3 ms·

Strasbourg court does not override local highest courts, they have different kind of work to do - they override laws that are against EU regulations. Strasbourg

Strasbourg court does not override local highest courts, they have different kind of work to do - they override laws that are against EU regulations. Strasbourg court is there to determine if an implementation of a regulation is in line and might overrule it (the law), but if it is in line, then they will not (and can not) help the company at all. And since GDPR is very broad, it's very easy to come up with absurdly strict laws that are perfectly in line with the regulation, and even the poorest EU governments have an extreme abundance of legal resources compared to even the biggest companies. Strasbourg court is not the highest court instance (that's the local highest/constitutional court), there is no such thing in the EU, the EU is not a state.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
The way it goes is that cases cannot be appealed directly to the ECJ, rather the local courts can refer questions of EU law to the ECJ at their discretion. That normally happens when a case has been appealed all the way to the highest national court. So for this little money-grabbing scheme we're discussing to work out, the higher courts of -some? all? many?- member states of the EU must all be in on it. This, in a region of the world with some of the lowest corrpution globally. I don't want to say the words "conspiracy theory" but that's where this whole discussion has been heading to, from the get go.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  I'm not supporting this "conspiracy theory", I'm just saying that the Strasbourg court isn't an "ordinary" highest court like it is in other parts of the world or within local jurisdictions. If the local implementation is in line with the regulation (and as I said, GDPR is extremely broad and allows extremely strict implementations), the Strasbourg court will say that it's perfectly OK - there is no need for other countries to be in on it. They might feel like it's bad, but they can do nothing, their job is to judge whether it's against the regulation or not, nothing else. If they wish to change it, they have to go through the usual route of gaining support in EU commission and EU parliament - and that change will not be retroactive. What you're saying would be needed if the strict implementation was against the regulation - then it would require a change of the regulation and yes, that needs cooperation of other countries; but the regulation already is broad, there is no need to change it if someone wanted to make this "conspiracy theory" a reality. And lastly, we're speaking about money making schemes of the poorest or most indebted EU governments, you're talking about low corruption, but in these countries, it's the exact opposite - they have much higher corruption indexes than the average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index - see stats of e.g. Macedonia, Greece, Italy.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    Macedonia is not in the EU, and it will not be allowed in until it resolves its name dispute with Greece and sorts out its finances and political issues. So we're talking about malicious action by higher court judges in Italy and Greece, specifically and only in those two countries? Or are there more countries that have high enough corruption that their higher order judges might think to make a bit on the side by applying the GDPR too broadly? How many poor EU countries are we talking about here? And which ones exactly? Greece, Italy- who else?
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves. We're talking about action by a government against a corporation. I'm not even sure why are we talking about corruption, this has nothing to do with it. This is not about judges applying GDPR. The lawmakers will apply it, and then the state could sue a corporation for breaking laws. Local highest court will then eventually look into the intent of the local implementation and see that yes, this was the intent - and the corporation will need to pay up, because the court can't change laws, they can only cancel them in a few special cases (specifically if a law is ruled unconstitutional by a majority of the country's constitutional judges). The corporation then has an opportunity to go to Strasbourg, but since GDPR is very broad, its chances would be very slim - and most probably none. About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
        >> The lawmakers will apply it, and then the state could sue a corporation for breaking laws. The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law. Are you talking about national laws that implement regulations similar to, but distinct to the GDPR? >> I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves. For the government to make money, the judges will need to find against the various companies. But why will the judges sit idly by and watch the government making money out of a racket they themselves make possible, without asking for a cut? Or, to be more precise- what is the incentive for the judges to do the government's favour and interpret the GDPR in the broad manner required for the conspiracy to work? >> About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though. So it's three countries- Italy, Greece and Croatia? Is that right?

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

The way it goes is that cases cannot be appealed directly to the ECJ, rather the local courts can refer questions of EU law to the ECJ at their discretion. That normally happens when a case has been appealed all the way to the highest national court. So for this little money-grabbing scheme we're discussing to work out, the higher courts of -some? all? many?- member states of the EU must all be in on it. This, in a region of the world with some of the lowest corrpution globally. I don't want to say the words "conspiracy theory" but that's where this whole discussion has been heading to, from the get go.

TomMarius 9y ago
I'm not supporting this "conspiracy theory", I'm just saying that the Strasbourg court isn't an "ordinary" highest court like it is in other parts of the world or within local jurisdictions. If the local implementation is in line with the regulation (and as I said, GDPR is extremely broad and allows extremely strict implementations), the Strasbourg court will say that it's perfectly OK - there is no need for other countries to be in on it. They might feel like it's bad, but they can do nothing, their job is to judge whether it's against the regulation or not, nothing else. If they wish to change it, they have to go through the usual route of gaining support in EU commission and EU parliament - and that change will not be retroactive. What you're saying would be needed if the strict implementation was against the regulation - then it would require a change of the regulation and yes, that needs cooperation of other countries; but the regulation already is broad, there is no need to change it if someone wanted to make this "conspiracy theory" a reality. And lastly, we're speaking about money making schemes of the poorest or most indebted EU governments, you're talking about low corruption, but in these countries, it's the exact opposite - they have much higher corruption indexes than the average: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index - see stats of e.g. Macedonia, Greece, Italy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  Macedonia is not in the EU, and it will not be allowed in until it resolves its name dispute with Greece and sorts out its finances and political issues. So we're talking about malicious action by higher court judges in Italy and Greece, specifically and only in those two countries? Or are there more countries that have high enough corruption that their higher order judges might think to make a bit on the side by applying the GDPR too broadly? How many poor EU countries are we talking about here? And which ones exactly? Greece, Italy- who else?
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves. We're talking about action by a government against a corporation. I'm not even sure why are we talking about corruption, this has nothing to do with it. This is not about judges applying GDPR. The lawmakers will apply it, and then the state could sue a corporation for breaking laws. Local highest court will then eventually look into the intent of the local implementation and see that yes, this was the intent - and the corporation will need to pay up, because the court can't change laws, they can only cancel them in a few special cases (specifically if a law is ruled unconstitutional by a majority of the country's constitutional judges). The corporation then has an opportunity to go to Strasbourg, but since GDPR is very broad, its chances would be very slim - and most probably none. About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
      >> The lawmakers will apply it, and then the state could sue a corporation for breaking laws. The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law. Are you talking about national laws that implement regulations similar to, but distinct to the GDPR? >> I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves. For the government to make money, the judges will need to find against the various companies. But why will the judges sit idly by and watch the government making money out of a racket they themselves make possible, without asking for a cut? Or, to be more precise- what is the incentive for the judges to do the government's favour and interpret the GDPR in the broad manner required for the conspiracy to work? >> About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though. So it's three countries- Italy, Greece and Croatia? Is that right?