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.[.]
Object research: Fitness market trends. Problem of research: How the fitness market trends in the European Union? Aim of research - assess the health trends aspects. Goals: 1. Overview the problems;of the health sector in the EU 2. Provide practical direction for the development of health promotion in the EU market 3. To examine the various EU countries, fitness club memberships, indicators; 4. The assessment of the promotion of a healthier way of life IT measures efficiency. The development of health sector in the European Union last year, is one of the priority tasks of the Member States. An ageing Europe, increasing the number of people age steadily increasing mortality from chronic non-infectious diseases, obesity, this is a major challenge for the EU today. Addressing the obesity problem in the physical passivity and practical directions for the development of health promotion in the EU market is basically focused on three areas: sports and fitness clubs memberships increases, community sports and the development of a healthier work environment. The members of the European Union, the fitness club memberships, a proportion of the general population on an average of one-tenth of the total population. EU leaders by the number of fitness memberships are Sweden and Denmark. Worst resuslts is in Lithuanian and Bulgaria these countries have at least people visiting fitness clubs. Portable technologies are growing in popularity and there are mentions as next top thing. Portable technology in the European Union market growth research shows that one in five person planning to buy these technologies and is very interested in them.
Object research: Fitness market trends. Problem of research: How the fitness market trends in the European Union? Aim of research - assess the health trends aspects. Goals: 1. Overview the problems;of the health sector in the EU 2. Provide practical direction for the development of health promotion in the EU market 3. To examine the various EU countries, fitness club memberships, indicators; 4. The assessment of the promotion of a healthier way of life IT measures efficiency. The development of health sector in the European Union last year, is one of the priority tasks of the Member States. An ageing Europe, increasing the number of people age steadily increasing mortality from chronic non-infectious diseases, obesity, this is a major challenge for the EU today. Addressing the obesity problem in the physical passivity and practical directions for the development of health promotion in the EU market is basically focused on three areas: sports and fitness clubs memberships increases, community sports and the development of a healthier work environment. The members of the European Union, the fitness club memberships, a proportion of the general population on an average of one-tenth of the total population. EU leaders by the number of fitness memberships are Sweden and Denmark. Worst resuslts is in Lithuanian and Bulgaria these countries have at least people visiting fitness clubs. Portable technologies are growing in popularity and there are mentions as next top thing. Portable technology in the European Union market growth research shows that one in five person planning to buy these technologies and is very interested in them.
Object research: Fitness market trends. Problem of research: How the fitness market trends in the European Union? Aim of research - assess the health trends aspects. Goals: 1. Overview the problems;of the health sector in the EU 2. Provide practical direction for the development of health promotion in the EU market 3. To examine the various EU countries, fitness club memberships, indicators; 4. The assessment of the promotion of a healthier way of life IT measures efficiency. The development of health sector in the European Union last year, is one of the priority tasks of the Member States. An ageing Europe, increasing the number of people age steadily increasing mortality from chronic non-infectious diseases, obesity, this is a major challenge for the EU today. Addressing the obesity problem in the physical passivity and practical directions for the development of health promotion in the EU market is basically focused on three areas: sports and fitness clubs memberships increases, community sports and the development of a healthier work environment. The members of the European Union, the fitness club memberships, a proportion of the general population on an average of one-tenth of the total population. EU leaders by the number of fitness memberships are Sweden and Denmark. Worst resuslts is in Lithuanian and Bulgaria these countries have at least people visiting fitness clubs. Portable technologies are growing in popularity and there are mentions as next top thing. Portable technology in the European Union market growth research shows that one in five person planning to buy these technologies and is very interested in them.
In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.
In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.
In the early stages of European integration, an education policy had not been identified as a political area for joint actions of the Member States. The first initiatives with regard to education by the European Communities of sizable political impact were undertaken in 1976. In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union finally laid the grounds for a legitimate role to be played by the EC Commission in the field of education. European Cummnity does not regulate the content of teaching and the organization of education systems of the Member States. The education policy of the European Union at present is mainly implemented through a series of programmes concerned with education and training. It is interesting to note that, while Member States of the Community are fiercely defending their own right to establish a content and methods of national education, the Community is recommending quite a different approach to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. As a result, people in Central and Eastern Europe are starting to feel that the transfer of knowledge, experience, and paradigms, which takes place, on the whole, rather uncritically, threatens their cultural identity. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the substantial positive impact of the programmes providing assistance to newly developing democracies, which were established by the Community after the fall of the Communist regimes in 1989 and 1990.
