"The principle of non-discrimination plays a vital role in international and European tax law. This dissertation analyses the interpretation given to that principle in tax treaty practice and in the direct tax case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) on the fundamental freedoms. The objective of this analysis is twofold: to give a clear and thorough overview of both standards and to determine whether they share a common, underlying principle of non-discrimination. In order to achieve these objectives, a comprehensive selection of case law is discussed from the perspective of the two constitutive elements of discrimination, comparability and the existence of different treatment. Moreover, attention is drawn to the question whether a domestic measure that is found to be discriminatory may nevertheless be justified on the basis of reasons of public interest. Finally, the possible interplay between both standards is addressed. First, the partial overlap of the two non-discrimination rules may cause frictions. Complex triangular situations are possible, with conflicting rules giving rise to interpretation problems. A second issue discussed in this context is whether national courts of EU Member States are influenced by ECJ case law on the fundamental freedoms when interpreting the non-discrimination provision in tax treaties. Given the deficiencies of that provision, courts may be tempted to draw inspiration from the European standard. The relevant case law is discussed in order to determine whether there is indeed such an influence, and whether such an influence is appropriate."--Extracted from publisher website on May 20, 2015.
Most bilateral investment treaties deal with the risks created by such investment by ... from the other “[s]ubject to its right to exercise 73 Vandevelde, ...
6.96 Plummer v IRC (1988)... 6.39, 6.58 Po, The (1991)... 2.34 Pocket Kings Ltd v Safenames Ltd (2010). . . 3.42 Polly Peck International plc (in administration) (No4), Re (1998)... 2.260 Polly Peck International plc v Nadir (1992).
Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law
9 IPRax 2004 , 339. Vgl . hierzu Juliana Mörsdorf - Schulte , Europäische Impulse für Namen und Status des Mehrstaaters , IPRax 2004 , 315 ff . zen , behandelt zu werden “ 10 . Dieses Ergebnis 159.
(Czech Republic), Mr. David Goldberg, Partner at White & Case LLP (United Kingdom), Dr. Beata Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz, President of Lewiatan Court of Arbitration and Managing Partner at GESSEL Law Firm (Poland), Dr. Crenguta Leaua ...
... to the cause of action may bring the action within such times as are before limited after the return of the absent person to the province.106 It would seem that the statute is not 101 Huber v . Steiner , supra , note 99 ; Harris v .
This research review discusses an important selection of research articles and papers on the cross-border enforcement of intellectual property rights.
To help readers come to grips with the necessity of approaching the subject from a transnational perspective, this book surveys the best available U.S. and foreign cases, statutes, and commentaries covering global Internet Law developments.
John E. Montgomery , Professor of Law , University of South Carolina . PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY , Third Edition ( 1984 ) , with 1984 Selected National Standards Supplement Thomas D. Morgan , Dean of the Law School , Emory University ...
The Conflict of Laws