I don't think that would work on violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court would just block it, or a lawsuit follows and the CJEU still declares it invalid. EU legislation has to be in line with the founding documents, and if it's not, brute force couldn't make it legal.
The proposed bill is also in violation of the ECHR, UDHR and possibly the ICCPR. The member states wouldn't even be capable of following the law.
My worry is that they find a way to (re)write it in a way it snakes its way right through the text of the treaties and with the false 'shield' of child protection the courts may be reluctant to strike it down.
I'm not saying they will and generally I trust the CJEU and ECHR, but I'm just not fully at ease.
Valid point, I do generally trust the courts too but it’s indeed possible they rewrite it like such. I just hope the courts are smart enough to look past sneaky writing.
Difficulty is of course that judges don't rule on ethics or morals - the only thing they consider is whether or not something is legally permissible.
If politicians and lobbyists can find a way to do so, even if just barely and while everyone knows the text may say one thing but reality will be different, the courts can do very little.
Yeah the courts won’t look on ethics, but they might look on whether the legislation results in a breach of fundamental rights. Even if they write the bill sneakily, the end goal is to allow encrypted messages to be read, which is illegal. So unless they abandon this point, the court will see the breach.
Well usually in international treaties you have countries who will allow international treaties to take precedence and will allow citizens to directly call on the terms of those treaties. Belgium is such a country. Or you can be like the netherlands where such international treaties first need to be put in a Dutch law before a citizen can call on it.
However for the EU we all agreed to be like Belgium and have the EU treaty and EHRT have precedence over our own laws.
This has come under scrutiny by Hungary and Poland recently saying no our own courts are better etc. But also by the German constitutional court, who says, as long as you protect people as well or better than our laws you have precedence.
So a g
German court whith pretty recent memories of the stasi will not be as happy with Chatcontrol or even age verification.
Not only that, it's also illegal in most countries. See Article 10GG.
(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.
(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature.
248
u/jochemneut Nederland 10d ago
They can keep trying, but the current proposed law is still plain illegal. How do they even think it will pass by the CJEU?