Scenario
Jamie Sands (DOB 10/12/1997) presents to your office with acute viral gastroenteritis. She hasnât vomited in more than 6 hours and is able to tolerate clear liquids but she is constantly nauseous. In addition to encouraging adequate fluid intake and monitoring for signs and symptoms of dehydration, you plan to give her a prescription for promethazine to alleviate her nausea. She only needs a limited amount for a few days. She will be instructed to follow-up in 72 hours if nausea does not resolve or sooner if she starts to experience intractable vomiting or signs of dehydration.
Sample Solution
example to keep in mind. The test in Centros highlighted the fact that establishing a company in a Member State whose company law rules are the least restrictive cannot in itself constitute an abuse of the right of establishment. This may be compatible with Cadbury Schweppes, but fundamentally incompatible with the decision in Part Service. The situations defining Cadbury Schweppes (a cross-border problem and fundamental freedom elements) and Halifax (the interpretation of a national tax rule) are also fundamentally different involving different tests. With this in mind, Vanistendael contends it is conceivable to have more than one concept of abuse. 6.2 After the VAT cases: should the abuse concept be codified? Turning to the question of whether or not the abuse concept as elaborated in the VAT cases should be characterised as a uniform national concept borrowed from EU law, Vanistendael focuses on the fact that the PS decision has made this obsolete. He argues against a possible codification at Union level, much unlike the Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Halifax, which concerned balancing the prohibition of abuse against the principles of legal certainty. Instead, he argues it would be more appropriate for the Court to further develop different concepts of abuse and have one which is specific to national situations, applied in accordance with secondary EU tax legislation. To do so would give more leeway to national courts in such situations. The author endorses the opinion of the Advocate General over that p>
example to keep in mind. The test in Centros highlighted the fact that establishing a company in a Member State whose company law rules are the least restrictive cannot in itself constitute an abuse of the right of establishment. This may be compatible with Cadbury Schweppes, but fundamentally incompatible with the decision in Part Service. The situations defining Cadbury Schweppes (a cross-border problem and fundamental freedom elements) and Halifax (the interpretation of a national tax rule) are also fundamentally different involving different tests. With this in mind, Vanistendael contends it is conceivable to have more than one concept of abuse. 6.2 After the VAT cases: should the abuse concept be codified? Turning to the question of whether or not the abuse concept as elaborated in the VAT cases should be characterised as a uniform national concept borrowed from EU law, Vanistendael focuses on the fact that the PS decision has made this obsolete. He argues against a possible codification at Union level, much unlike the Opinion of Advocate General Maduro in Halifax, which concerned balancing the prohibition of abuse against the principles of legal certainty. Instead, he argues it would be more appropriate for the Court to further develop different concepts of abuse and have one which is specific to national situations, applied in accordance with secondary EU tax legislation. To do so would give more leeway to national courts in such situations. The author endorses the opinion of the Advocate General over that p>
