4 ms·

It's a simple text that fits on a single web page. Put the word into the search engine of your choice and off you go. Honestly, if one a) isn't capable of gras

It's a simple text that fits on a single web page. Put the word into the search engine of your choice and off you go. Honestly, if one a) isn't capable of grasping the idea that different countries have different foundational laws, and b) isn't capable to find the relevant passages of the Grundgesetz without external help, one should really double check whether commenting on the case at hand is a net plus for the community.

tom_mellior 7y ago
I know where to find the Grundgesetz, thank you. > relevant passages That's the place in your post where a link (or article number) would have been useful.
- bildung 7y ago
  They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling (starts with "Das Urteil" in German). The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Search for "GG", which is the abbreviation of Grundgesetz.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    > They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling The first sentence of the ruling says that the paintiff's rights under articles 1 and 2 were affected, but that doesn't mean that those articles are the only relevant parts of the Grundgesetz. > The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Yes, I've had the idea of looking at that myself. That references at least articles 1, 2, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 93 GG, as well as at least the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and GDPR. If the OP's point was that this ruling follows directly from "two or three articles" of the Grundgesetz, the OP was wrong -- even if speaking figuratively. The actual reasoning is based on much more than that, including EU law. Unsurprisingly, the issue is much more complex than the OP made it out to be, otherwise it never would have made it past the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof anyway.

tom_mellior 7y ago

I know where to find the Grundgesetz, thank you. > relevant passages That's the place in your post where a link (or article number) would have been useful.

bildung 7y ago
They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling (starts with "Das Urteil" in German). The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Search for "GG", which is the abbreviation of Grundgesetz.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  > They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling The first sentence of the ruling says that the paintiff's rights under articles 1 and 2 were affected, but that doesn't mean that those articles are the only relevant parts of the Grundgesetz. > The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Yes, I've had the idea of looking at that myself. That references at least articles 1, 2, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 93 GG, as well as at least the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and GDPR. If the OP's point was that this ruling follows directly from "two or three articles" of the Grundgesetz, the OP was wrong -- even if speaking figuratively. The actual reasoning is based on much more than that, including EU law. Unsurprisingly, the issue is much more complex than the OP made it out to be, otherwise it never would have made it past the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof anyway.