Legrandin
@legrandin.bsky.social
Indeed, this judgment, if it is reported accurately, is ridiculous. Virtually any human being (as well as any legal entity) could be sued.
June 1, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Indeed, this judgment, if it is reported accurately, is ridiculous. Virtually any human being (as well as any legal entity) could be sued.
Perhaps, it's a question of proportionality. There are serious reasons such as (belief in) election integrity to reject voting by mail/proxy. I think this decision would easily survive such a test. Assuming it is motivated by this, and not by a belief that Poles in Asia/Africa preferably not vote.
May 24, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Perhaps, it's a question of proportionality. There are serious reasons such as (belief in) election integrity to reject voting by mail/proxy. I think this decision would easily survive such a test. Assuming it is motivated by this, and not by a belief that Poles in Asia/Africa preferably not vote.
just like you can't by saying Warsawers should go to vote to Szczecin to show their commitment.
May 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM
just like you can't by saying Warsawers should go to vote to Szczecin to show their commitment.
You can limit it by proving that in country X it is impossible to have a polling station, because the security risk is to large and the number of votes would be miniscule, but not by saying that Polish citizens in X in your opinion should make a trip to Poland,
May 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM
You can limit it by proving that in country X it is impossible to have a polling station, because the security risk is to large and the number of votes would be miniscule, but not by saying that Polish citizens in X in your opinion should make a trip to Poland,
It may be worth discussing, but in Poland it would be unconstitutional. People abroad have the right to vote. You cannot make it too difficult to exercise in practice by imposing additional requirements, this is a de facto limitation of that right that does not satisfy a proportionality test.
May 24, 2025 at 2:00 PM
It may be worth discussing, but in Poland it would be unconstitutional. People abroad have the right to vote. You cannot make it too difficult to exercise in practice by imposing additional requirements, this is a de facto limitation of that right that does not satisfy a proportionality test.
Second, is "People from Warsaw, you are allowed to vote, but the polling station is in Szczecin, come and exercise your right there" compatible with the Polish constitution? I think not.
May 24, 2025 at 1:34 PM
Second, is "People from Warsaw, you are allowed to vote, but the polling station is in Szczecin, come and exercise your right there" compatible with the Polish constitution? I think not.
First, this solution does not solve that problem of taking away the diaspora's right to vote. It makes it impossible to vote for Poles living in Poland who are temporarily abroad, and makes it possible to vote for the diaspora if they come to Poland.
May 24, 2025 at 1:34 PM
First, this solution does not solve that problem of taking away the diaspora's right to vote. It makes it impossible to vote for Poles living in Poland who are temporarily abroad, and makes it possible to vote for the diaspora if they come to Poland.
You would need to amend the constitution, which grants all citizens the right to vote. This will not happen.
May 24, 2025 at 1:04 PM
You would need to amend the constitution, which grants all citizens the right to vote. This will not happen.
Because the effect is not proportional to the effort needed to change not only production, but also people’s habits, and forcing them to do something inconvenient (a very expensive endeavor).
May 7, 2025 at 9:14 AM
Because the effect is not proportional to the effort needed to change not only production, but also people’s habits, and forcing them to do something inconvenient (a very expensive endeavor).
Remains annoying and ridiculous.
May 5, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Remains annoying and ridiculous.
He admitted it himself on the EU live blog. And yes, it obviously should have been mentioned here as well.
May 5, 2025 at 9:49 AM
He admitted it himself on the EU live blog. And yes, it obviously should have been mentioned here as well.
And as for the discourse on the original promise: Can we say that the evil CJEU is encroaching on national rules now, but originally things were different? Or perhaps the whole EEC/EC/EU was built by extending the reach of its law? You may not like it, but can't claim that this is a new development.
May 5, 2025 at 9:47 AM
And as for the discourse on the original promise: Can we say that the evil CJEU is encroaching on national rules now, but originally things were different? Or perhaps the whole EEC/EC/EU was built by extending the reach of its law? You may not like it, but can't claim that this is a new development.
But was the author just as unhappy when the CJEU rejected national measures stripping people of citizenship? Or is this a one-way street, and the CJEU is only allowed to block taking away citizenship, but not granting it? Is only the latter case encroaching on national prerogatives?
