European Commission fines Google €2.95B over abusive ad tech practices

I don't think this decision is wrong, I'm from the EU, and I think companies like Google have too much power anyway, but I don't like the ability of the commission to enforce things.

Here in Sweden we have a legal tradition where the government doesn't have power over the enforcement of the laws-- parliament can make any law it likes, and it can be anything, but enforcement and the courts are isolated from the politicians.

I really don't like that the commission can make up rules, or fine people etc. It's a bad system. It should be done by an impartial regular, or prosecutor or a court. This kind of system opens up the commission to political blackmail and threats from powerful states, it opens up for corruption, it opens up for uneven enforcement, and there's just no reason to have the system this way.

You could easily imagine a world where Google was a big US government darling and where they put their weight on the commission and got an outcome that isn't in accordance with law, but with the right system, one more like the Swedish system, that won't be possible.

The problem with this is big tech companies are very adept at stringing court-based enforcement along, that would defer this punishment until well into the 2030s and even the 2040s for actually rectifying the issues.

It should at least have to be agreed by both the EU Commission and the EU Parliament.

Who does "enforcement" in Sweden? Is the police somehow under the courts? Same for things like consumer protection agencies, environment protection and so on? Are prosecutors somehow in the same group as the judges? That may work for you, but I see some potential for abuse there as well. I think that is how it turned out in Japan, once you are prosecuted conviction is a foregone conclusion.

You get that "myndigheterna" are under the government right? And that the government controls the authorities.

No, they are not. The police is under the control of the central government (and that includes the courts). Yes, it is true that swedish politicans dont want to give the impression they control the actions of the police etc but of course in the end they do. The difference is maybe in the US politicans say "I gave the order to the police to do X" while in Sweden they would say in private "you probably should do X or we might find a replacement"

The way it works is that the goverment (The politicians in executive positions) are allowed to write policy for all goverment agencies but they're not legally allowed to tell the agency how to handle any given individual case.

Who hires / appoints the chiefs of the agencies?

What do you say when Arbetsmiljöverket (labour regulation), Skatteverket (IRS), Ekobrottsmyndigheten (monterary crimes) take enforcement actions in Sweden and hand out decisions for fines and such?

The EU Commission does not make up rules anymore than these government agencies in Sweden does.

Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU?

My understanding is Sweden's "SEC" (in US terms) is called Finansinspektionen. Wouldnt this EU commission be like the Finansinspektionen issuing a fine or revoking a license if a bank didnt comply with regulations? My understanding is the Finansinspektionen can do this sort of thing but has to go to the court for larger actions.

Perhaps the EU commission has a bit more leeway?

> Isnt the commission basically just he executive branch of the EU?

The European Commission is both the executive and legal branch. They propose the legislation that the European Parliament can only approve or reject. On the other hand, the European Patliament can not propose anything at all.

I have my issues with how legislation is set up in the EU, but it's not like the commission can just make its own laws. The commission can only submit proposals, which then have to be approved (or changed) by the council and parliament. (In fact, the commission is the only party that can submit proposals, something that is very weird to me) As such, the commission is not part of the legislative branch, but the executive. The main job of the executive is to enforce the law, e.g. with fines.

In fact, this seems to be pretty similar to Sweden, quoting from [1]:

> Most state administrative authorities (statliga förvaltningsmyndigheter), as opposed to local authorities (kommuner), sorts under the Government, including the Armed Forces, Coast Guard, Customs Service and the police.

It appears that the swedish government can also initiate legislation, just like the commission (although the Riksdag can initiate on their own, something the European parliament cannot).

Also, fwiw: The fines can also be adjusted or cancelled by the court of Justice of the EU

My problem is actually that they have enforcement and rulemaking power.

There's this stuff about clarifying the DSA, for example. They simply shouldn't have such a power.

The Swedish government can't intervene in the decisions of finansinspektionen.

Law comes from parliament alone, and the constitution does not permit for the executive (regeringen) to intervene in individual cases.

Then you have to fix the courts in general so that such things are impossible.

Yes, but they can't actually make intervene in any individual case.

That’s not quite accurate. There is an extended process in which the Parliament and the Council can give input and propose and discuss changes to the Commission’s proposal, to work out a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_pro...

That's fine. They aren't politically appointed and in the end their decisions are checked by the courts.

The EU commission on the other hand actually has power.

As one other example, consider the Swedish terrorism law. There's no such thing as designating something a terrorist organization-- that's constitutionally impossible, instead it's determined by the courts. Meanwhile the EU commission can actually designate a group as a terrorist organization, no court case necessary.

How feasible is it in practice? In the US, it's possible in practice to remove officials via impeachment as well as amend the constitution, but in practice they are almost impossible to achieve. In practice the legislature is almost deadlocked for most non-budget bills as well, so the executive ends up running the country, with an assist from the judiciary.

Reaching agreement through the trilogue is the standard practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilogue_meeting#Increasing_us...

You are even less accurate. The Council is not an independent body. It represents the member states directly.

The Commission is elected by member states and thus represents them indirectly.

Yes, and they are non-public and they effectively excluse parliamentary debates.

And all of them represent the EU citizens who elected both the Parliament and the Member States governments. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The point I tried to make is that the Parliament has significant input to the legislation in the process, it’s not just a binary yes or no.

