[pcrh]

Mass surveillance has already been ruled to be in contravention of the Human Rights act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Conv...

>A 2014 report to the UN General Assembly by the United Nations' top official for counter-terrorism and human rights condemned mass electronic surveillance as a clear violation of core privacy rights guaranteed by multiple treaties and conventions and makes a distinction between "targeted surveillance" – which "depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization" – and "mass surveillance", by which "states with high levels of Internet penetration can [] gain access to the telephone and e-mail content of an effectively unlimited number of users and maintain an overview of Internet activity associated with particular websites". *Only targeted interception* of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime, including terrorism, is justified, according to a decision by the European Court of Justice.[23]

[wmf]

The loophole there is "targeted" so they'll declare that Son of Chat Control is to be targeted.

[spwa4]

A decision by the European Court of Justice or any other court does not apply to any legislative branch like the EU commission (not parliament), when making new laws. New laws simply override old laws (to be interpreted as specializations, more or less exceptions, to the old laws)

[BartjeD]

That's not true, because there is a hierarchy of legality.

If a principle of the EU legal order is at stake, such as the right to privacy, then that constitutional imperative can very well override a new law.

The commission and parliament are well aware of this risk. They often choose to have laws advised on by the courts, in advance. To avoid a legal mess.

This is normal in a functional democracy. To avoid abuse of power / overreach by any institution.