Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need some laws to swing our way; enshrine our rights to privacy in clear terms so implementing laws like chat control become a non-starter. I think those are already in place - one major point against the previously suggested approach was that it would conflict with a bunch of existing regulation, and so it would never get past the courts even if it was passed. Two convenient examples: - Article 8 of the EU conv…
> Article 8 of the EU convention of human rights Worth noting that this isn't just a regulation; since the Lisbon Treaty it is effectively part of the EU's _constitution_, and can't simply be regulated or legislated away. Though also note that it's the European convention on human rights, not the EU one. It's from the Council of Europe, a separate body, but the Lisbon Treaty effectively enshrined it in EU law. EDIT:…
Actually no, ECHR rulings and the ECHR itself are considered guiding principles when the ECJ decides related questions but the EU is not technically bound by the ECHR
This is made moot by the fact that the EU doesn't have independent enforcement so all EU law is enforced by the member states and all member states are members of the CoE and the ECHR has already ruled that a member state can't violate the ECHR and justify itself by saying they were following EU law
But the comment above could also be referring to the EU charter of fundamental right which is binding on EU institutions and EU member states (when they're implementing/enforcing EU law), article 8 of the charter is about the protection of personal data so you can read the original comment both ways.
Either they said EU instead of European and were talking about the ECHR's "Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence" or they said convention of human rights instead of "charter on fundamental rights" and were referring to the EU's "Protection of personal data"
Fun