You might remember that the Dunn family brought a judicial review to the High Court. The Court found 'Our conclusion is that Mrs Sacoolas enjoyed immunity from UK criminal jurisdiction at the time of Harry’s death.' (para. 119). /2
The CPS is not charging Sacoolas, who will appear via video link. See this news item that does not seem to answer many of the essential questions /3 theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/d…
The solution might be in the sentence that the civil case was settled (without saying what was agreed). A case to watch if you are interested in immunities. /4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When you think of the patent waiver debate - bear in mind this article here. And the fact that Moderna stated it would not enforce its Covid patent. Some thoughts (thread)
We currently have an innovative sector that evolved around IP. But it is different from what people imagine. People think "oh. A new vaccine. It is patented. So one patent, one vaccine." That is incorrect. /2
mRNA vaccines are subject to a complex maze of patents. Take Moderna. PublicCitizen has identified 12 relevant Moderna-owned patents (some not yet granted). citizen.org/article/modern… /3
As @StevePeers@gideonrachman and @BrigidLaffan are discussing the BVerfG, let me indulge in some history... (short thread, yes, I will limit myself to very few key things).
@StevePeers@gideonrachman@BrigidLaffan Arguably the largest challenge the BVerfG posed to the EU system was Solange I in 1974. The Court at that time said it would itself control EU acts - because of a lack of fundamental rights protection.
That issue was resolved in 1986 with Solange II where the Court basically said OK - you now have a fundamental rights catalogue that is fine with us. We'll no longer have to check compliance with the rights of the German Constitution as long as that's the case.
Just to add - “making up“ in world-wide trade what you “lost“ in EU trade is more often than not a state based, aggregate type of rhetoric. In reality, it does not work that way /1
Companies that sold in the EU were not prevented from selling in the US. They sold in the EU because they were able to capture a market position there. They did not sell in the US because they did not capture a position there. /2
If you lose your EU sales, you cannot just compensate for that. Capturing a market position in the US will be just as hard as it was before. The barriers are just the same. The work it requires is identical. /3
On the "who would accept a border in their country" line that is, again, making the rounds. (thread)
It is a line that - take in and of itself - has a lot of appeal. It sounds counterintuitive. I have seen a famous colleague use it, because it appealed to him. /2
But look at it in detail and it becomes more complicated. When a UK politician said with a view to the US "which country would accept agricultural checks between parts of it" - one could not point out that, well, the US accepts them, because there are some between states. /3