Law

73 readers
3 users here now

This community is dedicated to discussions about European law, the legal systems of European countries, and any legal topics that impact Europe from around the world. Whether you’re a legal professional, student, or simply interested in how laws shape our societies, this is the place to share insights, ask questions, and explore the complexities of European and international law.

Topics include:

Respectful and informed discussions are encouraged. Please keep posts and comments relevant to the community’s focus.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
tfm
1
 
 

(crossposted from !exclusive_public_resources)

The Council of State is a court that handles appeals, often to challenge non-court decisions like that of a public enforcement body. E.g. you report to SPF Mobilité that an airline or rail operator did not compensate you for a delay or cancellation, and they give you a flippant rejection, the Council of State is your recourse.

The Council of State will not open a case unless you pay a few hundred euros to their bank account. They do not accept cash.

So you might think: I’ll just hire a lawyer with cash and the lawyer will open the case. Nope. Belgian lawyers are prohibited from accepting cash.

2
 
 

The linked article suggests looking at the “explanetory memorandum” of an EU law to do a deeper dive on it. Searching for it is a shit-show. The page showing a particular law shows the full text and a large selection of language and format (pdf, text, html), which is good, but nowhere on these pages is there a link to an “explanatory memorandum”. The advanced search page makes no mention of it. I actually had to do a general web search from a non-EU site and sort through a lot of garbage to dig up a link. The URL was cryptic and date-specific, so no way to simply reform an URL to get an explanatory memorandum for any given law.

BTW, what exactly is the explanatory memorandum? Is it always just a proposal before a law is created, or is it ever a post-enactment analysis with further detail?

It seems like the recitals in the preamble already exist to give rationale so the original proposal would be a bit redundant.

(update) I just realised the web hit goes to www.europarl.europa.eu, not eur-lex.europa.eu. But the search tool is blunt and non-intuitive.. not sure which filter to use.

(update 2) woah, more of a shit-show than I thought. The parliament site had the explanatory memorandum in a cryptic URL, but then when I search on that site for the doc there is an overview page that has a buried link to the explanatory memorandum on eur-lex.

(update 3) woah! what a shit show! The PDF links on the eur-lex site are fake. The *.pdf file is actually JavaScript! If you run the JS, it’s like a shitty download manager that presents another HTML page. Then /those/ PDF URLs are also fake. The only way to reach the PDF is using PDF.js inside a gui browser.

The EU is most certainly not adhering to its own open data policy.

3
 
 

A consumer protection agency advises individual consumers to take legal action against an anti-competitive enterprise. This seems really off to me. Is the advice good? I would generally expect either the government to prosecute anti-competitive corporations or perhaps other corporations who are damaged by the anti-competitive practice. Consumers are damaged of course, but for one consumer to ad-hoc “take a hit for the team” and sue essentially ensures a “diffusion of responsibility” where no one wants to finance a case that costs more than it’s worth to the individual.

4
 
 

I am getting quite mixed results with speaking English in court.

Some court clerks tell me speaking English in court will be disaster -- that non-French speakers must hire an interpretter who is certified for court. Cannot bring a friend for this purpose. Even social interpretters who work gratis in a public service capacity are useless for court proceedings. Certified interpretters tend to charge €200/hour (more than some lawyers).

A clerk who works for a particular judge said “the judge is not hard and will speak English”. And it turned out to be true. There was no resistence to English.

In another situation, the judge/magistrate/mediator (not sure which) spoke to me in low near-whisper and said they are not supposed to speak English, but then spoke English, somewhat insinuating/implying that it was a favor to me.

Another situation: a judge/magistrate/mediator/lawyer (no idea what capacity) said it’s a French process and French will be spoken. I was sure I would be stuffed if I knew zero French. Using my dysfunctional French seemed to be essential for things to move forward but slowed down the discussion to a point where they conceeded and spoke English briefly at moments then went back to French.

Someone with no legal background said (with confidence) that if you do not speak the official language of the court, judges actually have an obligation to speak to you in your language if they can. Of course if a civil court judge cannot speak your language, you’re naturally stuffed.

