Nope.  Laws in one country do not affect in any way laws in another.  And this ruling does not make new law, AFAIK.  The EU can draft new legislation for the member states to consider - but a member state then has to take the laws back to their own parliment and pass them domestically.  The EU cannot force laws onto any member state against their will (unless a member state has first agreed to automatically defer to the EU on that matter - and even then it has the ability to pass a new domestic law which reverses that decision.)

The case basically seems to be about the European Commission being allowed to sack staff members who severely attack them in the media.  Just like if you worked at MacDonalds and wrote a book which slagged the company off big time, I suspect MacDonalds would defend its right to fire you.  The ECoJ is trying to balance a citizen’s right to free speech, against a company’s right to fire someone who is openly and vocally hostile to their employer.

Jim: This is no different than, say, an administration letting scientists go for pushing forward with positions that might come in conflict with certain political, or spiritual, beliefs. It is an internal hiring matter, basically.

Sean, are you defending this?  Your comment certainly seems to be phrased that way, but I know you and this doesn’t seem like something you’d be OK with.  This is way beyond a hiring matter when a high court rules that one may not criticize one’s government.  That, in the US, is specifically First Amendment territory...and it seems the EU doesn’t want free speech in that sense.

Joe; Thanks for the clarification.  I need to read up more on the EU and how it works...got any good links that will help a dumb ole’ American unnerstan’? ;)

From the looks of things, this is some kind of EU court that has jurisdiction over all members.  Wouldn’t a decision there make for precedent that any member nation could then use to suppress criticism?

“Sean, are you defending this?  Your comment certainly seems to be phrased that way, but I know you and this doesn’t seem like something you’d be OK with.  This is way beyond a hiring matter when a high court rules that one may not criticize one’s government.  That, in the US, is specifically First Amendment territory...and it seems the EU doesn’t want free speech in that sense.”

It was more a snarky comment directed at the Bush administration’s general dealings with scientists under its watch. You’re right, though, in that I don’t think it was a fair decision. The way I read the article, is that the guy who got shitcanned was an employee of the EU and was fired for publishing a book that was critical of the EU, possibly outside his mandate. If this is in fact the case, I tend to agree that the EU had the right to terminate him (and he had the right to challenge it) just as any private company would have the right. I think that all employees, be they of private or public entities, should be allowed to speak out against what they see are negative aspects of their employers dealings without fear of unfair firings resulting.

Jim, sorry I can’t find a link which sums it all up in a nutshell.  My knowledge of how the EU works, such that it is, is based upon reading (and occassionally posting) in online discussions relating to such matters (and from being a European citizen myself!)

You are right that the EU has courts which have jurisdiction over member state courts - but only if a member state opts into that court.  For example in the UK the two main political parties were divided as to whether Britain should sign up for the human rights court.  Labour (under Tony Blair) won the election, and passed the domestic laws necessary to allow UK citizens to use this European-wide court (with a few home-brew exceptions.)

The ruling itself does not censor anybody - the snippet you posted appears to be a bit of sensationalist journalism.  As I recall, the man in question wrote a damning account of small (but key) part of the EU, The Commision, which many consider is long overdue for reform.  (Indeed the EU are on the verge of presenting new legislation to member states which will finally offer some reforms - although ironically the UK are unlikely to sign up to it due to domestic politics.) The author was working for the EU at the time - so they sacked him.  He, I think, appealed this on the grounds that the government should not be allowed to sack employees who vocally attack it.  The ECoJ appears to have ruled that publically bad-mouthing your employer can be a sackable offense, even if your employer is in the public sector.

Nobody has gagged the author, they have simply ruled that employees who want to attack their employer in the media cannot be excempt from being fired, and political employers are no exception.

Jim, Following on Joe’s comments the telegraph is a notoriously conservative (Tory) newspaper.  The UK doesn’t have the same level of media concentration as the US so newspapers make no pretence at being unbiased.  Some are conservative (telegraph, times, FT) some are liberal (independent, observer, guardian) so I just read from different sources and find the truth somewhere in the middle.