this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
47 points (94.3% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
2 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net
47
The Swedish Transport Agency is appealing Tesla-decision (www.expressen.se)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Swedish Transport Agency is appealing the district court's decision to let Tesla pick up license plates from the manufacturer.

The authority believes that "the security aspects have not been sufficiently highlighted".

A week ago, Tesla sued the Swedish Transport Agency and Postnord, after the electric car manufacturer had not received license plates for new cars distributed. Later that day, the Norrköping district court made an interim decision:

Tesla would be allowed to pick up its license plates from the manufacturer.

The decision is now being appealed by the Swedish Transport Agency.

  • We believe that the security aspects of a disclosure have not been sufficiently clarified and therefore want to be tested whether the district court's examination has been correct. The decision is also unclear because it does not say anything about how the district court actually intended how Tesla should collect its license plates, says Anna Berggrund, department director at the Swedish Transport Agency.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I doubt that that creates a loophole to bypass regulations for companies, else one could just arrange to have workers do whatever the company isn't officially doing. What I would expect happens is that a company is liable for the actions of the company, regardless of the internal reason -- like, if an employee won't act in conformance with the regulations that a company is subject to and it's resulting in the company not conforming and being fined, I'd expect that they'd need to fire the employee or do whatever is necessary to return to compliance. If, oh, a water company isn't doing required water quality tests, a regulator isn't going to accept the company saying "well, we did tell George to do it, but he just doesn't like doing so".

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Isn't that just limiting the workers right to strike?

[–] tal@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean, they can strike, but in that scenario, either:

  • It's going to cause the company to violate regulations and the company might get fined.

  • They'd have to strike in a way that doesn't throw the company into violation (like, refuse to deliver anything at all).

[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

It’s going to cause the company to violate regulations and the company might get fined.

Which is why PostNord is arguing Force Majure. They can't be liable for something they don't have any power over.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Seem that the workers are doing the first but also Postnord arguing that they can't be held liable because they can't interfere with the workers right to strike.

The second point seems weird to me. Why would you want to affect companies where the union and the company agree? Jack is being mean to me so I'm going to fight back by punching both Jack and Jill in the face, even though she's always been nice

Let's see where this ends up. Last word is not said in this saga.

[–] calavera@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Postnord arguing that they can’t be held liable because they can’t interfere with the workers right to strike.

Seems completely understandable.

What's weird is how legal is it to do a strike on a company you don't even work

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

A sympathy strike? Perfectly legal in the Nordics. Not so in the UK I'm told.