The fine weren't imposed for increasing the price, they were imposed because the way they increased and communicated the increase were against the consumer code.
Obesity does too. You are consuming sometimes twice as many calories as what is needed to survive. You put strain on medical facilities as well, and increase pooled costs of healthcare. Same social ills a smoker puts on you. Second hand smoke isn't really a thing anymore with indoor smoking bans.
Someone being obese doesn't impact my health directly. Second hand smoke impacts the kids/family of smokers. Second hand smoke impacts everyone walking past the front of an office building.
I don't actually know the math behind it but I would imagine that just smoking outside eliminates almost all the second hand smoke risk. The air outside is really really big, and the smoke is pretty small. Surely most of it misses you, even if you can smell it.
Some companies now make advertisements of news websites that it is clear are also part of betting companies. For example, https://www.admiralbet.news/ has as other Google result the betting website. However, I do have to say it is still less than before and it's much better
That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.
Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws though and should not be the first one - they are not designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being done before they strike something down.
The first defense is that the Council of the EU (formed by government ministers of the member states) and the European Parliament (elected directly by EU citizens) have to agree on the legislation. And while the council is staffed by career politicians, the parliament is a more diverse group that's generally a bit closer to the average person
From the point of view of the individual, the parliament is our first defense. And this is an example of it working
If something in 'Chat Control' is so fundamental that it should lead to the law not even being brought up for discussion (privacy), then that 'right' should be more clearly defined in the constitution, or constitution like structure.
It's when laws can exist, but simply have bad implementations, where you obviously can't jump to an amendment process.
Yeah, this is more or less what I'm saying. Large parts of 'Chat Control' likely _are_ unconstitutional, but that doesn't necessarily stop it being brought (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).
"These efforts are remarkably successful. Type “Zionism” into Wikipedia’s search box and, aside from the main article on Zionism (and a disambiguation page), the auto-fill returns: “Zionism as settler colonialism,” “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” (a book by a pro-Palestinian Trotskyite), “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims,” and “Racism in Israel.” "
Well, I wonder what else they expected to read on the Wikipedia results
Netflix said they will appeal
reply