5 ms·

I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commiss

I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commission to enforce things. Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians. I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way. You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.

benoau 1y ago
The problem with this is big tech companies are very adept at stringing court-based enforcement along, that would defer this punishment until well into the 2030s and even the 2040s for actually rectifying the issues.
- immibis 1y ago
  It should at least have to be agreed by both the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Then you have to fix the courts in general so that such things are impossible.
lucianbr 1y ago
Who does "enforcement" in Sweden? Is the police somehow under the courts? Same for things like consumer protection agencies, environment protection and so on? Are prosecutors somehow in the same group as the judges? That may work for you, but I see some potential for abuse there as well. I think that is how it turned out in Japan, once you are prosecuted conviction is a foregone conclusion.
- Zironic 1y ago
  The way it works is that the goverment (The politicians in executive positions) are allowed to write policy for all goverment agencies but they're not legally allowed to tell the agency how to handle any given individual case.
  - lucianbr 1y ago
    Who hires / appoints the chiefs of the agencies?
    - Y-bar 1y ago
      The government, specifically the Regering and the prime minister: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utn%C3%A4mningsmakten_i_Sverige https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utn%C3%A4mningsmakten_i_Sver... (sorry only in Swedish)
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  No, they are not. The police is under the control of the central government (and that includes the courts). Yes, it is true that swedish politicans dont want to give the impression they control the actions of the police etc but of course in the end they do. The difference is maybe in the US politicans say "I gave the order to the police to do X" while in Sweden they would say in private "you probably should do X or we might find a replacement"
victorbjorklund 1y ago
You get that "myndigheterna" are under the government right? And that the government controls the authorities.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Yes, but they can't actually make intervene in any individual case.
Y-bar 1y ago
What do you say when Arbetsmiljöverket (labour regulation), Skatteverket (IRS), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (monterary crimes) take enforcement actions in Sweden and hand out decisions for fines and such? The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  That's fine. They aren't politically appointed and in the end their decisions are checked by the courts. The EU commission on the other hand actually has power. As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    The appointment of directors of these Swedish agencies is effectively identical to the appointment to the commission.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      The director of arbetsmiljöverket does not intervene in individual cases either, and in the end the law is what matters. >Ingen myndighet, inte heller riksdagen eller en kommuns beslutande organ, får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag. No authority [...] may decide how an administrative authority is to decide in a case involving use of authority against an individual[...] Furthermore, the commission is not like a directors of an agency. They are politicians. I would compare them to government ministers, who are appointed in a similar way.
      - Y-bar 1y ago
        Oh man, I’m confused why you keep arguing like the 12th chapter of the Swedish Regeringsform does not exist. What you write is not what is reality in law or reality in effect in Sweden.
nonethewiser 1y ago
Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU? My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen. Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions. Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?
- sam_lowry_ 1y ago
  > Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU? The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.
  - layer8 1y ago
    That’s not quite accurate. There is an extended process in which the Parliament and the Council can give input and propose and discuss changes to the Commission’s proposal, to work out a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure#Ordinary_legislative_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_pro...
    - tmp10423288442 1y ago
      How feasible is it in practice? In the US, it's possible in practice to remove officials via impeachment as well as amend the constitution, but in practice they are almost impossible to achieve. In practice the legislature is almost deadlocked for most non-budget bills as well, so the executive ends up running the country, with an assist from the judiciary.
      - layer8 1y ago
        Reaching agreement through the trilogue is the standard practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogue_meeting#Increasing_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogue_meeting#Increasing_us...
looperhacks 1y ago
I have my issues with how legislation is set up in the EU, but it's not like the commission can just make its own laws. The commission can only submit proposals, which then have to be approved (or changed) by the council and parliament. (In fact, the commission is the only party that can submit proposals, something that is very weird to me) As such, the commission is not part of the legislative branch, but the executive. The main job of the executive is to enforce the law, e.g. with fines. In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]: > Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police. It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot). Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  My problem is actually that they have enforcement and rulemaking power. There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    The Swedish IRS (whose directors are appointed in a fashion similar to the commission) publishes regular clarifications of tax law and how they implement the tax law in their enforcement of Swedish tax law. How is that any different?
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      In the end you can still go to court about it, secondly the government can't interfere in individual cases. The commission though, is literally doing things relating to individual cases, and they're politicians directly appointed by European governments. Simply, it's not rule of law, it's rule by the council.

benoau 1y ago

The problem with this is big tech companies are very adept at stringing court-based enforcement along, that would defer this punishment until well into the 2030s and even the 2040s for actually rectifying the issues.

immibis 1y ago
It should at least have to be agreed by both the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.
impossiblefork 1y ago
Then you have to fix the courts in general so that such things are impossible.

lucianbr 1y ago

Who does "enforcement" in Sweden? Is the police somehow under the courts? Same for things like consumer protection agencies, environment protection and so on? Are prosecutors somehow in the same group as the judges? That may work for you, but I see some potential for abuse there as well. I think that is how it turned out in Japan, once you are prosecuted conviction is a foregone conclusion.

