>> The lawmakers will apply it, and then the state could sue a corporation for breaking laws.
The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law.
Are you talking about national laws that implement regulations similar to, but distinct to the GDPR?
>> I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves.
For the government to make money, the judges will need to find against the various companies. But why will the judges sit idly by and watch the government making money out of a racket they themselves make possible, without asking for a cut?
Or, to be more precise- what is the incentive for the judges to do the government's favour and interpret the GDPR in the broad manner required for the conspiracy to work?
>> About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though.
So it's three countries- Italy, Greece and Croatia? Is that right?
> The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law.
Not true, it's not optional.
> Are you talking about national laws that implement regulations similar to, but distinct to the GDPR?
The GDPR is a directive - it sets sort of a framework that the local implementation have to be based upon. It sets some boundaries, but in case of GDPR, the boundaries are very broad (compared to other directives).
> For the government to make money, the judges will need to find against the various companies. But why will the judges sit idly by and watch the government making money out of a racket they themselves make possible, without asking for a cut?
No. The public prosecutor will fight (and for these guys, it's about the ideology that the law must be followed, most of the time), the judge will just... judge. Their job is to judge whether someone follows the law, they would be doing their job. Are judges (or public prosecutors) asking for cuts from compensations to road crash victims?
> Or, to be more precise- what is the incentive for the judges to do the government's favour and interpret the GDPR in the broad manner required for the conspiracy to work?
None, because that's not their job and no one is asking them to do that. It's the lawmaker's job to implement the directive and the output of that job is a law - and judge's job is to judge whether a person (legal or not) follows the law - as in the local implementation, not the GDPR directive itself.
This works like this: Countries are required to implement EU directives into their local laws, but the directive itself is not a law - if the country doesn't implement a directive, even if someone violates it (inside the country, cross-border is another issue), the company will not be persecuted (but the government will be - by the EU).
> So it's three countries- Italy, Greece and Croatia? Is that right?
I don't know, it's not my "conspiracy theory". I'm just talking about the inner workings of the EU and have said that not every EU country is pristine clean. But I suppose you could add some of the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary and maybe Poland (if they continue their way down with PiS). We will have to see what happens in Slovakia, for a while it looked really bad but now it seems like they're back on track. In the Czech Republic, the German/Austrian corporate owners wouldn't allow it.
>>> The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law.
>> Not true, it's not optional.
Actually, I was wrong. The GDPR is not a directive, it's a regulation (the R in the name is for "Regulation"). As such it requires no national legislation to be passed and is immediately applicable in all member states:
A regulation is a legal act of the European Union[1] that becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously.[2][3] Regulations can be distinguished from directives which, at least in principle, need to be transposed into national law. Regulations can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.
So it seems like the conspiracy theory is dead in the water. The local governments can't legislate as they wish and the local judges can't interpret as they want. I hope we're all happy now that justice won't be perverted?
>> I don't know, it's not my "conspiracy theory". I'm just talking about the inner workings of the EU and have said that not every EU country is pristine clean. But I suppose you could add some of the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary and maybe Poland (if they continue their way down with PiS). We will have to see what happens in Slovakia, for a while it looked really bad but now it seems like they're back on track. In the Czech Republic, the German/Austrian corporate owners wouldn't allow it.
OK, it's not your conspiracy theory- but all this is wild speculation and it is your wild speculation. There is absolutely no reason why you would expect the countries you list to do the kind of things you say they would. And these are not the "inner workings of the EU". It's all just fantasies.
The GDPR is a directive- it doesn't need to be passed into national law.
Are you talking about national laws that implement regulations similar to, but distinct to the GDPR?
>> I'm not sure why you're talking about judges making money on the side when the original "conspiracy theory" was about governments making money, not about corrupt people making money for themselves.
For the government to make money, the judges will need to find against the various companies. But why will the judges sit idly by and watch the government making money out of a racket they themselves make possible, without asking for a cut?
Or, to be more precise- what is the incentive for the judges to do the government's favour and interpret the GDPR in the broad manner required for the conspiracy to work?
>> About Makedonia - you're right. Croatia is entering the EU though.
So it's three countries- Italy, Greece and Croatia? Is that right?