May 5, 2025 at 9:44 AM
But was the author just as unhappy when the CJEU rejected national measures stripping people of citizenship? Or is this a one-way street, and the CJEU is only allowed to block taking away citizenship, but not granting it? Is only the latter case encroaching on national prerogatives?
This jus really just a rant, not an argument.
Mr. Kochenov helped design the scheme and is now surprised and unhappy. He is also unhappy about schemes organized by corporations and wealthy lawyers to steal from national governments, put to an end by the judgment in Achmea.
Mr. Kochenov helped design the scheme and is now surprised and unhappy. He is also unhappy about schemes organized by corporations and wealthy lawyers to steal from national governments, put to an end by the judgment in Achmea.
May 5, 2025 at 9:43 AM
This jus really just a rant, not an argument.
Mr. Kochenov helped design the scheme and is now surprised and unhappy. He is also unhappy about schemes organized by corporations and wealthy lawyers to steal from national governments, put to an end by the judgment in Achmea.
Mr. Kochenov helped design the scheme and is now surprised and unhappy. He is also unhappy about schemes organized by corporations and wealthy lawyers to steal from national governments, put to an end by the judgment in Achmea.
There was an official shop in Warsaw that sold software. They had a catalogue, you would just choose what you want, and they'd copy it. It was also 100% legal.
April 5, 2025 at 9:22 AM
There was an official shop in Warsaw that sold software. They had a catalogue, you would just choose what you want, and they'd copy it. It was also 100% legal.
To the benefit of veterans, I assume?
March 29, 2025 at 5:39 PM
To the benefit of veterans, I assume?
It really is unbelievable. Can it possibly not be intentional?
March 28, 2025 at 11:07 PM
It really is unbelievable. Can it possibly not be intentional?
Assuming somebody could credibly argue that TikTok's continued operations caused him damage, could they sue TikTok since the damage would be the result of an illegal act?
March 23, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Assuming somebody could credibly argue that TikTok's continued operations caused him damage, could they sue TikTok since the damage would be the result of an illegal act?
Isn't the issue that saying "make sure the SF Bay water is clean" is not a limitation of that the city can do, but the imposition of a guarantee requirement? In theory, even if the city didn't pollute SF Bay at all, but somebody else did, it could be deemed to have breached this limitation.
March 5, 2025 at 12:35 AM
Isn't the issue that saying "make sure the SF Bay water is clean" is not a limitation of that the city can do, but the imposition of a guarantee requirement? In theory, even if the city didn't pollute SF Bay at all, but somebody else did, it could be deemed to have breached this limitation.
I have no opinion on whether the BGH properly applied German law, but this seems the only reasonable outcome.
February 24, 2025 at 3:53 PM
I have no opinion on whether the BGH properly applied German law, but this seems the only reasonable outcome.
This is a non-solution, and, moreover, it will cause extreme social and political tensions. And you will then naively ask: why have fascist parties become so popular? The reason will be your allegedly argument that there is no alternative.
February 20, 2025 at 11:19 PM
This is a non-solution, and, moreover, it will cause extreme social and political tensions. And you will then naively ask: why have fascist parties become so popular? The reason will be your allegedly argument that there is no alternative.
The essence of this argument is that since people don't want to do have children and do some jobs, you need to import other people who do. But obviously, as you acknowledge, they also won't, and so you will have to import further people, etc.
February 20, 2025 at 11:19 PM
The essence of this argument is that since people don't want to do have children and do some jobs, you need to import other people who do. But obviously, as you acknowledge, they also won't, and so you will have to import further people, etc.
His first argument is different, it's that if people get this money instead of the government spending, then there is no change in the overall money supply ("it's even"), and so this won't cause inflation. And perhaps people will save some of the money, then it would even be anti-inflationary.
February 20, 2025 at 11:04 PM
His first argument is different, it's that if people get this money instead of the government spending, then there is no change in the overall money supply ("it's even"), and so this won't cause inflation. And perhaps people will save some of the money, then it would even be anti-inflationary.
History seems an even better reason to distinguish the two. Gulf of America is completely made up.
February 15, 2025 at 1:09 AM
History seems an even better reason to distinguish the two. Gulf of America is completely made up.
It’s not contradictory.
January 5, 2025 at 11:57 PM
It’s not contradictory.