Sweden is a country like this. It is just the way it is here. It can be abused, sure. But all things considered, I much rather have my things hosted here than in the US.
Sure, those EIO will be held if Hungary starts applying EIO that it got (e.g. for former Ministry of Justice of Poland which awaits trail, he sits comfortably in Hungary).
Let's hope elections there will change Orban into something saner.
I think you might be missing the ‘concerning’ part. Which specific cases are concerning? I don’t find it inherently concerning that people can’t escape justice by crossing the Hungarian border, Bonnie and Clyde style.
Too explicitly spell it out, op is saying here that if any one of the 27 countries in the EU decides you are breaking one of their laws, they can have 1 of the other 26 enforce an EIO.
EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement. So it’s not as if arbitrary Hungarian laws can be applied in France via EIOs. And of course, we all know this is not happening, which is why we get radio silence from the people who are ‘concerned’ about this whenever specifics are requested.
Annex D is a list of things that are crimes pretty much everywhere.
Not sure what to make of the claim that Hungary might theoretically be enforcing Hungarian law in France. It seems surprising that no-one has noticed any specific consequences of this that you can point to.
The EIO is mostly just a formalization and standardization of a bunch of ad-hoc processes that were already in place. Law enforcement agencies in different European countries do try to assist each other, on the whole.
What you're missing is the erosion of the ability of the executing states to say things like "hey this is sketchy, we think this crime might not have happened", "hey the police department in this particular city is notoriously untrustworthy", or "hey this prosecutor is widely known in the local press to be corrupt and owns a collection of ferraris".
Now foreign authorities are trusted by default and significant parts of their reasoning are not subject to review, that's bad.
You understand that these aren't typically public, right? There's not any particularly good mechanism to discover abuse in this system in the first place, because the checks and balances are largely left to the requesting state.
>Where are search warrants issued via public proceedings? You could make the same point about any jurisdiction.
It's different though, typically you can fight those warrants after the fact, with EIOs you have to do the fighting in a jurisdiction you don't live in.
This is all deeply problematic because things like "probable cause" have very different meanings in different EU countries, even if on paper it's all supposed to be the same.
>Also, account first created in 2021, coincidentally starts posting right after the other account in this thread is replaced with a green account?
Maybe stick to one account? It’s confusing for the rest of us, if nothing else.
You are determined not to point to any specific examples and you keep switching to different abstract arguments. For example, you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way, and are raising a different set of equally irrelevant abstract points.
>you’ve now dropped the point about EIOs being non-public in some sort of allegedly sinister way
Nonsense, I told you that EIOs are non-public after you repeatedly insisted on examples of them being abused. I did not suggest that there's anything sinister about them being non-public. The sinister part is outsourcing warrants to other countries. I can't trust that the French legal system will protect me in France anymore because now I also have to trust the Hungarian legal system, that's bad.
Frankly, it seems silly to debate about whether or not these systems are being abused when we know that Poland has historically issued one third of all EAWs.
Oh no, that's totally up to you. If you're happy with the courts in your country not being able to review the requests sent from Hungary, that's cool. Without transparent judicial review, how could we even know if the cases are concerning?
"Subject to review" means little more than "is the form filled correctly?", it certainly does not mean second-guessing by the courts in the executing state.
Like, yeah, your EIO will be rejected if you don't tick any of the crime-category boxes in the form.
You can look at past ECHR decisions for countless cases of abuse by various national governments.
You can look at the history of EAW related litigation also, it'll probably prove most informative. Executing states used to constantly deny requests due to judicial review, rules were clarified to remove the possibility of judicial review by executing states.
Not that I know of, but it also isn't really anything worth talking about imo. They added claud review as additional "eyes" on PRs (which already found actual bugs missed by maintainers) and added an AGENTS.md for the people using agents. They require disclosure of usage of agents (including which one) to know to be ready for the usually pitfalls encounted with them.
Like... they could say they entirely ban agents usage in their repo but how likely is that someone that wants to use them just doesn't contribute because of the policy instead of hiding the usage?
IIRC it also effectively is the same policy as the Linux kernel.
We do, it's not our fault that the electricity market in the EU is such that the spot price is based on the most expensive kWh produced in the zone we supply to. It sucks that we have to pay high energy prices because Germany fucked up their energy policies, or because Poland is still mostly coal-based.
Nuclear reactors are running, Forsmark, Oskarshamn, and Ringhals are still there and producing 25% of our electricity right at this moment.
So we do, and we are getting ratfucked by the common electricity market in the EU that pushes our prices much higher than what it costs to produce.
Poland plans to enter nuclear power. Three AP1000 reactors at the Choczewo site in the voivodeship of Pomerania. The European Commission granted formal approval for state aid in December 2025, including a capital injection of approximately PLN 60 billion (approximately $17 billion) and a 40‑year contract for difference.
Discussing whose fault it is does not change the fact that a statement such as "we do manage quite well to use green energy for heating during winter in Sweden" is quite questionable. The electricity prices ARE high and they would be significantly lower if we had not decommissioned half of our nuclear reactors
> The electricity prices ARE high and they would be significantly lower if we had not decommissioned half of our nuclear reactors
Where is the source for this statement?
The prices are not set by our producing costs, do you know how electricity is priced in the EU electricity market?
We do manage quite well, if you understood the pricing mechanism you'd know what I meant instead of knee-jerking into the umbrella "but more nuclear!".
Neither Genghis Khan nor Napoleon were democratically elected. The fact that Trump was makes it harder to see him as the root of the problem. He may have been a catalyst, but the root cause is something else.
It is completely obvious to me. There is only one uniform time, and thousands of arguments for what is a good time to do this or that. Reschedule things to work better. Don't force everything else according to some most important thing
To me it feels like redefining the meter to make it better for some particular purpose. For example, it is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458th of a second. Why not make it an even 300000000? Or make it perfect to measure say the width of train tracks?
There is value to stick to a historical tradition which is easy to reason about. I like the connection standard time has to the course of the sun. It makes a lot of sense. It serves as a reference. Time does not say when you need to do something. It is up to you and the people around you. Time is just the way you communicate about it
reply