OK point taken about the sarcasm, my apologies.

But, even if the ECJ ruled so, as every member state which signed up on the Council of Europe is by this treaty obliged to implement any further agreement. And as the this was indeed being signed and ratified by its members, means IMHO that the ruling of the ECJ sounds mood.

Or as mentioned in the article:

"I hope the irony is not lost that the ECJ is opposing the ECHR because its rulings might result in a loss of sovereignty,” said one ECR spokesperson in a statement."

So, if the countries signed up on the this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe, it means that the ECHR has the final say, whatever ECJ is saying. This was agreed in 1953....in Article 1 ;)

Yep only indirect access, which is for me the point of getting rid of ECJ, you can only reach it, IF a national court agrees with it, For is this for a F****ing logic? Nothing to do with right to a fair trial or similar.

Back to the point, so a court, which hasn´t the right to decide upon non-member states dares to put the EU as a entity?

As this state contracts predate its own existence, logically it can not decide upon this. Or in other words, as ECJ is ONLY EU, but ECHR is more, that is like a state judge trying to tell the supreme court what they are allowed to do.

As I mentioned, ECJ is EUROPEAN law only, ECHR is international law.

my two cents.



What is your point?

[quote_81}
Here is my take on the matter.
A guy walks into an auditorium during a mask-wearing party thing and and threatens to rape and kill someone publicly, over the mic. In that case, and rightfully so, the person making the threats will be arrested. The owner of the auditorium can hire ushers to drag off the crazy person, but can't do anything to prevent him / her speaking. So it makes sense that only the crazy person is charged.

On the internet, a forum is a masks party. If people come to a mask party, they SHOULD expect and accept anonymity. There are safe spaces. If they want to live in a strictly encourage only environment, they can retreat to social media and block out non-friends.

It seems its OK for theater owners to allow the existence of people who talk during movies but not for site-admins on the internet? Its not the job, obligation or duty of site owners to watch over, invade the privacy and morally police people on his / her forum just so one TV-centric mainstream media social justice dickhead who knows nothing of the internet other than tumblr and facebook doesn't get offended.
[/quote}

You are saying now something different than before?

I said that your comparison is wrong, as both are crimes. and by the way also use of criminal force, if you shouted this as mentioned before intentionally .