I beg to differ in general and in this specific case. In this case Austria claims the Data Retention Directive is in conflict with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which sets out the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU (including the European Convention on Human Rights). At what point has the Charter or the [non-EU] ECHR ever been changed?

I find that many European citizens that are hostile towards the EU in general make spurious claims regardless of the context and frequently lack objectivity when considering proposed laws and treaties. You may oppose the EU in principle, which is fair, but you cannot deny the progress and benefits it has brought. The recent Nobel Peace Prize rightly recognizes the EU's effect on our continent. A perfectly timed reminder for Europe of what they stand to lose regardless of its imperfections.

To translate what you said to American: "Watch the Constitution get changed".

That does not happen often in the US or EU. It's fundamental EU laws we're talking about.

Iran called. You're guilty of unislamic behavior in the US/UK/anywhere. Please report to Teheran's Torture and Corrections department tomorrow... They too have extraterritorial laws, we should respect that, right? Hahaha.

In this case, I personally believe that she was discriminated against by the jury, because she was a Native American. She was tried many many miles from where she lived and worked, and did not have a jury of her peers.

1. She wasn't "convicted" of anything; this wasn't a criminal case. She was found liable for copyright infringement by making copies through downloading, thus violating the record companies' exclusive reproduction rights.
2. She was also sued for "distributing" and "making available for distributing", but the judge threw out the "making available for distributing" claim, and there was no evidence offered of the "distributing" claim.

So yes, the only thing she was found liable for was downloading.

1. Capitol is but one of the plaintiffs.
2. The RIAA was in fact running the case, with the aid of the record company plaintiffs.
3. Capitol is a record company, not a music publisher.
4. The case was about the recordings of several different companies.

particularly Norway, where one fifth of the child population is in State care

Your "research" is utter nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As a Norwegian I had a good laugh at your expense!

To explain what teg (97890) referred to I'll translate the important part:

In 2010 almost 50 000 children, or 4 percent of Norway's youth population (ages 0-22 years), were recipients of care measures. Measures in this context includes assistance programmes including after school activities or holidays, offers of education or work, a separate home for young adults, or an extra "support family" for regular visits, financial assistance or even supervision of the home.

Removal from the home is the final resort, which you seem to have confused with care. Your confusion is natural as the British system is not very good or remotely comparable to Scandinavian systems, and your ignorance is probably linked to your attitude towards other Europeans.

Your "understanding" is probably based on the two recent Indian families that were prosecuted in Norwegian courts for their failure to treat their children properly. We don't want their children, you're just full of lies and groundless claims. The latest family physically hurt their son! What do you expect to happen? Their children are all in India now by the way. Why is that according to you?

Sweden's use of "häktning" has repeatedly been criticised on human rights grounds

Yes, criticised on the basis of the convention. It's a cause for concern, but it doesn't diminish the importance or value of the treaty in general or with regards to Swedish law. I'm also a Scandinavian (Norwegian/Swedish family) and a trained lawyer.

That you would attack the practice of "lay judges" surprises me! I find that it gives our system a democratic element without burdening the average citizen too much and avoids making a mockery of due process with American style juries. I think our system is excellent, full juries are not needed in courts of first instance. Are you Swedish by the way?

The presumption of innocence applies to the trial, not when gathering evidence. In the previous case for which he is serving time, he was awarded his freedom pre and post trial. He fled the country to escape justice afterwards! Now, they have every right to ensure he does not make arrangements to have evidence destroyed in the ongoing investigation [of the Logica case].

You may disagree with the conviction and the evidence in the previous trial, but it's a valid conviction as it stands. We have to respect the law and authority of Swedish courts.

There are very few countries in the world in general that use Common Law, it is however no requirement for a bill of rights or human rights. All European countries have equal protections [to the US Bill of Rights] and more by way of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What I find strange is that none of you considered the fact that he is convicted of the crime for which he is serving time. He subsequently fled the jurisdiction and is obviously not only a flight risk, has the ability to and great interest in destroying evidence against himself. It's perfectly understandable that the police would want him isolated.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

it is also a much broader legal principle that should be expected in any civilized legal system.

It is guaranteed by law in all European countries including Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

It's not the case in European countries, the gift recipient obviously pays the gift tax. I think the anonymous comment is entirely wrong.

The EU doesn't write tax laws as Europe doesn't have a "federal" tax. We're still individual nations and taxes are national and local.

Europe is not one jurisdiction, we are still 50 separate countries, and 27 of those are within the European Union.

Those 27 countries have their own legal systems from British Common Law to German Civil Law. The EU is only a "federal" framework, the nations rule themselves. There are various forms of suits and some have "class action" options (see the EU and Collective Redress). Our national courts are far less willing or able to hand out billions of Euros. Tort in Europe in general does not result in huge personal gains.

In my jurisdiction you can only sue for actual financial losses, that were caused by the action in question. Your feelings are worthless, your lost income will be compensated, but mostly by existing public/private insurance. The difference between those figures is what the wrongdoer ends up paying.

That fact works in our citizens' favor. You can't sue your doctor or employer and expect to become a millionaire for either your own stupidity or actual wrong doing. You can have someone justly punished for their errors, but it's not about rewarding people. Doctors insurance is a lot less costly in European countries. You will be taken care of however no matter what the outcome.

Obviously it's a bit different with monopolies and price fixing, but the fines will go towards financing schools and roads etc. That's more in line with how European societies are organized.