Zironic 1y ago
The way it works is that the goverment (The politicians in executive positions) are allowed to write policy for all goverment agencies but they're not legally allowed to tell the agency how to handle any given individual case.
- lucianbr 1y ago
  Who hires / appoints the chiefs of the agencies?
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    The government, specifically the Regering and the prime minister: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utn%C3%A4mningsmakten_i_Sverige https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utn%C3%A4mningsmakten_i_Sver... (sorry only in Swedish)
victorbjorklund 1y ago
No, they are not. The police is under the control of the central government (and that includes the courts). Yes, it is true that swedish politicans dont want to give the impression they control the actions of the police etc but of course in the end they do. The difference is maybe in the US politicans say "I gave the order to the police to do X" while in Sweden they would say in private "you probably should do X or we might find a replacement"

victorbjorklund 1y ago

You get that "myndigheterna" are under the government right? And that the government controls the authorities.

impossiblefork 1y ago
Yes, but they can't actually make intervene in any individual case.

Y-bar 1y ago

What do you say when Arbetsmiljöverket (labour regulation), Skatteverket (IRS), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (monterary crimes) take enforcement actions in Sweden and hand out decisions for fines and such? The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.

impossiblefork 1y ago
That's fine. They aren't politically appointed and in the end their decisions are checked by the courts. The EU commission on the other hand actually has power. As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.
- Y-bar 1y ago
  The appointment of directors of these Swedish agencies is effectively identical to the appointment to the commission.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    The director of arbetsmiljöverket does not intervene in individual cases either, and in the end the law is what matters. >Ingen myndighet, inte heller riksdagen eller en kommuns beslutande organ, får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag. No authority [...] may decide how an administrative authority is to decide in a case involving use of authority against an individual[...] Furthermore, the commission is not like a directors of an agency. They are politicians. I would compare them to government ministers, who are appointed in a similar way.
    - Y-bar 1y ago
      Oh man, I’m confused why you keep arguing like the 12th chapter of the Swedish Regeringsform does not exist. What you write is not what is reality in law or reality in effect in Sweden.

nonethewiser 1y ago

Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU? My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen. Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions. Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?

sam_lowry_ 1y ago
> Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU? The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.
- layer8 1y ago
  That’s not quite accurate. There is an extended process in which the Parliament and the Council can give input and propose and discuss changes to the Commission’s proposal, to work out a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure#Ordinary_legislative_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_pro...
  - tmp10423288442 1y ago
    How feasible is it in practice? In the US, it's possible in practice to remove officials via impeachment as well as amend the constitution, but in practice they are almost impossible to achieve. In practice the legislature is almost deadlocked for most non-budget bills as well, so the executive ends up running the country, with an assist from the judiciary.
    - layer8 1y ago
      Reaching agreement through the trilogue is the standard practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogue_meeting#Increasing_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogue_meeting#Increasing_us...

looperhacks 1y ago

I have my issues with how legislation is set up in the EU, but it's not like the commission can just make its own laws. The commission can only submit proposals, which then have to be approved (or changed) by the council and parliament. (In fact, the commission is the only party that can submit proposals, something that is very weird to me) As such, the commission is not part of the legislative branch, but the executive. The main job of the executive is to enforce the law, e.g. with fines. In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]: > Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police. It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot). Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU

impossiblefork 1y ago
My problem is actually that they have enforcement and rulemaking power. There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.
- Y-bar 1y ago
  The Swedish IRS (whose directors are appointed in a fashion similar to the commission) publishes regular clarifications of tax law and how they implement the tax law in their enforcement of Swedish tax law. How is that any different?
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    In the end you can still go to court about it, secondly the government can't interfere in individual cases. The commission though, is literally doing things relating to individual cases, and they're politicians directly appointed by European governments. Simply, it's not rule of law, it's rule by the council.