*reads article*

Well, you may as well just shut down Facebook, twitter, reddit, ect now.

Edit: Actually thinking about it, I'd bet this is used as a reason to ban "hate speech" from big sites where people can comment. I used quotes as if the SJW crowd as their way, anything not extreme far left will qualify to them and be ban-able.

I'm cool with that! :D

Slowly buy inexorably society creeps ever closer to closing down all freedom. Speech, though, religion, all will be controlled by the great all seeing, all knowing government. Who is, of course, simply looking out for your best interests. :)
Sounds like it would make a good story! Oh wait, it has, like, a million times already.

and Disqus and blogs and witcher 3 topics. oh wow, i really want to unironically be a fascist now! damn u, interwebz comments!!
and also the jews did it!

you already answered your question yourself ;)

Quote from the link:

"assist the 47 European States that have ratified the European Convention on Human
Rights in solving systemic or structural problems at national level"

So the point we discussed prior is now proven, the ECHR has the last saying, if the local state governments ratified the Convention, it is legally binding to them.

On the other hand, if the newer not existing entity EU is in compliant or visa versa is not relevant, the governments signed, ratified and have to oblige the rulings.

And about your point, they don´t bother:

hmmmm

Germany as mentioned did so
France as well
Italy another one.

Just the three big ones I know off and which were having big problems as they would have been fined heavily....

kind of agreed, but like with the discussion of TTIP, it was i.e. in Germany openly discussed that certain aspects of this agreement would violate the convention and would be latest by the ECHR be found illegal and hence not applicable.

I generally agree, BUT (Yes there is always a but(t) )

Did you hear about the case where a teen was forced into suicide because of mobbing over the internet? No I am not making this up!
I do agree that most people as you mentioned can handle it, in the worst case just ignoring the person spouting bullshit, BUT what about the sorry mentally weaker people? As part of the human rights is to protect ALSO the rights off the weaker, so off any human being.
If they spout this nonsense in their own not public community, hey that´s ok.

Nice example, which I find absolutely stupid, if talking about laws, in Germany it is a crime to dispute the holocaust. WTF? If somebody is so stupid too say something like this, just mark him as idiot and end of story....BUt no, you could go to jail for it here. And there is this old dipshit lady here in Germany, who is still spouting this nonsense, even as she already had to pay hefty fines. SO she is un-convinceable.

Here we shall be able too just create a wiki for example: Idiots in XXX ;)

Problem is only, there are always weak minded, uninformed people following those idiots. Even educated people are quit often falling for it, think here also a bit wider with the sects which promised they know all the answers (trying to remember the most famous one, the one where the Guru had like 30 Rolls-Rolls)

Bad example WTO ;) Dual representation: EU is part as well as each individual state ;), no actually good example.

As mentioned above, the states signed the convent, hence the states signed a legal binding contract, if another treaty created afterwards or not being part of the original treaty sees a problem with it, the first treaty wins. Plus what the ECJ refers to, are much newer contract, hence being overriden by the older ones. Treaty of rome and so on...

Think here for example as well the Geneva Conventions, if a country signed up on them and would not follow them the ECHR would decide upon it, even if the EU law would maybe specify something different (Plus the International Criminal Court, which the states have ratified. So even if the EU would not allow extradition, the state would have to obey. Reason, no state has given up their independence to the EU, they are still sovereign states. And by the way, that is the reason why not allowed in the UN, no sovereign state ;)

And the last part of your paragraph, I second that, plus the little problems in the moment on top, Greece, or better too say IWF and EU.

If Greece does exit, we all will loose Billions.......fucking retards.....yeah, not my money, so I don´t care.

Sorry for the lengthy repy

(Kill yourself, commie.)

Are you trying to say something?

I never claimed that signatories to the European Convention are not obliged to follow ECHR rulings. What I wanted to say was two things. First of, while ECHR rulings are legally binding, it is not always so easy to get states to follow them. I have a colleague who interned for the Council of Europe and who was present during ambassadorial discussions on how to get states to follow said rulings because there are NO FINES to force them to comply. So if a state REALLY does not wish to do something ordered by the ECHR, there is only political and public pressure to force it to do so. This is why the pilot judgement procedure was introduced and the quote you provided fits my argument perfectly, ie. that states need a helpful nudge. To once again use the example of Slovenia, we get hit by an Article 6 violation (Right to a free trial) just about every year.

