Unless you count the historical city center of Venice as a big city I doubt you'd get many big cities getting even close to those numbers

I can't easily/quickly find some numbers but if we want to accept, with a grain of salt, Gemini research on this even in Venice (I think it counts Mestre as well) it's ~15% and that's the highest it found.

In this case my understanding is that they determined vpn-s as a tool to fall outside the scope of the law and so they struck down an attempt to enforce the law

If the law got changed so that vpn-s are now within the scope of the new law then you'd expect them to not apply the same reasoning anymore in examining a similar case

Judicial review would come into play if the challenge was about the updated law being inconsistent with some more important law such as the treaties or charter

Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.

In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:

1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)

2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data

Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces

Just in case you missed that class, taxes are determined by legislators

And even if there were I doubt the legal basis in EU law exists for such an injunction

Yes but that's an uncomfortable framing for online-americans to use when they want some gotcha argument

And not a useful one for US administrations in the last 30 years (trump was far from the first one) to make because the (mostly) unstated assumption was that the vast majority of increased spending would go to american manufacturers to prop up american jobs

I'm wondering if this includes regulatory agencies which in the US operate under the executive

I would guess it's included but the wording (act, resolution) is very "legislative" coded

It's not. However from the speech it sounds like the commission is ready to put forward their proposal soon-ish

After they do so the actual legislative process is going to start where the draft has to go through Parliament and the Council to become law

The legislative process is going to take time which is where the 2027 date in eu-inc.org comes from

I don't know if there will be legal or political issues around this that would delay adoption though

If the law is constitutional it can't be thrown out by a judge in common law and if it's not it can be declared so in civil law

The difference between the two is more about what happens in the absence of a law

The objective of the ICC is not to stop wars

The objective of the ICC is to provide a framework to enable prosecuting and punishing the people ordering particularly egregious acts in a way that is more consistent with liberal rule of law principles than post-hoc tribunals like after WW2 and that is more accessible to fragile / new countries due to having the legal infrastructure set up and at least partially legitimized by it being an international body

The fact that Putin (for example) might at some point get extradited / captured, prosecuted and jailed for whatever crimes he gets found guilty of is a moral good in and of itself

If this being done at the ICC rather than in an Ukrainian or Russian (in an hypothetical regime after Putin's) helps others accept the verdict as more based on fact than politics then that's why the ICC exists as an entity

If this makes someone down the line think twice about ordering war crimes then that's an added benefit but it's not the point

The ICC is an international court but it administers trials (mostly) local to the members' jurisdiction so this point is moot. A warrant from the ICC doesn't ask the member states to go to war and hunt the target, it asks them to arrest them if the target is within their jurisdiction

The fact that the ICC warrant was unlikely to lead to Hamas' leaders arrest in the short term is not particularly meaningful

The "mostly" qualifier is because IIRC there are some provisions for truly extraterritorial prosecutions in the Rome treaty but I don't know that they've ever been actually used

Completely immune is overstating it, and the power to initiate legislation is not that meaningful given that the EC initiates what the council tells it to initiate and can't actually turn it into law without parliament and council

And in a democracy if you don't know how your own laws are made the fault is always yours as a voter

The "proposal" was made something like 3 years ago, the killing never happened and the passing, if it passes, will happen in at least one year from now because this will definitely take a long time to get through parliament and even longer to get through the trilogue.

The process is many things but quick it is not

It's currently held by Denmark so it's the Danish delegation that's mostly doing the brokering etc for this semester