A Formal Complaint on Lack of Enforcement of European Law



  • Article III, Section I, Clause I of the European Constitution states that "The European Commission is the executive authority of the European Union." Article III, Section II, Clause II states that "The European Commission is responsible for the enforcement of European Council decisions among the member states.

    It has come to the attention of the Duxburian Union that the European Commission has shirked its responsibility to enforce the law. The laws in question are the European Cannabis Act and Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Protection from Unusual/Cruel Punishment Clause. The clause states that "All persons are to be protected from cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment."

    We hold that the member state of Davishire's legal system violates the UDoHR with its severe prison sentences for very minor crimes, and its "unlimited" fines. We also accuse it of leveraging this illegal system as a proxy for remaining in at least partial non-compliance with the Cannabis Act. We accuse the European Commission of refusing to perform its core responsibilities of enforcement, for the second time on Davishire and the Cannabis Act.

    This is a published list of Davishirian regulations regarding cannabis:

    -Removes cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Instead the new act will control all areas of cannabis regulation.
    -It will now be legal for persons to possess up to 1 gram of cannabis in a public place, any more than this shall count as illegal possession and will face a fine of up to £10,000 and a possible term of imprisonment as a summary offence of up to 6 months imprisonment
    -A person may possess up to 3 mature cannabis plants, these plants must be purchased from a government authorised supplier with a Cannabis Plant Certificate. Being in possession of plants without such a certificate shall incur an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years on indictment
    -A person may not smoke cannabis in a public place, such conduct can result in an unlimited fine and up to 5 years imprisonment on indictment
    -In order to drive a vehicle a person must have no trace of cannabis in their blood. Police have powers to stop and require a sample of blood/urine/breath to be taken. Mandatory 24 month driving ban (same as drink driving) and a possible unlimited fine.
    -A person shall not be permitted to sell cannabis or other paraphernalia without a government licence.
    -It will not be legal for a person to import cannabis into Davishire from another country without the necessary government licence.
    -A minimum price of £5.50 per quarter gram/£7.50 per half gram/£10 per gram of cannabis purchased shall be implemented (excl tax)
    -A 50% Cannabis Victims Tax shall be levied against the minimum price with all proceeds being spend on anti-drugs campaigns
    -Cannabis shall be subject to standard 20% Value Added Tax (calculated after all other taxes applied.
    -It will be illegal to sell cannabis to persons aged under 21

    The highlighted portions are what we feel violates the UDoHR. There is also nothing that says government licenses actually need to be awarded, only that they exist. Whether this is something that needs to be in the act itself is up to a court of law to decide, but we feel that it really shouldn't need stating - not handing out licenses would amount to total evasion of the law. We also highlighted the "no trace" law, because traces of cannabis can linger for up to 30 days after consumption. Should you lose your driver's license for 2 years and face an unlimited fine for something you did quite a while ago, something that no longer affects your driving ability in any way? We highlighted the "Victims Tax" because it is severe, raising the effective tax rate to over 70%. We highlighted the VAT not for being a tax, but for being calculated after other taxes have been tacked onto the good's base value. That is just economically vindictive.

    We do not feel at this time that the Duxburian Union has judicial standing to bring a case to the ECoJ. That responsibility lies with the executive authority of the region, the Commission. We are extremely disappointed that the Commission has not taken its core powers seriously and has in effect, done nothing on the matter. The Cannabis Act, though controversial, has withstood two appeal attempts by 2 to 1 margins, an unprecedented level of support for any act over the course of time. We feel that the Commission needs to enforce all Council legislation and sections of the Constitution, regardless of level of support or personal views. It is a travesty that it does nothing, and that undermines equality of treatment. We implore the Commission to act quickly.