So in Belgium, clerks are in contradiction, rumors are in contradiction, and actual experiences are inconsistent.

5
 
 

Investigation needed.. but apparently the English and German versions of a directive materially differ. And it might explain why many German ATMs do not give receipts.

Is it safe to assume the original version of an EU directive is in English?

6
 
 

Hello. I've been trying to find genuine legal advice in Berlin for a month now, but every single lawyer I have emailed has refused to take the case, citing their lack of capacity. Or, I simply do not hear back.

I purchased a defective product from Dell for 2,000 euro and now they're refusing to give me a refund after 2 failed repair attempts. I tried to educate myself as best I could about German consumer law, and from what I understand, when a defect is discovered within the first year, it is automatically assumed to be manufacturer defect unless definitively proven otherwise. This defect was discovered at month 6, and resulted in total system failure by month 9.

I also read that the customer gets to decide whether to replace or repair. I chose replace, Dell refused.

I also read that they are legally obligated to make the customer whole within a reasonable amount of time. It has been 3 weeks since their 2nd failed repair attempt, and have not acknowledged that I demanded a refund or made any substantial attempts to offer replacement, repair, or refund. They just tell me they're "Still working on it." every other day. When I ask what that means, they just repeat the statement.

I submitted the issue for arbitration, but Dell refused to participate.

I don't know what else to do. I've tried contacting lawyers, I've tried getting arbitration, I've tried asking around, but Dell is ignoring me while keeping my money. And I can't find anybody willing to help me. I don't know where to go to ask for help. I'm out 5% of my annual wages and I don't know what to do about it!

7
 
 

Various hosts in the *.europa.eu domain have block Tor, and some do not. Tor users have always had access to legal statutes, which IMO is the most important most basic info to have access to. Today this host suddenly demands execution of several 3rd-party JavaScript programs. And if you give up and let that shit run, it just pushes a 403 error anyway.

They are likely targeting Tor users for this discrimination but we cannot know for certain because the 403 page they throw back at us gives no information.

This is the site:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

We really need an open data law that prohibits having access restrictions on the law itself (the statutes) -- especially if it’s arbitrary and undocumented/non-transparent.

8
 
 

(crossposted from !brussels)

How are unbanked people and those with cashless bank accounts expected to pay lawyers if the money they have for the lawyer is in cash?

Why are lawyers of all people not trusted with cash? Can’t lawyers be disbarred if they do something dodgy?

9
 
 

The EU’s ecodesign law (reg 2024/1781) has “Article 3 - Free movement” which has paragraphs like this:

  1. Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market or putting into service of products that comply with the performance requirements set out in delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 4 for reasons of non-compliance with national performance requirements relating to product parameters referred to in Annex I covered by performance requirements included in such delegated acts.

So suppose Beko complies with the ecodesign rules, and they also have kill switches the force early obsolescence (which sadly does not violate the ecodesign rules for washing machines). If Germany were to quite sensibly say: “we respect a right to repair, so no kill switches.. kill switches can fuck off.” IIUC, Germany would be violating EU law with such a ban.

The kill switches block our right to repair. And at the same time, every single member state must allow washing machines with kill switches in their marketplace. Or am I misreading something?

10
 
 

This is an EU Directive for which I want to find the Belgian transposition:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0125

The EU links are useless.. no txt. So I go here:

https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/

and search based on the publication date (to and from 27.07.2011). There are 4 pages of hits. I cannot see how to narrow that down to directive 2009/125/EC.

This is a common problem.. I always struggle to find the Belgian transposition of EU directives. Any ideas on something that works generally? I tried searching “2009/125/EC” on the Belgian site as well as “32009L0125”, and nothing is found.