My second point was that I do not know of cases where ripples were felt from a specific national case in other national legal systems. Now, that does not mean it did not happen, but it is rare. It is far more likely that the ECHR would use an older case and pass a similar or identical ruling for the same violation of the Convention in another state.

But yeah, I understand the point you are trying to make. It is just that things do not always work out that way.

Yes, I am familiar with such cases (people committing suicide because of online bullying) and with cults of one sort or another. I am also aware that free speech relates to government rather than private action and that on-line and off-line fora have the right to say "we do not intend to listen to your crap here". But that is exactly the point. The communities should police themselves or declare certain things to be unacceptable. Extremists and loonies of all sorts will always find a private place where they can mutually support whatever they believe in. Consequently, I see no reason why there should be a governmental order saying "such and such speech is forbidden in this or that fora or you will face criminal charges". Again, this is my private view and I know that the majority of Europeans would not agree with me for historical reasons. This is perhaps the only major issue where I would agree with the judgement of the US Supreme Court over the ECHR.

OK, dual representation, but that does not change the fact that the EU is represented in its own right in several international organisation. As a legal entity, it has also claimed observer status in the UN, but it was not the EU Member States that blocked that, but non-European countries. So even though it is not a state under international law, it is such a powerful grouping with also strong legal rights, that it has become/is considered an international actor.

Having said that, you are also right in pointing out that Member States remain fully sovereign in many aspects of their policies and that they are individually bound by international treaties that they have signed. I do not agree, however, that older treaties always have precedence over younger ones. Depends on the treaty in question, what it deals with, on what level it was signed, what was the intention of the states signing it, etc, etc, etc. Regardless of the age of international agreements, we both know that the EU as a group or its Member States individually would not adopt policies that would go against international standards that they themselves have helped built (unless it was really, really necessary, but that would represent a divide in the wider international community).

As for European treaties, newer ones override older ones. New rules replace old ones. This is why we no longer have the Treaty of Rome and Treaty of Maastricht, but the Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Among other things.

ok, sorry misunderstanding from my side as well, I understood it slightly different ;)

For following the rules and the hefty fines, prior procedure was that they kept doubling the amount of the fine till they obeyed. And as this was a valid title, the person who won the case was able to collect it from the state. Now forcing states to follow a treaty, you are right, a completely different story :( Even normal state law till it is implemented.....

precisely, passed next one ;)

Sorry to say ;) But your point is exactly what the ECJ has decided upon. As far as I understood. The company, as well as the community failed to react, hence they now made it official. So IF somebody is to blame, it would be the company/community for not reacting. (Again as you mentioned, not all facts on the table ;) )

For your other point, yes I am going to the extreme here, I know, what about pedophiles, rapers and other scum like that?

Free speech?

The problem is to define the line.....I do think, it has nothing to do with history, except in Germany as I mentioned, fuck the state with forbidding any Nazi reference.....unless it is a film, that is art, yeah, right, Hollywood and art.....

The problem is, coming from the time of centralised everything (Kings and so on). Just look at the scandal with the NSA and BND, doing espionage on Europe. Where the FUCK is the outcry??????

Another example in Germany, the BND (like NSA) read 3 MILLION emails without warrant or whatsoever. Why? To counter-espionage terrorists. YOu know how many actions happened out of this?

347 cases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And only 10 went to trial!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, no the state knows best......yeah, I have a bridge to sell....

Never disputed the fact, that they are a major economic player ;) Just not recognised as a state, which would be needed to override the ECHR ;) As the Council ONLY recognises states ;)

Hence, whatever the first agreement said is legally binding, otherwise they would break the state treaty.
Nice example for this: You heard of the ICC?

Why is the US always trying to ´persuade´ certain countries not to join, or having the other state sign a certain contract not to extradite US-military after signing?

The first thing being signed wins.....Nice Example IIRC Korea, at least somewhere in the south-east....

For your last point: Yes newer ones replace older ones, as all of them left this part open. *confused* Did I dispute this?