    Signed,

    Dante Maximillian
    Steward of the Duxburian Union

    Acwellan Devoy
    Councillor of the Duxburian Union


  • Commission

    Cosigned,


    Theresa May

    Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


    Iain Duncan Smith

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


  • Commission

    The Davishirian Government has asked me as councillor to respond officially on its behalf. I would like to advise the council that this legislation quoted is no longer in effect and dates from some time ago. I shall deal with each element individually. During this I shall be referencing a speech made by the Prime Minister in Decemeber 2015 and regulations which were renewed permanently 1 month later. For the sake of correctness I shall reply now,


    "-It will now be legal for persons to possess up to 1 gram of cannabis in a public place, any more than this shall count as illegal possession and will face a fine of up to £10,000"

    -A person may not smoke cannabis in a public place, such conduct can result in an unlimited fine and up to 5 years imprisonment on indictment

    I can confirm that these elements of the old legislation are no longer in force. It is now legal to possess up to 4 grams of Cannabis in a public place and smoking in public is currently permitted in the evening between 19:00 and 02:00 for those over the age of 18. It is currently under review as to whether or not this requirement will be relaxed further with the enquiry due to report to HM Government in September of this year.

    -In order to drive a vehicle a person must have no trace of cannabis in their blood. Police have powers to stop and require a sample of blood/urine/breath to be taken.Mandatory 24 month driving ban (same as drink driving) and a possible unlimited fine.

    This regulation is still in force although referring to unlimited fines there is naturally a tier mechanism in process within the courts. The process is the same for driving under the influence of alcohol. Admittedly this regulation is not perfect as was stated by the Duxburian Councillor and it is being reviewed as part of the enquiry due to report to HM Government in September of this year. I do not however believe that this legislation is a breach of the UDoHR in itself as it could open governments up to the criticism of alcohol driving laws. I would also like to state that stops are conducted under the Road Traffic Act and are not random. It is necessary for a Constable to have a valid reason to stop a vehicle and this is recorded on the PNC. I would also like to advise that the taking of a breath/blood/urine sample is conducted within the codes of practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is also necessary in my view to point out that the Cannabis Act does not legislate over the allowance of a person to drive whilst under the influence of cannabis.


    -A person may possess up to 3 mature cannabis plants, these plants must be purchased from a government authorised supplier with a Cannabis Plant Certificate. Being in possession of plants without such a certificate shall incur an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years on indictment

    This piece of legislation fits within the confines of the European Cannabis Act. It is mentioned about the length of the sentence however it must be considered the role of the courts. If charged the courts must be permitted the use of a variety of different convictions. It cannot be presumed that a court would impose a significant fine and a 15 year period of imprisonment for the possession of 4 cannabis plants. To do so would be rather silly. The higher sentences are present for those persons found in possession of significant amounts of cannabis and for when they are possessing cannabis with the intention of supplying large amounts without a licence to do so. If it is however requested by the Commission the government is prepared to make this more transparent for those of us without common sense.


    -A minimum price of £5.50 per quarter gram/£7.50 per half gram/£10 per gram of cannabis purchased shall be implemented (excl tax)
    -A 50% Cannabis Victims Tax shall be levied against the minimum price with all proceeds being spend on anti-drugs campaigns
    -Cannabis shall be subject to standard 20% Value Added Tax
    (calculated after all other taxes applied.

    Again I would like to refer the Commission to a speech, and the associated regulations issued and then renewed ealier in the year. I shall provide you with a direct extract from her speech to save time.

    "The Cannabis Victims Tax shall be removed, the cost of cannabis shall be capped at £2 per quarter gram, and a special VAT of 15% shall be levied"



    Admittedly the regulations are far from perfect which is why their is an official review currently ongoing. In future however I would encourage the Foreign Affairs Department of the Duxburian Union and also the United Kingdom who perhaps unsurprisingly, and rather hastily, seconded the complaint from the Duxburian Union, to pay more attention in the future. I am sure that HM Government looks forward to receiving any response from the Commission.



    Signed,

    Rt Hon Nicola Heaven
    Davishirian Councillor to the European Union














  • Commission

    While ignoring the catty, petty comment that my colleague from Davishire has mentioned, I would like to bring attention to this article in which the Leader of the Opposition in Davishire contradicted everything that Davishire's government has said. Would she care to clarify the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition?

    Iain Duncan Smith

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland



  • Commission

    I have to say to the honourable council member, if you cannot face criticism then I recommend that you leave politics. The article referenced is, quite clearly, an opinion piece by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to advise that the anti-cannabis movement in Davishire, perhaps as a result of the way it has been forced upon the nation by Europe, is quite strong. This was done to appease said group and try to improve his poll ratings but alas it didn't work.