11
 
 

From EU regulation 2019/2023 (emphasis mine):

(1) availability of spare parts: (a) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives of household washing machines and household washer-dryers shall make available to professional repairers at least the following spare parts, for a minimum period of 10 years after placing the last unit of the model on the market: — motor and motor brushes; — transmission between motor and drum; — pumps; — shock absorbers and springs; — washing drum, drum spider and related ball bearings (separately or bundled); — heaters and heating elements, including heat pumps (separately or bundled); — piping and related equipment including all hoses, valves, filters and aquastops (separately or bundled); — printed circuit boards; — electronic displays; — pressure switches; — thermostats and sensors; — software and firmware including reset software;

I’m first of all disgusted that only “professional repairers” get this entitlement. But as well, there is little excuse to put a 10 yr time limit on software. It’s not like they have to maintain large parts-making machinery to maintain copies of software. Also shitty: no mention of source code. Broken closed-source software is not repairable.

The next paragraph shows how much confidence the EU has in end-users’ abilities:

(b) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives of household washing machines and household washer-dryers shall make available to professional repairers and end-users at least the following spare parts: door, door hinge and seals, other seals, door locking assembly and plastic peripherals such as detergent dispensers, for a minimum period of 10 years after placing the last unit of the model on the market;

WTF, that’s it? That’s all we get? The EU’s nannying is so fucking disturbing. They block end-users from repairing their own appliance by denying them the right to access parts.

Maybe I want to buy the parts myself and then pay a pro to do the labor. Maybe I want to buy spares before they stop making the spares at the 10 yr mark. You also cannot rely on pros to find good prices. If you enter a pro builder supply shop in Europe, they often don’t even bother putting price tags on anything because pros don’t care. They just pass the price on to the client, whatever that comes out to.

The mention of “reset software” is interesting. It suggests EU lawmakers are aware of the kill switches. But instead of banning the practice, they let the swindle continue by only giving pro repairers access to the reset software.

(2) maximum delivery time of spare parts:

during the period mentioned under (1), the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative shall ensure the delivery of the spare parts within 15 working days after having received the order;

in the case of spare parts concerned by point (1)(a), the availability of spare parts may be limited to professional repairers registered in accordance with point (3)(a) and (b);

It gets worse:

(3) access to Repair and Maintenance Information:

after a period of two years after the placing on the market of the first unit of a model and until the end of the period mentioned under (1), the manufacturer, importer or authorised representative shall provide access to the household washing machine or household washer-dryer repair and maintenance information to professional repairers in the following conditions:

(a) the manufacturer’s, importer’s or authorised representative’s website shall indicate the process for professional repairers to register for access to information; to accept such a request, the manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may require the professional repairer to demonstrate that:

(i) the professional repairer has the technical competence to repair household washing machines and household washer-dryers and complies with the applicable regulations for repairers of electrical equipment in the Member States where it operates. Reference to an official registration system as professional repairer, where such system exists in the Member States concerned, shall be accepted as proof of compliance with this point;

(ii) the professional repairer is covered by insurance covering liabilities resulting from its activity regardless of whether this is required by the Member State;

(b) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall accept or refuse the registration within 5 working days from the date of request;

(c) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may charge reasonable and proportionate fees for access to the repair and maintenance information or for receiving regular updates. A fee is reasonable if it does not discourage access by failing to take into account the extent to which the professional repairer uses the information;

(d) once registered, a professional repairer shall have access, within one working day after requesting it, to the requested repair and maintenance information. The information may be provided for an equivalent model or model of the same family, if relevant;

(e) the household washing machine or household washer-dryer repair and maintenance information referred to in (a) shall include: — the unequivocal household washing machine or household washer-dryer identification; — a disassembly map or exploded view; — technical manual of instructions for repair; — list of necessary repair and test equipment; — component and diagnosis information (such as minimum and maximum theoretical values for measurements); — wiring and connection diagrams; — diagnostic fault and error codes (including manufacturer-specific codes, where applicable); — instructions for installation of relevant software and firmware including reset software; and — information on how to access data records of reported failure incidents stored on the household washing machine or washer-dryer (where applicable);

The maintenance information apparently does not have to include how to reverse a kill switch, unless, IIUC, the reset function is carried out by running software on an external device of some kind. If reseting is a matter of pressing a secret sequence of buttons, that does not seem to be covered here.