The appointment of directors of these Swedish agencies is effectively identical to the appointment to the commission.

The Swedish IRS (whose directors are appointed in a fashion similar to the commission) publishes regular clarifications of tax law and how they implement the tax law in their enforcement of Swedish tax law. How is that any different?

The government, specifically the Regering and the prime minister: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utn%C3%A4mningsmakten_i_Sver... (sorry only in Swedish)

In the end you can still go to court about it, secondly the government can't interfere in individual cases.

The commission though, is literally doing things relating to individual cases, and they're politicians directly appointed by European governments.

Simply, it's not rule of law, it's rule by the council.

People and companies regularly go to court regarding the Commission’s decisions, what makes you think that does not happen in the EU?

For example Danske Fragtmænd, challenged the Commission's decision that capital injections by Denmark and Sweden into Postnorrd did not constitute unlawful state aid.

(https://www.lexxion.eu/en/stateaidpost/what-competitors-must...)

> they're politicians directly appointed by European governments.

Just like Generaldirektörer in Sweden then.

The director of arbetsmiljöverket does not intervene in individual cases either, and in the end the law is what matters.

>Ingen myndighet, inte heller riksdagen eller en kommuns beslutande organ, får bestämma hur en förvaltningsmyndighet i ett särskilt fall ska besluta i ett ärende som rör myndighetsutövning mot en enskild eller mot en kommun eller som rör tillämpningen av lag.

No authority [...] may decide how an administrative authority is to decide in a case involving use of authority against an individual[...]

Furthermore, the commission is not like a directors of an agency. They are politicians. I would compare them to government ministers, who are appointed in a similar way.

Oh man, I’m confused why you keep arguing like the 12th chapter of the Swedish Regeringsform does not exist. What you write is not what is reality in law or reality in effect in Sweden.

It's common for the executive branch to have the right to propose legislation, and often the main way legislation is proposed in many countries.

While I agree this should ideally also be available to the EP, it doesn't make the EC a legislative branch. It's very much the executive.

I see. So my undrestanding is the finansinspektionen answers to the ministry of finance, which is part of the executive branch, but the finansinspektionen is probably a bit more insulated from the executive branch than say, the SEC.

The commission is not elected, it is appointed by the member states (I think it should be elected, but I'm in the UK so wouldn't have a vote anyway)

and this is not enough to not make the rulemaking by the commission into rulemaking.

I gave the example of their to designate terrorist organization, which as you probably know is a power that is impossible constitutionally in Sweden. The commission has actual authority which is extremely broad and wielded in individual cases.

This is not a power that they should have.

In Sweden SÄPO (the security police) primarily government entity that designates terror organisations. The leader of SÄPO is a political appointee from Regeringen and the prime minister of Sweden.

In other words the executive branch has rulemaking powers in Sweden according to you.

How is that meaningfully different from how a EU commissioner is appointed?

We do not designate terrorist organizations. SÄPO does not have such a power. The courts interpret the following definition:

>3 § Med terroristorganisation avses i denna lag en sammanslutning av personer som begår eller på annat sätt medverkar till terroristbrott eller gör sig skyldiga till försök, förberedelse eller stämpling till terroristbrott.

Thus the government, SÄPO, the authorities etc. have no power over what is a terrorist organisation. There's designation or possibility of designation. Only the above definition defines it.

Notice that even state organizations of friendly states can in principle be terrorist organizations according to this definition. It's among the most beautiful laws we have.

I was initially opposed to the inquiry to develop this law, because I feared that we'd something deranged, something against our constitution where the government or some authority designates organizations as terrorist and where it's thus a political matter, but we got really lucky. This law is like a pearl, and it's moral delight, so beautiful that one should cry. Actual generality, actual equality before the law, actual apolitical court-based and truth-based, where others have political determinations.

I'm literally arguing based on things in the 12th chapter, so I don't understand your remark.

That’s not the relevant law regarding which entity may classify, it deals with the ”yardstick” about what the government and SÄPO can use to be considered one. Did perhaps google translate not work?

The law which allow SÄPO to designate terror organisations is this: https://www.regeringen.se/regeringens-politik/utrikes--och-s...

Funnily enough this means that SÄPO generally consults with EU and UN regarding the classification status.

The 12th chapter designates the Genetaldirektörs, Ambassadors, Rikspolischefen, and other government leaders of the executive branch (ie Swedens equivalent of the Commission) as political roles, whose hiring is done by the Regering and the Prime Minister. Regeringsformen also allows the executive branch and their leader to interpret and execute laws. It also allows the executive branches to issue guidance on their interpretation of the law.

You seem to be under the impression that the executive branch in Sweden has no political rulemaking powers when it in fact has been given such according to constitution law.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

The government doesn't proscribe organizations or make decisions about what is a terrorist organization. That is entirely up to the courts.

Who SÄPO consults with has no legal significance. I'm sure they even talk to the Turks.

What you link to relates to the Swedish government's ability to institute sanctions against foreign states and persons. That has nothing to do with what is a terrorist organization in Swedish law. Whether an organization is sanctioned does not affect whether the definition applies.

Sorry for a Swedish-only wiki link to disprove your prejudice, it seems to translate will with Google however: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samverkansr%C3%A5det_mot_terro... and for example https://sakerhetspolisen.se/ovriga-sidor/other-languages/eng...