4 ms·

GDPR is a different law per country, not one law for the whole Union. A lawyer could argue that the law in their country is supposed to work like the law of an

GDPR is a different law per country, not one law for the whole Union. A lawyer could argue that the law in their country is supposed to work like the law of another country because both are GDPR, not directly appeal to the authority of a foreign court.

rambambram 3y ago
One thing that I did remember from my legal career was that lawyers could always argue literally everything. ;)
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  That unironically sounds like a minimum requirement for being a good lawyer.
darkclouds 3y ago
[dead]
jampekka 3y ago
GDPR is an EU regulation which means that it is one law for the whole union. EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. An EU directive means that countries have to put a law in their own books. Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. In most EU countries only high/supreme court rulings set a precedent anyway.
- chmod775 3y ago
  > EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. On paper that is the idea politicians had, but they don't always have the final say in practice. For instance Germany's Federal Constitutional Court reserved themselves the right to make decisions superseding EU regulations, however re-affirming the authority of the European Court of Justice "in the general case", since it is compatible with Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Neither court is explicitly considered to be higher and their stance is cooperative. So far, as far as I know, no EU regulation was struck down in Germany, only parts of various laws implementing directives. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht-Urteil https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht-Urteil
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  >Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. If there is a contested interpretation of EU law then the lower courts of a member state MAY refer a question (or questions) to the CJEU to resolve the issue. In the case of the highest courts (where there can be no appeal) they MUST make a referral to the CJEU. These referrals also aren't "appeals" as such, either, but are designed to answer the questions in such a way that the member states' courts can resolve the case with an authoritative (and consistent) interpretation of EU law.

rambambram 3y ago

One thing that I did remember from my legal career was that lawyers could always argue literally everything. ;)

vanderZwan 3y ago
That unironically sounds like a minimum requirement for being a good lawyer.

darkclouds 3y ago

[dead]

jampekka 3y ago

GDPR is an EU regulation which means that it is one law for the whole union. EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. An EU directive means that countries have to put a law in their own books. Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. In most EU countries only high/supreme court rulings set a precedent anyway.

chmod775 3y ago
> EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. On paper that is the idea politicians had, but they don't always have the final say in practice. For instance Germany's Federal Constitutional Court reserved themselves the right to make decisions superseding EU regulations, however re-affirming the authority of the European Court of Justice "in the general case", since it is compatible with Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Neither court is explicitly considered to be higher and their stance is cooperative. So far, as far as I know, no EU regulation was struck down in Germany, only parts of various laws implementing directives. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht-Urteil https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht-Urteil
M2Ys4U 3y ago
>Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. If there is a contested interpretation of EU law then the lower courts of a member state MAY refer a question (or questions) to the CJEU to resolve the issue. In the case of the highest courts (where there can be no appeal) they MUST make a referral to the CJEU. These referrals also aren't "appeals" as such, either, but are designed to answer the questions in such a way that the member states' courts can resolve the case with an authoritative (and consistent) interpretation of EU law.