3 ms·

The ECJ has thrown out two schemes like this already; the new scheme is barely changed from the previous two. NOYB is likely to challenge this one too. The EU

The ECJ has thrown out two schemes like this already; the new scheme is barely changed from the previous two. NOYB is likely to challenge this one too. The EU Commission is a lobbyist's playground, and the least-democratic of the EU institutions. I'm shocked that the Commission can do something like this by decree, without any review by other institutions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mananaysiempre 3y ago
> I'm shocked that the Commission can do something like this by decree, without any review by other institutions. I don’t actually understand what the legal status of the “adequacy decision” is—it seems that once it’s thrown out by CJEU anyone who’d trusted it is still considered to have been doing illegal things? What does the decision make possible that wasn’t before? That said, diplomacy has always been a part of the executive, which combined with the spread of democracy has led to weird hacks such as signatures on treaties not actually meaning anything until a parliament approves of (“ratifies”) them.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  I haven't gone into it. I think the idea is that the Commission maintains a list of countries to which it is OK to transfer data. The list is referenced from the regulation, but maintained by the Commission. Effectively, the Commission can adjust the legislation by buereaucratic pen-stroke, by altering the list. I don't know whether it can operate retrospectively; for example, if you were off the list for a few years, but are now OK again, does that mean that your tech companies can't be chased for what they were doing when it wasn't OK? I'd also like to know how this affects the UK. I don't know whether the UK implements the Commission's list in our legislation. Like I said, I haven't had a chance to dig yet.
blibble 3y ago
> I'm shocked that the Commission can do something like this by decree, without any review by other institutions. the entire point of the EU is the transfer of power from member state elected parliaments to a continent wide appointed executive and it's designed as a ratchet: once transferred it's impossible to get back (other than leaving the entire thing)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mananaysiempre 3y ago

> I'm shocked that the Commission can do something like this by decree, without any review by other institutions. I don’t actually understand what the legal status of the “adequacy decision” is—it seems that once it’s thrown out by CJEU anyone who’d trusted it is still considered to have been doing illegal things? What does the decision make possible that wasn’t before? That said, diplomacy has always been a part of the executive, which combined with the spread of democracy has led to weird hacks such as signatures on treaties not actually meaning anything until a parliament approves of (“ratifies”) them.

denton-scratch 3y ago
I haven't gone into it. I think the idea is that the Commission maintains a list of countries to which it is OK to transfer data. The list is referenced from the regulation, but maintained by the Commission. Effectively, the Commission can adjust the legislation by buereaucratic pen-stroke, by altering the list. I don't know whether it can operate retrospectively; for example, if you were off the list for a few years, but are now OK again, does that mean that your tech companies can't be chased for what they were doing when it wasn't OK? I'd also like to know how this affects the UK. I don't know whether the UK implements the Commission's list in our legislation. Like I said, I haven't had a chance to dig yet.

blibble 3y ago

> I'm shocked that the Commission can do something like this by decree, without any review by other institutions. the entire point of the EU is the transfer of power from member state elected parliaments to a continent wide appointed executive and it's designed as a ratchet: once transferred it's impossible to get back (other than leaving the entire thing)