this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)
Law
73 readers
1 users here now
This community is dedicated to discussions about European law, the legal systems of European countries, and any legal topics that impact Europe from around the world. Whether you’re a legal professional, student, or simply interested in how laws shape our societies, this is the place to share insights, ask questions, and explore the complexities of European and international law.
Topics include:
- EU legislation and case law
- National laws of European countries
- Legal developments affecting Europe
- Comparative law and cross-border legal issues
Respectful and informed discussions are encouraged. Please keep posts and comments relevant to the community’s focus.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The point of a directive is that it outlines what kind of law should be written in each member state, but each member state has a lot of leeway regarding how they decide to implement the directive.
Then there are another category of EU laws: Regulations. Regulations must be precisely the same in each member state.
But, if what you say is true and it's indeed in a directive instead of a regulation, then the reason is simply that Germany decided to implement the directive in a way that doesn't require ATMs to give receipts.
A directive defines the rough outlines of a law, a regulation is a ready-to-use law that cannot be altered in any manner whatsoever and is automatically valid without parliamentary interference by the member states.
I can understand that a transposition of a directive might be flexible. But in the case at hand, I believe the German translation of the directive was not even true to the intended directive. So it seems some intent was lost before the German transposition was even drafted.