EU vs Poland: EU Court of Justice Challenges Poland's Constitutional Tribunal by declaring it not independent

This could be a very interesting and consequential legal case in the EU! At present, it seems to be another attempt by an EU body to take precedence or resort to overreaching over the constitution of an individual EU member country. A question of federalism versus centralism in the EU.

EU Court of Justice Rules Poland Must Respect Same-Sex Marriage Made In Other Member States; What Now?

Controversial! Should this subject not be left to the individual member countries?

European Court of Justice dismisses the actions brought by Hungary and Poland

I did not have time to dig into the details of this case! However, I have a strong hunch that Brexit was not enough a clarion call for the masters of the ever more centralized and top down European Union!

The judges mention the "rule of law" 13 times in their statement! And breaches of the "common values on which the European Union is founded" is mentioned 3 times.

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" applies to thee, but not for me in the European Union. E.g. the egregious violations of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992!

The common values of Europe are great diversity and variety, far reaching federalism/decentralization, and general tolerance of your neighbor countries! This action by the court does not help!

Measures for the protection of the Union budget: the Court of Justice, sitting as a full Court, dismisses the actions brought by Hungary and Poland against the conditionality mechanism which makes the receipt of financing from the Union budget subject to the respect by the Member States for the principles of the rule of law

EuGH: Genehmigungspflicht zur Kurzzeitvermietung von Wohnungen ist rechtens

Ein gefährliches Urteil! Massiver staatlicher Eingriff in Privateigentum! Wenn Richter sich als Sozialpolitiker aufspielen und sich auf Wohnungsknappheit berufen! Sollen doch Politiker bessere Anreize schaffen für mehr Wohnungsbau, Umwandlung in Wohnraum, Erleichterungen bei der Vermietung etc., etc.



Was hier auch wieder sehr bedenklich ist wie bereitwillig anscheinend das hohe französische Gericht war dieses hot potato an die EU Gerichtsbarkeit weiterzugeben anstelle eigene Lösung zu entwickeln!

Das macht hoffentlich nicht weiter Schule!



EuGH: Genehmigungspflicht zur Kurzzeitvermietung von Wohnungen ist rechtens

Entscheid des EuGH: Polen muss die Tätigkeit der umstrittenen Disziplinarkammer für Richter sofort aussetzen | NZZ

Werden die Polen sich diese Einmischung in innere Angelegenheiten bieten lassen oder werden sie dem Beispiel Brexit folgen? Meiner Meinung nach ist das letztere fast angesagt!

Entscheid des EuGH: Polen muss die Tätigkeit der umstrittenen Disziplinarkammer für Richter sofort aussetzen | NZZ: Ein Kernelement der polnischen Justizreform, die Disziplinarkammer beim Obersten Gericht, darf vorerst nicht mehr tätig sein. Der EuGH hat einem entsprechenden Antrag der EU-Kommission stattgegeben.

In landmark ruling, EU's top court says settlement product labeling mandatory

Another, very embarrassing ruling by the highest court (European Court of Justice) of the European Union! It reeks of antisemitism! I don't think there has been any ruling quite like that before! It is a ruling that is going way beyond the proper jurisdiction of the court! This is not the first time this court has come out with controversial decisions (I blogged e.g. here, here about it).

Would the EU court penalize e.g. China in the same way regarding Tibet? You bet not! Would the court penalize any country if one its companies produced goods in facilities in North Korea? 

In landmark ruling, EU's top court says settlement product labeling mandatory | The Times of Israel: Palestinians fete decision, urge Europeans not only to label but to ban West Bank goods; EU delegation in Ramat Gan: We still reject 'any form of boycott or sanctions' on Israel

European Court Of Justice Deferred Again To Big Government

Posted: 12/11/2018

For lack of time, I will not go into details here, but refer the reader to e.g. Source 1 and to do some research. The facts of this case have been well covered in the media for a number of years.

On December 11, 2018, the European Court of Justice decided it was OK for the European Central Bank to purchase Euro trillions of various government bonds over several years. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve central bank also engaged in similar purchases.

This is just another example how the highest possible court (in this case the European Court of Justice) in a legal dispute about government policies rubber stamps government policies.

Clearly, this massive purchase program of government bonds is a form of government financing, which obviously contravenes the no bail out clause in European agreements about the single currency.

One can also safely assume that these justices have very limited understanding of economics.

Sources:

1. The ECB’s PSPP programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets does not infringe EU law. It does not exceed the ECB’s mandate and does not contravene the prohibition of monetary financing (official press release; 12/11/2018)
2. EUGH-URTEIL : EZB-Anleihenkäufe sind rechtens (12/11/2018)

New Travesty Of Data Protection In The European Union

Posted: 12/24/2014

Trigger

Just read this German article “Auch für private Überwachungskameras gilt der Datenschutz Wer an seinem Haus zum Schutz vor Einbrechern eine Kamera anbringt, muss sich sehr genau mit dem Datenschutz auseinandersetzen. Denn eine grundsätzliche Ausnahme gibt es nicht - hat der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg nun entschieden.” This article is about a recent judgment by the European Union Court of Justice (link to press release dated 12/11/2014; Case C-212/13).

Please read the comments as well by readers of the above article! Readers have overwhelmingly expressed how absurd this judgment is and how it defies common sense!

Brief Background

A homeowner installed surveillance cameras around his property after he and his families suffered several attacks on their property. Next time, these cameras caught the perpetrators in the act. The homeowner handed the videotapes over to the police, which apprehended the criminals.

Criminals claimed it was illegal under European data protection laws to shoot these videos without their consent. The appropriate data protection authority of that country agreed and fined the homeowner for illegally taping the event, because one of the cameras also filmed a “public footpath”.

Common Sense

Clearly, these surveillance cameras in this case served primarily the purpose of passive self-defense from bodily harm or property damage. There was apparently no indication of any kind that the homeowner used the video footage for any other purpose. One would think that such self-defense would trump excessive data protection laws.

If you read the press release of the EU Court of Justice you begin to think these judges are far removed from any reality.