THE NEWS

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

The European Commission announced on Wednesday that it is referring five member states to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for failing to properly implement the Digital Services Act (DSA), Brussels’ flagship legislation aimed at regulating online platforms.

The countries facing legal action are Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal. According to the Commission, these member states either failed to appoint a national Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) or failed to empower those bodies with the authority required to enforce the DSA.

Additionally, none of the five countries has established penalties for violations of the regulation, as mandated by Brussels.

“The DSA required member states to designate one or more competent authorities for the supervision and enforcement of the DSA, and to designate one of them as their national DSC by Feb. 17, 2024,” the Commission said in its press release. 

“Member states are also required to empower their DSCs to enable them to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

Poland is singled out for not appointing or authorizing a national coordinator at all, while Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, and Portugal appointed such bodies but did not grant them the legal powers necessary to fulfill their responsibilities.

The European Commission insists the DSA, which came into force in 2022, is designed to create a safer and more transparent online environment by requiring large platforms and search engines to combat illegal content, protect user privacy, and address public safety risks.

Critics, however, argue that it risks overreach by incentivizing platforms to over-remove content, potentially stifling free speech; imposes disproportionate burdens on smaller platforms, reinforcing the dominance of Big Tech; and compromises user privacy through mandated data access for regulators.

Disapproval of the regulation has been met by both libertarian politicians in Europe and by Republicans in Washington, DC.

In February, United States House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen expressing his “serious concerns with how the DSA’s censorship provisions affect free speech in the United States.”

He argued that overregulation from Brussels would effectively create a “de facto global censorship standard” as social media platforms generally use one set of content moderation policies for consistent implementation worldwide.

X owner Elon Musk has also weighed in on the bureaucratic nature of the DSA and its overzealous approach to content moderation, while U.S. President Donald Trump himself also called fines imposed on U.S. tech companies by Brussels for failing to adhere to the DSA a “form of taxation.”

In Europe, Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Maximilian Krah has argued that the DSA is designed to suppress dissenting viewpoints, claiming the legislation “is intended to prevent unorthodox and creative ideas from being shared on the internet,” while Sweden Democrats MEP Jessica Stegrud claimed an overfocus on combating disinformation and “harmful content” could undermine freedom of speech.

The Commission first launched infringement proceedings against the five countries in 2024. Letters of formal notice were sent to Czechia, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal in April, and to Spain in July. After the member states failed to comply, the Commission escalated the matter to the EU’s highest court.

If the Court of Justice rules against them, the countries could face financial penalties and be required to act swiftly to meet their legal obligations.

Read more here…

The minerals deal is now official and legally binding for Ukraine as on Thursday Ukraine’s parliament voted in favor of ratifying the controversial resources agreement with the United States. This was a final key step in its adoption.

The Zelensky government is hoping this will more firmly secure future military assistance from Washington. The vote was unanimous: 338 Ukrainian lawmakers approved of ratifying it, and none opposed.

“The Ukrainian Parliament has ratified the historic Economic Partnership Agreement between Ukraine and the United States,” First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on X.

“This document is not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner,” Svyrydenko added.

Critics have warned that this could be a big resource grab by the United States, but since it’s signing was accomplished in Washington last month, Trump administration rhetoric toward Kiev has softened. For example, Trump is no longer demanding that Ukraine quickly move toward holding new presidential and parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, Moon of Alabama has highlighted that there’s still a fight on as well as confusion over some suppressed details of the deal, citing Strana, which reported (machine translation)…

The opposition already accuses the authorities of concealing the main points about the deal. The fact is that the agreement on the creation of the fund, signed last week and already made public, is being submitted for ratification, and there are very few specifics in it. This is essentially a framework agreement. For all the main points in the text of the agreement, there are references to another document – the Limited Partnership Agreement. There is also a third document – the Foundation’s charter.

A number of deputies claim that all three documents have actually been signed (or agreed upon). But they showed only one-the least important and most abstract of them, from which it is not even clear what the Foundation will do in general.

The government denies this, saying that only one document has been signed, and the rest will still be discussed.

Trump has indicated the US could just walk away from efforts to mediate peace, if neither side is a willing partner. The White House has not said whether this means it would halt arms for Ukraine’s military, or intelligence-sharing. 

But the minerals deal means the US is indeed very likely to continue arming Kiev. After all, the White House now has more of an interest in protecting US ‘investment’ now and into the future.

Still, it is a very long-haul agreement: “Two supplements would spell out the details and would be published at a later date, officials have said about the deal which might not see a payoff for a decade or longer,” France24 notes.