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

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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...