The Legal Position of the Weaker Party in B2B Relationships with Online Platforms in the European Union – An Analysis of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Regulation (EU) 2019/1150

Author(s):  
Paweł Śmiałek

Discrimination is a phenomenon that has been existing in our society for many years. The main cause of increased legislative activity in European countries is the action of the European Union, which has issued a number of directives dealing with the problem of discrimination. Poland, as a member of the European Union, was obliged to implement anti-discrimination directives. The legislator did this by enacting the Act of 3 December 2010 on the implementation of certain European Union regulations on equal treatment (hereafter: the equality statute). The equality statue was a good step towards combating discrimination in areas such as the provision of services or capital fl ow. The legislator has also pointed to discriminatory features, including race, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation. These features cannot serve as a basis for diff erentiating the legal position of legal entities. In carrying out a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter, the study presented in this article covered: the normative grounds of an anti-discrimination lawsuit, the right to compensation, which deviates signifi cantly from the defi nition set out in Article 361 of the Civ il Code, the substantive and legal grounds for action, the principles and the procedure for claiming compensation. The article also deals with the eff ectiveness of the application of the measure in the jurisprudence. To that end, the study examined the case law of common courts dealing with the facts related to the equality law. The Ombudsman and other anti-discrimination aut horities have also been contacted for information on the use of this measure. The paper identifi es as well, the potential solutions aimed at increasing the eff ectiveness and frequency of the use of anti-discrimination lawsuits before Polish common courts.


Author(s):  
Anna Moskal

In order to address the negative consequences of double taxation of the same income or capital belonging to a EU citizen, bi- and multilateral tax treaties have been concluded between the Member States. The EU legislator has enacted legislation introducing measures such as Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2011/96/EU and the EU Arbitration Convention to counteract the adverse effects of double taxation. Considering the imperfections in the previous procedures, the Council of the EU has issued Directive 2017/1852 on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU, aiming to eliminate the existing shortcomings and to create a harmonized framework for dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to present the phenomenon of double taxation in the EU, to identify the shortcomings of the current mechanisms and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the procedure provided for in Directive 2017/1852. Procedura wzajemnego porozumienia przewidziana w Dyrektywie 2017/1852 jako remedium na problem podwójnego opodatkowania w Unii EuropejskiejW praktyce obrotu gospodarczego UE niejednokrotnie dochodzi do podwójnego opodatkowania tego samego dochodu lub kapitału należącego do obywatela UE. W celu zniwelowania negatywnych konsekwencji podwójnego opodatkowania państwa członkowskie zawarły między sobą liczne bi- i multilateralne umowy podatkowe. Prawodawca uchwalił akty prawne wprowadzające środki przeciwdziałające niekorzystnym skutkom podwójnego opodatkowania, to jest Dyrektywę 2003/49/WE, Dyrektywę 2011/96/UE i tak zwaną unijną konwencję arbitrażową. Mając na uwadze niedoskonałości w dotychczasowych procedurach, Rada UE wydała Dyrektywę 2017/1852 w sprawie mechanizmów rozstrzygania sporów dotyczących podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, która dąży do wyeliminowania istniejących niedociągnięć oraz stworzenia sharmonizowanych ram rozstrzygania sporów. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zjawiska podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, wskazanie wad obecnie obowiązujących mechanizmów oraz dokonane analizy procedury przewidzianej w Dyrektywie 2017/1852.


2009 ◽  
pp. 97-107
Author(s):  
Bernadett Szilágyi

Hungary is a country of favourable conditions with agropotential, for this reason the regulations regarding agriculture is constantly the bone of legislative contention. Thepurpose of this study is to present the actual agropotential contradictions concerning the agricultural producers, specifically focusing on certain problems without any detailed representation of the valid rules of law. The agrofinancial anomalies referring to agricultural producers can be found mostly in the system of the personal income tax (allowance, tax immunity), the value added tax (special agricultural legal position) as well as the social insurance.The severity of the problem is supported by the agricultural producers’ behavioral types of paying taxes, globalisation process of these days and our place in the European Union. The resolution of the contradictions in agriculture does not lie by any means in the proper way of making the rules of the law of taxation, but in a comprehensive economic policy, which is to be waited for.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 609-618
Author(s):  
George Tsitsas ◽  
Chavdar Kolev ◽  
Liliana Radoi ◽  
Vlad Petrila

This publication provides an overview of the current technical and contractual trends that govern the execution of micro-tunneling projects in both Romania and Bulgaria. Technical issues discussed include available equipment and technologies, aspects related to the complexity and challenges of these works, comparisons between the open trench and trenchless methods, environmental impact, and other. Legal issues discussed include contractual schemes, relationship between the parties involved, dispute resolution, and contract types in compliance with both the national as well as the European Union law. Appropriate technical equipment is recommended to avoid risk in implementation and ensure the quality of finished products.


2001 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 622-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. DANIEL KELEMEN

This article analyzes the politics of supranational dispute resolution, focusing on trade-environment disputes in the context of the European Union (EU) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO). The author analyzes how the interaction of political and legal pressures has influenced decision making by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and by GATT/WTO panels in trade-environment disputes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document