Anyone who isn't paranoid in the UK is either completely ignorant or mentally ill. The mental health hospitals are full of people who just apply logic to laws such as this and any kind of online or public surveillance.

problem.....
Doesn´t take my answer yet

WTF.....by mistake I put a } instead of ] with end quote, but no bloody error message...aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggg

Yes and no. If the fines are getting more and more hefty it is at the end only a question of money ;)

Ok I admit, I would like to see more power to this court though. It seems not to be so far away from reality, The judges are not judges, but like law professors and similar, gives them a completely different viewpoint. They are more looking after the spirit of the law and not the wording.

here we disagree. As I said, 47 states ratified the ECHR chapter, so that is legally binding to them. Implemented a different story ;)

DO we agree?

So next question is: As the ECJ is created out of another contract with different partners, it is a different entity. Main question is, which contracts were ratified first, and to all what I read up, it was the Council of Europe. The whole too ,say it short, EU-story started much later.

If they signed up on, giving the ECHR the last saying in Human rights, no other contract afterwards can nullify without cancelling the older one. And by the way, one way is to have chapters in the law saying so. I know this for sure for Germany and France. (For Germany I could even give you links ;) ) You see from where I am coming? Like if you rented out your house, you can not rent it out again (ok, I know bad example ;) )

So if the ECJ decided upon something, which it has no right to decide upon (because this right was already given away) it is a mood decision. Yes it might mean, that the EU chapters have to be redrawn, but NOT the council of Europe. More later with the ICC

agreed. I mainly just mentioned it, that some things are intolerable and need to be punished.

see above first

Why do you think the US is trying to get as many BIAs as possible:

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS_BIAstatusCurrent.pdf

And not only tries, the list has really grown! But with legal disputes there as well.

Reason, once a treaty is ratified, it is binding. Nice example South Africa, a judge order one of the African leaders to be extradited as there is an ICC-warrant, but police decided not to react. So the judicial side is well aware of what is and what isn´t legal ;) Political decision in the executive part is a different question ;)

Same goes with ECHR, if the states ratified it, they gave the right to all those decisions away to the ECHR.

If a later treaty tries to intervene with it, so here the treaty of Rome and so on (as I called them ;) ) Sorry for the misunderstanding here ;), it would even break national law (if ratified and even worth if implemented).

So that´s why I was saying, the ECJ made a mood decision, as it would not be even up to them to decide upon, BUT only the state itself. One good as well as bad thing is, that all EU member states are still sovereign and hence THEY can only decide which part they give away ;)

First no apologies needed, we are having a friendly discussion ;)

Even if we might end up with: We agree that we don´t agree ;)

And always nice to learn something new or see a different viewpoint ;)

I have to be honest, I still do not fully understand the point you are trying to make, besides "countries are bound by the treaties they ratify". Yes, the Member States are bound by the rulings of the ECHR and the latter, as well as the Convention, are considered a source for interpreting fundamental rights when the ECJ makes a decision. But the ECJ has not made any decisions in this case. Nor am I aware of any cases where an ECJ ruling would contravene a decision made by the ECHR (seeing how it is a source of "inspiration").

And again, legal precedence of international treaties is not determined by what was signed first, but what is given higher value. It is very much a hierarchy. For example: UN Charter>European Convention on Human Rights>EU Treaties (once the EU accedes to the Convention)>national constitutions>national legislation. Or UN Charter (which also governs regional agreements)>WTO>EU internal market (ie. the Treaties). But this order has nothing to do with the age of specific documents, but due to the decision taken by signatories to make specific documents more important than others.

We may in actually be in more or less perfect agreement, but there seems to be a snag in our communication. If you even want to discuss this subject further, feel free to use the chat option.

it seems those bastards have high amplitude of free time to come up with one shit after another

And worse is that some politician is pushing for a tax on web links. Seriously somebody have to sack these retarded individuals.

Link to more info and a petition:
https://savethelink.org/europe?src=157946

it is debatable where the national constitution is placed in this order.
you could look at this like this: the power of the national government/parliament is derived (and limited) by the constitution. If the government now joins a treaty and transfers power to an external body (an international court in this case), that power is still subject to the limits as defined in the constitution - basically: the government cannot give more power to somebody else than it actually has itself. Therefor no international treaty can stand above the constitution.

consequently, here in germany at least, international treaties have in the national legal system the same rank as federal law, which means they are still ranked below the constitution.
If you assume a theoretical case where the ECHR makes a judment, but then the Constitutional Court finds that the judgment violates the constitution, the ECHR decision will be ignored.

In practice though, the european human rights convention is basically identical to the human rights declared in the german constitution, so there is not much chance for conflict.