zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. pjc50+(OP)[view] [source] 2018-05-18 10:48:01
There is actually an over-arching requirement for proportionality in all EU regulation: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/06/27/supreme-court-on-eu...
replies(1): >>downan+d
2. downan+d[view] [source] 2018-05-18 10:51:09
>>pjc50+(OP)
But that is in the eye of the beholder. With a maximum fine of $20 million, a country like Germany might say, for example, "Ok, small American company, yours was a minor violation. We'll only assess a $2 million fine - that's only 10% of the maximum! See how lenient and proportional we are? Danke und tschüss!"
replies(1): >>pjc50+I
◧◩
3. pjc50+I[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 10:57:52
>>downan+d
You can litigate disproportionate fines, and there's a general requirement for proportionality in both EU law and under the ECHR.

Again, people are assuming that this is the first and only directive that has fines associated with it. It isn't. You don't hear a lot of people talking about the three month prison sentences possible for CE marking, for example - because very few of them have been handed out and only for egregious violations such as unsafe machinery that has caused injury.

replies(1): >>downan+X
◧◩◪
4. downan+X[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 11:02:16
>>pjc50+I
You can litigate disproportionate fines

Who's to say that 10% of the maximum for a minor violation isn't proportionate? Also, most small businesses do not have the resources to hire competent counsel on the other side of the planet to litigate these things.

replies(1): >>jbreck+H1
◧◩◪◨
5. jbreck+H1[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 11:17:05
>>downan+X
> Who's to say that 10% of the maximum for a minor violation isn't proportionate?

A large body of case law, well-defined guidelines for evaluating harms and mapping them to fines, and the EU's general fear of stymieing economically productive activity (the motivation behind GDPR is to enable more data trading, not less, but within better-defined legal boundaries).

We have had laws with "open ended" sentencing guidelines since the very beginning of organised society. This is a solved problem.

replies(1): >>Certha+53
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. Certha+53[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 11:33:20
>>jbreck+H1
It's like people are only now discovering that they are in fact living in a well structured society.......
replies(1): >>pjc50+B3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
7. pjc50+B3[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 11:39:14
>>Certha+53
There's a lot of American libertarians that believe government is intrinsically bad, for some reason. And also a monolith; they don't see any difference between bits of government, different branches, different types of enforcement, and so on. They're very loath to admit that it takes a certain minimum amount of structure to keep the roads open and the lights on.
replies(1): >>oblio+v7
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
8. oblio+v7[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 12:26:40
>>pjc50+B3
> to keep the roads open and the lights on

I'd cynically add:

> and to prevent people from killing and robbing each other each day

There's a reason we have Wikipedia articles like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highwayman

replies(1): >>todoru+Fm
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
9. todoru+Fm[view] [source] [discussion] 2018-05-18 14:34:35
>>oblio+v7
I do agree with the power of government to break the prisoners dilemma regarding to public works, but not that they have that much control over people's behavior.

The tendency of people to follow laws has shown little relation to blunt enforcement. It has to do with peoples tendency to follow norms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_cohesiveness

[go to top]