Connectivity
and the Diffusion of Power – Constitutional Complaint filed
against EU Data Protection Regulation (2 BvR 865 17)
19.04.2017
| Unser Politikblog
Freedom
of speech in danger – Will politicians, journalists, bloggers,
human rights activists, and people wearing hearing aids soon have
nothing to say anymore in Europe?
 |
| (c) Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing |
At
Thursday, the 13.04.2017, at 21.20, the human rights activist Sarah
Luzia Hassel-Reusing has in time file a constitutional complaint
against the EU Data Protection Regulation (file number (EU)
2016/679), including applications for interim injunction (one of
those for urgent interim injunction ) and rejection of two judges for
presumed bias regarding „breaking up and pushing aside the eternity
guarantuee (art. 79 par. 3 Basic Law)“ and „bias regarding
Bilderberg“. With letter of the 12.04.2017, the European
Parliament, the EU Council of Ministers, the EU Commission, the
Federal Government, the Bundestag, and the Bundesrat have been
informed about the filing. The constitutional complaint claims the
violation of the basic rights to human dignity (also in connection
with the peace principle), to freedom, to freedom of speech, of
information, and of the press, to freedom of occupation, to property,
to the guarantuee of the course of law, and to vote, as well as of
the universal human right to freedom of speech and of information.
Her attention had been attracted to the draft regulation by the guest
article „Ein Abschied von den Grundrechten“ („a goodbye to the
basic rights“) by constitutional judge Prof. Dr. Johannes Masing of
the 09.01.2012 in the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The
EU Data Protection Regulation, which has been concluded at the
14.04.2016, is a tool for censorship and surveillance, which is
unique in this form, and which is going to be implemented from the
25.05.2018 on in all 28 EU member countries. And that, even though
the EU is not entitled at all in its treaties, to set law on data
protection, which obliges, in addition to the institutions of the EU
and of the member states, also private persons. The constitutional
complaint directs itself directly against the EU regulation, because
it is directly applicable and ultra-vires (exceeding the EU's
competences). And in this case only filing the complaint directly
against it can suffice in view of the obligation of the
Constitutional Court, which has been established in the Lisbon
Judgement and in the Maastricht Judgement, to control the EU law not
only regarding the basic rights, but also regarding ultra-vires.
