Its a judgement that will provide precedence. A Pirate Party member of the European Parliament comments because its a core issue to the party. Why would there be anything about the Pirate Party in the ruling?
Why would you include "We Pirates will
now fight even harder for our digital privacy of correspondence!" (and then continuing to link their website as a source of truth on the matter) in a non-promotional piece? This is an advertisement, not a news article
One which I agree with, to be clear. I'm not opposed to the pirate party's views on digital matters. This party's goals/narrative just has no place in a piece about a court case
There’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the article that says they publish articles from a variety of sources, and that the viewpoints expressed aren’t necessarily their own, etc. Considering that it does seem to have an angle, the byline says it’s from their own unnamed correspondent, it’s not called an opinion piece, and there’s no link to the original, I’m guessing their slightly unpredictable correspondent’s surname is GPT.
I'm not arguing that with you. You misunderstood what was going on here, edited your comments many times, and now you want to discuss the article linked instead of the actual news (the judgement). Calm down.
C'mon, let's let people write pationately about issues they hold in their hearts.
I can totally understand why they're so passionate about this topic in particular. We don't have much left of democracy in the world. If electronic privacy is destroyed like some EU leaders want, there will be close to nothing left.
I thought precedents only matter in the US "common law" framework, but most of the EU is following the "civil law" framework where precedents do not matter. Does this precedent really matter?
It's funny seeing "common law" referred as a US thing when it's literally been in use in the UK for centuries before the US was a thing, and that's where the US inherited it from.
And precedent has it's place in civil law countries too, mostly around clarifying existing legislation in case of ambiguity, but it isn't an automatic ironclad thing.
An interesting quirk of English law is that murder is a common law offence. There is no Act of Parliament proscribing it; it's just something that everybody has always accepted is a crime.
While precedence is not the same thing in civil law as in common law, this is essentially a ruling by the highest European court on the interpretation of a law and its conflict with human rights. These rulings are typically on the matter of principle, so it does effectively "bind" lower courts and because of this the court is very unlikely to take on another case on the same "conflict" (at least before the law has been changed).
It’s a Council of Europe institution (note, not EU), so really there’s no common legal philosophy, just the relevant treaties and conventions.
The European Court of Human Rights’ whole raison d’être is the European Convention on Human Rights, so it interprets laws through the lens of whether they conform to that, and does have its own case law, albeit a short history of it.