It’s quite vague because the law does not even define what “reset software” means. Software, firmware, and reset software are listed as a required “spare part”, but no mention of how the software gets to where it needs to be.

The maker must: “ensure that the spare parts mentioned in points (a) and (b) can be replaced with the use of commonly available tools and without permanent damage to the household washing machine or household washer-dryer;”

Can I take that to mean my commonly available linux laptop can be used for the software replacement?

(3) the user instructions shall also include instructions for the user to perform maintenance operations. Such instructions shall as a minimum include instructions for:


(g) identification of errors, the meaning of the errors, and the action required, including identification of errors requiring professional assistance;

Useful that we at least get to see the errors in the future. But if the error is “unbalanced load” and the machine is trapped in the error state even with an empty drum (as my machine is), we’re still fucked without having a way to escape the error.

I’m glad makers are required to tell users how to disable networking, but then they write “(if applicable)”. That could either mean: 1) if there is no network feature; or 2) it’s not disablable. That’s important. I’d be damned if I buy some Internet of Shit garbage and I cannot force it offline. Not to mention there is no requirement to make all the functionality available w/out a network. A maker could put bare minimum functions on the control panel to push you to use an app.

Want to complain? A 5 yr review of this law is in ~2 months.

From Article 8:

Review
The Commission shall review this Regulation in the light of technological progress and shall present the results of this review, including, if appropriate, a draft revision proposal, to the Consultation Forum by 25 December 2025.

Plz folks, write to your EU rep. And collaborate in this thread on ways to fix this mess so we can fix our shit. Redundant complaints to the EU might start to resonate collectively.

12
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/54656011

I have two Beko washing machines, both “broken”. All components work fine - proven by hotwiring each component individually after some fixing. Yet the control panel wash LEDs just blink. The user manuals both conceal what the faults are, but leaked service manuals for similar models enabled me to expose the error codes, Beko tried to prevent me from seeing.

The errors are bullshit. One of them indicates “unbalanced load”. Beko actually designed the unbalanced load sensor to enter an error trap that cannot be escaped by the consumer. In effect, it is a kill switch. The service manual actually says to instruct the client on how to avoid unbalanced loads. But it does not tell the technician how to escape the error trap either. Reversing the kill switch is apparently so secret that they don’t even write it in the service manual. Putting it in writing would serve as hard evidence that the kill switch exists.

I have some amateur repair capability. I want to develop this skill so I can live independantly. I don’t want to be helplessly dependant on technicians that cost more than replacing the machine. I also respect the planet too much to throw away fixable machines. I believe my right to “self-determination” applies here, as well as autonomy and dignity. I choose not to be helpless. Throwing money at the problem is just another form helplessness. I intend to live a self-sufficient life.

When Beko creates these secret steps to unlock an otherwise working washing machine, they do so with intent to deprive people of their personal property, ultimately to boost more sales. Aspiring repairers are at a loss for self-determinism and autonomy. Self-sufficiency is both a matter of autonomy and dignity. Dependency strips us of dignity. As Beko assults consumer rights, environmental protection is also a human right they undermine. Forcing people to throw away working machines seems to violate all that.

Europe’s useless right to repair law is part of a higher green initiative (forgot what they called it). It apparently neglects non-environmental human rights, which I believe is why the law is so weak.

Is Beko violating human rights? This is what I find:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 17 (emphasis added)

  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 22 (emphasis added)

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 29

  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- Article 1 (emphasis added)

  1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights -- PART I, Article 1 (emphasis added)

  1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
  2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 17

Right to property

  1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 37

Environmental protection
A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU -- Article 38

Consumer protection
Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

European Convention on Human Rights -- Article 8

Right to respect for private and family life

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(analysis of the above: “Guide on Article 8”)

  1. Right to personal development and autonomy
    ¶253. Article 8 protects a right to personal development, … (Niemietz v. Germany, § 29; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, §§ 61 and 67; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, §§ 165-167;…).
13
 
 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/34439797

Many train tickets in Europe are available exclusively online. In other cases the online price is lower. So to chase up why this happens, I found the following law:

Article 11 Availability of tickets and reservations

  1. Railway undertakings, ticket vendors and tour operators shall offer tickets and, where available, through-tickets and reservations.
  2. Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4, railway undertakings shall sell, either directly or through ticket vendors or tour operators, tickets to passengers via at least one of the following means of sale: (a) ticket offices, other points of sale or ticketing machines; (b) telephone, the internet or any other widely available information technology; (c) on board trains. The competent authorities, as defined in point (b) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, may require railway undertakings to offer tickets for services provided under public service contracts via more than one means of sale.

Key wording: “at least ONE of the following means of sale”

Since it’s easiest to sell tickets online, they are effectively encouraging train ticket vendors to marginalise offline people and unbanked people. Further down the statute it says people with disabilities get an exceptional option to buy tickets on the train at no extra cost if there is no ticket office or machine. But no one else is entitled to that option.

14
 
 

(cross-posted from !opendata)

In Belgium, the national train service runs a protectionist bot-hostile tor-hostile website that chains users to an enshitified js-plagued GUI webapp. You can only query one day and one destination at a time. It’s the typical shit-show that consumers give in to for this kind of website.

HOWEVER, Belgium’s open data law requires the gov to share any data they get with the public. And for some reason the gov maintains a DB of the train routes and schedules -- which means everyone gets the raw data as a bullshit-free CSV file (but sadly no prices, which fucks everything up as far as being able to avoid the enshitified web entirely).

Does anyone know /why/ the gov gets that data? It would be useful to know what law compels SNCB to share the info because I wonder if other data can be liberated through the same mechanism (such as bus routes, flights, rideshares, etc). My first thought was customs and immigration must have a need-to-know, but the dataset covers both directions and IIRC it only has good coverage of domestic routes not international (strange).

15
4
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/Law
 
 
16
 
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/27072322

A chatbot erroneously told a traveler they get free travel in a particular situation. I don’t recall exact circumstances but it was something like a last minute trip for a funeral. The airline then denied him the free ticket. He sued. The court found that the chatbot represents the company and is therefore legally bound to agreements.

It’s interesting to note that agreements are now being presented which you must click to accept before talking to a chatbot. E.g., from Flixbus:

You are interacting with an automated chatbot. The information provided is for general guidance only and is not binding. If you require further clarification or additional information, please contact a member of our staff directly or check out our terms and conditions and privacy notice.

(emphasis mine)

I’m not in Canada so that may be true. I just wonder if this agreement is enforceable in Europe.

17
 
 

cross-posted from !gdpr@sopuli.xyz : https://beehaw.org/post/21385410

As I mentioned in another post, many data protection authorities are deadbeats. Knowing that my Art.77 complaints are in vain, my question is how the complaints might be made useful. Suppose we just use the DPA as a prop. We file an Art.77 complaint and CC the data controller a copy of the complaint.

Normally it might be a bad strategy to show the data controller your hand. But when you essentially expect the DPA to be a dead-end anyway, perhaps our best move among shitty options is to use art.77 to get the data controller’s attention on the off chance that the data controller does not know the DPA is a deadbeat.

18
 
 

cross-posted from !gdpr@sopuli.xyz : https://beehaw.org/post/21385256

Many data protection authorities are deadbeats. They do the legal minimum, which is to accept complaints, file them, and acknowledge them. Then do nothing. So stale cases just rot.

Data subjects have a right to complain (Art.77) at no cost, but they apparently do not have a right to a free appeal and the art.78 right to sue is not gratis either.

Unlawful inaction can legally be appealed but appeals are costly. DPAs know this, so they enjoy getting away with neglecting to act on Art.77 complaints.

So first I wonder if my legal theory is sound: If we have a right to complain under art.77 at no cost and the DPA neglects to investigate, then by extension we could argue that a right to complain at no cost implies a right to appeal inaction at no cost. Is that a weak argument? Do we need to ask EU lawmakers to specifically guarantee the right to a free appeal of DPA inaction?