U.k. Ability To Monitor Data Declared Illegal By European Court

[lindapalmara]

On the day that Germany's ability to protect their people from Terror is exposed as woeful, our laws have been overruled by the EU Parliament. What a travesty.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20161222/281492160970205

We have the best intelligence services in the world and they are being undermined by the EU , yet again. Another reason for leaving the EU. They couldn't have picked a worse day to do this. I hope we can keep appealing this until we actually leave this woeful Bloc. Or maybe we can just ignore it like other EU countries do when it suits them.

[Peter Pedant]

and here
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-12/cp160145en.pdf

[New Judge]

“NJ commenting without having read the judgement again I see”

It’ not the content of the judgement with which I take issue, Peter, so I don’t need to read it. Whether or not I agree with its contents does not matter. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss what it reads. My abhorrence is that a foreign court has overridden legislation passed by the Westminster Parliament. The first paragraph is enough:

“The Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA) has ruled that mass collection of electronic communications data, such as that codified in the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act, is against EU law and must not be enforced by member states.”

So, a law passed by UK MPs is ruled illegal. The reason it has been so ruled is that EU law (as adjudicated by the European Court of Justice) trumps UK law.

I assume that you must be happy to have the laws passed by your duly elected representatives declared null and void by unelected foreigners. I happen not to be so happy. That’s why I was one of the 17m ignorant knuckle-dragging idiots who voted to leave the EU and the sooner we are free of the entire undemocratic corrupt mess, the better.

[Peter Pedant]

The really bad news even for a new judge, is that the case, if one DOES read it before giving an opinion which I suggest really is the way forward, seems to be based on the Human Rights ....

and I have news for you since you dont bother to read an awful lot

Brexit will have no effect on this

Human rights legislation as I wondered is controlled by another treaty
and the UK public did NOT vote to vacate that treaty in the famed all embracing overpowering Brexit vote
So the politicians can keep it or repeal it as they wish

so we may well have the Human Rights melee so beloved of 3T et al., AFTER we have left the EU

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

UK accession to the Convention on Human Rights does NOT depend on membership of the EU as - yes there are those outside the EU that still are co-signatories [ ergo]

as judges often say: the devil is in the small print ( if you read it )

[Old_Geezer]

It should indeed be a matter for the UK government but the further issue is that we need our parliament to be making the right decisions. They are already able to apply for surveillance for suspected individuals, monitoring the masses is beyond what any freedom loving State should seek. So we need to ensure that the government takes heed of the natural desire of the citizen not to be monitored but to be served. The issue of bringing whoever is the ultimate authority under control of the democratic requirements of the people will always bethe aim.

[New Judge]

Get a grip, Peter.

I am perfectly aware that the UK's compliance with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will not cease with Brexit.

This ruling was nothing to do with the ECHR (which is adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights). You will see from the judgement that it was passed down by the The Court of Justice of the European Union (aka The European Court of Justice). This court does not rule on matters relating to the ECHR but on EU law.

So you see, although I have not read the full judgement I know where it originated from which, it seems, is a little more than you do. But never mind.