    I am sure that the commission, and also the court, would rather accept an official statement by the government or a representative of it over an opinion piece by the opposition leader who holds no governmental office.

    Regardless I think that the point here is clear, the government should be able to legislate within the confines of European Law which it has done. If you believe that it should be changed then I advise the honourable member to propose the change in the council. The Davishirian Government has set maximum punishments which allow courts discretion when sentencing, I would hate to see the criminal law books of nations which specifically details which offences get what punishment removing discretion from judges and police officers alike. The Davishirian CJS works around the idea of rehabilitation and punishment and discretion to use a wide variety of different sentences is key to that.

    Again, I look forward to finally perhaps seeing a response from the Commission.



    Cllr N. Heaven
    United Kingdom of Davishire and Buckinghamshire







  • ((OOC: That article includes a statement of historical fact, that "the relaxations in the law were removed to the point where Davishire now only allows the bear minimum". On a point of sheer realism, @Davishire, I'm not going to stand for you trying to hand-wave this away. It is blatantly absurd that the Leader of the Opposition in your country (or whoever would've written the piece for them) would be misinformed on such a point, which for obvious reasons would be a fairly significant legislative change. It's still more absurd that nobody in On The Other Hand's editorial team would've noticed such a flagrant factual inaccuracy for two months. And on an OOC level, if you're going to put major outright factual inaccuracies in a news post (or anything non-secret, for that matter), then you should (must) post what's actually the case elsewhere. You can't just leave us all in the dark. Why should any of us ever treat anything On The Other Hand says as canon from now on? And the fact that you've suddenly 'clarified' now that these relaxations were never revoked, now when another player has complained to the Commission and mooted an ECoJ case, stinks to high Heaven; and, once again, it's precisely why a number of other players don't enjoy RPing with your country. This just fuels the argument that you're willing to bend the rules of the RP to breaking point in order to protect Davishire from any sort of consequences for its actions. So in short, no, you're going to RP as if, as the article stated, the relaxations were revoked and only 'the bare minimum' is legal.))


  • Moderator

    Attention all,

    While this formal complaint has been lodged to the Commissioner for Internal Affairs, we as a Commission have decided that it would be more appropriate for me to respond. Indeed, we find this complaint made by the Duxburian delegates to be completely valid, and we particularly feel strong agreement with the latter suggestion, that "the Commission needs to enforce all Council legislation and sections of the Constitution, regardless of level of support or personal views". I have felt strongly about this, and had month ago already suggested to our Commissioner for Internal Affairs to take a closer look at the enforcement of our Constitution, especially its UDHOR, and our Council laws in member states. We also feel that the Commission ought to play a role in not only enforcing laws, but fostering the spirit (or intent) of the those laws, particularly in regards to civil rights, democracy and the neutrality of nations.

    However, such a process, while it needs to be concise and to-the-point, also needs to be thorough, without bias, and done evenly across the EU. The Commission cannot simply pick and choose what to enforce, and it simply cannot participate in witch hunts between countries that have histories of bad blood. While this particular case might not necessarily be so, as this particular concern has been brought up time and time again, and Davishire has had ample time to comply to the parameters set out by the council, I just wanted to make that concern clear. As the activity and future of Davishire currently lingers in the unknown, the Commission will investigate what the required next steps would be.

    Unfortunately, time is running out for this Commission, so I can only hope to lay the groundwork and mechanisms in which the Commission can act upon this in the future. I hope to set up system, or even perhaps a Commission-led committee, where Commission can investigate and obtain relevant information as to regards to EU laws and the compliance of member states. Should compliance be unclear, then there should be ground for Commission investigation. Such a system should also pay attention to member states and their military activities, particularly their involvement in frozen conflicts and/ or the occupation of other states, where our Constitution is often overlooked.

    We hope such as a response is equal and fair, yet also vigorous. I will welcome any suggestions or ideas from you in regards to my proposition. Please feel free to share your thoughts personally with me, or any member of my great Commission team.

    Thank you,



    Premier Commissioner


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.