undefined

points

[-]

A whole lot of websites are inaccessible from my country when there's football on, due to a judicial order meant to curb piracy.

The whole deal with Chat Control is also not to be forgotten. I do think you guys see this place with rose tinted glasses sometimes.

by input_sh8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced?

I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.

by _osud7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Depends on how you interpret the ECHR.

Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games?

It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%...

AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.

by input_sh6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not.

But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.

by _osud6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

ECHR decisions are (supposed to be) legally binding. If they're not obeyed, that's not a good look for rule of law in Europe.

ECHR decisions are certainly not mere recommendations.

>It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so

ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

by input_sh2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

According to whom? You?

The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all.

> ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet).

There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.