pedropetizviana.bsky.social
Accredited Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament. LLM in European Law, Leiden University. Former parliament advisor at the Portuguese Parliament. Focus on EU institutional law, competition law, internal market law. Views my own.
19 posts
116 followers
640 following
Getting Started
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
The Commissioner for transport has referred to 70 billion for military mobility within the next MFF. Seems like like one of the few concrete proposals by the EU on defence investments.
comment in response to
post
It will be interesting to see how the Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence case is decided by the US Courts.
It might end up reshaping our information system and the entire AI industry: in the US, in Europe, across the world.
comment in response to
post
This argument is quite similar to the one made by the General Court in Microsoft (Case T-201/04), regarding the fact that a refusal to supply might prevent technical development.
comment in response to
post
ROSS claims that the restrictive licensing conditions of Westlaw "stifle innovation (…) new companies would find ways to incorporate Westlaw’s database into their products, or build technology that allows their search engines to be compatible with Westlaw’s database.”
comment in response to
post
ROSS cites Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which is the US equivalent to article 102 TFEU.
comment in response to
post
ROSS Intelligence, an AI company, claims that Westlaw (a legal publisher, owned by Thomson Reuters) is abusing its dominant position in the legal research market by prohibiting other undertakings from using its database on court decisions.
comment in response to
post
Has the option of direct funding to universities and other Hungarian citizens and organizations ever been explored by the EU?
comment in response to
post
Now official ! commission.europa.eu/document/dow...
comment in response to
post
Kudos to you. Anyone who has ever read "Bowling Alone" would share your sentiment.
comment in response to
post
Ironically a very similar argument to the most stringent brexiters.
comment in response to
post
No. Scenario where the UK is fully back in the EU.
The subsidiarity protocol is only relevant to EU Members. Not EEA members.
comment in response to
post
Changes to the protocol are already mentioned in the Draghi Report. It's no revolution.
If we can improve our institucional processes, while simultaneously adressing legitimate concerns from a potential future entrant, that would be positive on my book.
I hold no grudge against the UK.
comment in response to
post
A similar precedent exists: the subsidiarity protocol was revised in the Treaty of Lisbon, after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty.
Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.
comment in response to
post
In the institutional framework of the EU, national parliaments are supposed to safeguard this sense of legislative "control", via the subsidiarity protocol.
A revamped protocol could alleviate these (almost emotional, but still important) concerns and smooth the way for UKs re-entry.
comment in response to
post
In the institutional framework of the EU, national parliaments are supposed to safeguard this sense of legislative "control", via the subsidiarity protocol.
A revamped protocol could alleviate these (almost emotional, but still important) concerns and smooth the way for UKs re-entry.
comment in response to
post
The revision of the cookie banner is actually in REFIT. But has not moved forward...
comment in response to
post
Do you feel that we need EU legislation on data retention?
Several MS have adopted their own legislative solutions. But there is no harmony(zation) between them.