitutes an integral part of nationalism (its other part consists of national interests as perceived by dominant groups and/or the majority). However, in the context of regional integration, the relationship between these categories undergoes a major change alongside with shifts in the identity structure.

Language is part of ethnic identity, and ethnic identity in many cases, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, where ethnic nationalism is the prevailing form of nationalism, constitutes an integral part of nationalism (its other part consists of national interests as perceived by dominant groups and/or the majority). However, in the context of regional integration, the relationship between these categories undergoes a major change alongside with shifts in the identity structure.

An overview of the tax regimes in the EU confirms that EU countries apply quite similar tax systems, while only the VAT and the excise duties have been harmonised at EU level (by fixing the minimal tax rate, the base, etc.). However, tax harmonisation itself is understood as a centrally applied tax base across the EU and a procedure of unifying tax rates and the rules of tax payment. The EU acknowledges that different rules of calculating the corporate tax has hold over the movement of capital. Capital movement, which is determined by tax rules, is not considered to be "free," and distribution of resources, conditioned by such capital movement, is not viewed as being effective. It is maintained that different tax rules inhibit an effective distribution of resources or the way they would distribute in line with differences in productivity when "other circumstances," i.e. taxes, were equal. Admittedly, in the case of the corporate tax, harmonisation has not been very wide, except the enacted harmonisation of mergers, the tax base of parent companies, and interest and royalty payments. (Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, supplemented by Directive 90/435/EEB on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, and Directive 2005/19/EK partially replacing Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as well as Directive 2003/49/EB on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments). All these documents are expatiated in this paper. More over, the case-law of the Court of Justice is discussed to reveal the problems and the lack of regulation in direct taxes in European Union.

An overview of the tax regimes in the EU confirms that EU countries apply quite similar tax systems, while only the VAT and the excise duties have been harmonised at EU level (by fixing the minimal tax rate, the base, etc.). However, tax harmonisation itself is understood as a centrally applied tax base across the EU and a procedure of unifying tax rates and the rules of tax payment. The EU acknowledges that different rules of calculating the corporate tax has hold over the movement of capital. Capital movement, which is determined by tax rules, is not considered to be "free," and distribution of resources, conditioned by such capital movement, is not viewed as being effective. It is maintained that different tax rules inhibit an effective distribution of resources or the way they would distribute in line with differences in productivity when "other circumstances," i.e. taxes, were equal. Admittedly, in the case of the corporate tax, harmonisation has not been very wide, except the enacted harmonisation of mergers, the tax base of parent companies, and interest and royalty payments. (Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, supplemented by Directive 90/435/EEB on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, and Directive 2005/19/EK partially replacing Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as well as Directive 2003/49/EB on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments). All these documents are expatiated in this paper. More over, the case-law of the Court of Justice is discussed to reveal the problems and the lack of regulation in direct taxes in European Union.

An overview of the tax regimes in the EU confirms that EU countries apply quite similar tax systems, while only the VAT and the excise duties have been harmonised at EU level (by fixing the minimal tax rate, the base, etc.). However, tax harmonisation itself is understood as a centrally applied tax base across the EU and a procedure of unifying tax rates and the rules of tax payment. The EU acknowledges that different rules of calculating the corporate tax has hold over the movement of capital. Capital movement, which is determined by tax rules, is not considered to be "free," and distribution of resources, conditioned by such capital movement, is not viewed as being effective. It is maintained that different tax rules inhibit an effective distribution of resources or the way they would distribute in line with differences in productivity when "other circumstances," i.e. taxes, were equal. Admittedly, in the case of the corporate tax, harmonisation has not been very wide, except the enacted harmonisation of mergers, the tax base of parent companies, and interest and royalty payments. (Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, supplemented by Directive 90/435/EEB on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, and Directive 2005/19/EK partially replacing Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as well as Directive 2003/49/EB on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments). All these documents are expatiated in this paper. More over, the case-law of the Court of Justice is discussed to reveal the problems and the lack of regulation in direct taxes in European Union.

An overview of the tax regimes in the EU confirms that EU countries apply quite similar tax systems, while only the VAT and the excise duties have been harmonised at EU level (by fixing the minimal tax rate, the base, etc.). However, tax harmonisation itself is understood as a centrally applied tax base across the EU and a procedure of unifying tax rates and the rules of tax payment. The EU acknowledges that different rules of calculating the corporate tax has hold over the movement of capital. Capital movement, which is determined by tax rules, is not considered to be "free," and distribution of resources, conditioned by such capital movement, is not viewed as being effective. It is maintained that different tax rules inhibit an effective distribution of resources or the way they would distribute in line with differences in productivity when "other circumstances," i.e. taxes, were equal. Admittedly, in the case of the corporate tax, harmonisation has not been very wide, except the enacted harmonisation of mergers, the tax base of parent companies, and interest and royalty payments. (Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, supplemented by Directive 90/435/EEB on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, and Directive 2005/19/EK partially replacing Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, as well as Directive 2003/49/EB on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments). All these documents are expatiated in this paper. More over, the case-law of the Court of Justice is discussed to reveal the problems and the lack of regulation in direct taxes in European Union.

The EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 affected old and new members of the union differently. The processes changed the scale, structure and directions of international migration. According to official statistics the EU has about 30.8 million migrants, representing about 6.2 percent of the total population. There are different types of migration in the union: from economic migrants to asylum seekers or refugees. More than half of them are the working- age population. That influences changes in population and labour supply of the countries – changes occur in the number and structure of labour force, number of taxpayers and social security contributors, etc. About 33% of migration is movement in­side the EU countries.[.]

The EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 affected old and new members of the union differently. The processes changed the scale, structure and directions of international migration. According to official statistics the EU has about 30.8 million migrants, representing about 6.2 percent of the total population. There are different types of migration in the union: from economic migrants to asylum seekers or refugees. More than half of them are the working- age population. That influences changes in population and labour supply of the countries – changes occur in the number and structure of labour force, number of taxpayers and social security contributors, etc. About 33% of migration is movement in­side the EU countries.[.]