Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This is a thesis in contract law concerning the distinction between interpretation of contracts (“tolkning”) and construction of contracts (“utfyllning”) traditionally upheld within Scandinavian doctrine. To some extent, this distinction has always been a source of conceptual confusion, but in late-modern times, it has, in certain respects, become almost unintelligible – owing to the gradual loss of function of the form of rationality that originally sustained it. The distinction is now a mere artefact. In itself, this fact does, of course, not make this particular conceptual contraption exceptional. As they are absorbed into the language of contract law, all successful contract law concepts undergoes a process of reification. In the case of the distinction between interpretation and construction, the result is, however, unusually curious. In its traditional form, the distinction expresses the hope for a law of contract that is organized according to scientific principles. It rests on the assumption that it is desirable and possible, in principle, to separate science from non-science. It presupposes that questions of fact are separable from questions of law, Is from Ought, and the uncovering of the meaning of legal documents from the application of the rules they contain. The distinction promises that it is possible to escape the confines of the law-text, to reach beyond the text and the play of words constituting its interpretation, in order to ground interpretive discourse in factual reality. Yet, the distinction itself is nothing but text, i e, nothing but law. Drawing on the Kantian tradition, specifically on the writings of Wittgenstein, the author subjects this contradictory structure to criticism. The aim of the study is, however, not to once and for all remove the contradiction. On the contrary, the policy advocated is one of acceptance – mediated through historical awareness. By distancing ourselves from the vision of law and science that is immanent in the distinction under scrutiny, we would be able to come to terms with the hermeneutical side of contract interpretation, and with the inscrutability of the subjective dimension of the contract construct. When interpretation is called for, it is due to the very fact that there is no verifiable intention, yet the conclusions of the interpreter are given in the form of reports on what the parties actually intended. This, the author concludes, does not make the interpretation of contracts unscientific, even though we, being Scandinavian private law lawyers, were fostered to think otherwise.

Skatteflykt motverkas i många rättssystem genom åtgärder på olika nivåer. I Sverige är en av de metoder som används en lagstiftad generalklausul mot skatteflykt, skatteflyktslagen. Såväl rättssäkerhet som skattesystemets effektivitet anses vara grundläggande värden att upprätthålla i det svenska skattesystemet. Skatteflyktsproblematiken innebär dock att dessa båda värden i vissa situationer inte samtidigt kan uppfyllas fullt ut, vilket innebär att ett rättsligt område skapas där det blir nödvändigt att göra kompromisser och avvägningar. Det är den här balansen som är den stora utmaningen gällande åtgärder mot skatteflykt och som blir mycket tydlig gällande skatteflyktslagen. Avhandlingen analyserar generalklausuler mot skatteflykt ur ett rättssäkerhets- och effektivitetsperspektiv. Denna analys genomförs i form av en komparativ studie av Sveriges, Kanadas och Tysklands generalklausuler mot skatteflykt. Användandet av en generalklausul jämförs också med användandet av en praxismetod, vilket är den andra repressiva metoden mot skatteflykt som är frekvent förekommande i olika rättssystem världen över. Det konstateras att det är många olika frågor vid sidan av den konkreta rekvisitkonstruktionen och tillämpningsområdet som påverkar vilken rättssäkerhet och effektivitet som en generalklausul mot skatteflykt uppnår. Hur domstolssystemet ser ut, vilken inställning som finns till lagtolkning och hur domstolarna och skattemyndigheten väljer att tillämpa klausulen är exempel på mer generella frågor som har stor betydelse. Men även t.ex. relationen till andra metoder mot skatteflykt, möjligheten att erhålla förhandsbesked och vilka administrativa specialregler som används påverkar. I avhandlingen framför författaren sin uppfattning om vilka områden som är av störst vikt att utveckla i svensk rätt för att stärka skatteflyktslagens rättssäkerhet och effektivitet i framtiden.

The purpose of this thesis is to describe and analyse the significance of economic thinking and arguments in the treatment of licence agreements in EC competition law. A central question is to what degree the concept of competition in EC law reflects an economically realistic approach to competition. The study also investigates to what degree the economic functioning of intellectual property is considered in competition regulation and how much the economic functioning of the licence agreement is considered. The investigation mainly consists of a comparative analysis of EC competition law and American antitrust law concerning the economic arguments and their importance. The treatment of territorial restrictions, field of use restrictions, quantity clauses, tie-outs, tie-ins, grant back, no-challenge clauses and price restrictions are of special interest here. This study shows that an economically realistic view of competition has influenced current EC competition law, especially in the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER). Exceptions from this development in the EC law are mainly due to the goal of integration of the common market. Territorial restrictions are strictly regulated in the TTBER even when the parties’ market shares are below the market thresholds defined in the regulation. The function of intellectual property rights are not much considered in EC competition law but there are general remarks about the economic functioning of patents in the Guidelines for the TTBER. However, it is difficult to find evidence for economic reasoning about patents in the formation of concrete rules. On the contrary, patents are weakened by the widened concept of exhaustion presented in the Guidelines. The economic functioning of the licence agreement is considered in the rules of TTBER and the economic arguments for clauses which create incentives for making investments or give the possibility of control are acknowledged. However, the free riding argument has a weak position when applied to territorial restrictions, which are more formalistically regulated. The EC competition law has become more similar to American antitrust law. The decisive difference consists in the judicial treatment of territorial restrictions, where the goal of integration is still of central importance in EC law.

The dissertation addresses the problem of how conflicts between the Swedish Competition Act (SFS 1993:20) and anti-competitive state regulations are to be solved. The study focuses on the legal situation in Sweden after 1993, when a new competition law was enacted and after the Swedish Membership of the European Union 1995. A comparative survey of how similar conflicts are solved in American Law, EU Law and Danish Law is made. The rationale behind the reform of the competition legislation in Sweden was the consideration that competition did not work well enough on Swedish markets. One important reason for this was thought to be the existence of regulations with a negative impact on competition. The solution of the problem was thought to reside in the adjustment of the Swedish competition legislation to the rules of the European Community (EC). After this substantial legal reform, a change in how anti-competitive regulations are dealt with could be expected. This study shows, however, that there has been practically no change at all. When conflicts between the Competition Act and anti-competitive regulations do occur, the Swedish Competition Authority evaluates the applicability of the regulation to see if a conflict really is at hand. In this legal process it is suggested that the regulation and not the Competition Act should be interpreted narrowly. This study shows that such a restrictive approach can be justified when taking the relevant sources of law into account. In cases where a disturbance to competition is the direct and necessary consequence of a clear regulation – with due considerations to EC Law – the regulation prevails. When these conditions are not at hand, it can be justified to give priority to the Competition Act.