Prompts
Juristische KI-Prompts für European Union
4 Prompts, die Sie direkt in HAQQ oder einen anderen Assistenten einfügen können. Jeder ist vollständig ausgeschrieben. Öffnen, kopieren, die Teile in eckigen Klammern anpassen.
EU Data Access Claim Strategy Playbook for CourtPlaybookStandardPrivacy & Data Protection
You act for a data subject who has been refused access to personal data and is preparing a claim before a court in an EU member state. Write an analytical strategy playbook whose arguments are framed so that they can be lifted into a pleading addressed to the court. Facts: the claimant is [Claimant]; the controller is [Controller], which refused or ignored a request made on [Request Date]; the data sought is [Data Sought]; the controller's stated reason is [Refusal Reason]; and the court is in [Member State]. Deliverables: 1. The legal basis of the right of access under the GDPR and the national procedural route to enforce it, with the order of steps. 2. The controller's likely defences, each with our best reply. 3. The relief to request, such as access, a copy, compensation and costs, and the evidence needed for each. 4. Risks and fallback options, including a complaint to the supervisory authority. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for counsel in [Member State]. Write the arguments in measured language fit for a court, claim no outcome, and say where national law and the EU framework could point in different directions.
EU Regulatory Pathway Report for Health SoftwareReportEnterpriseHealthcare & Life Sciences
You are researching, for a life sciences client planning to sell clinical decision-support software in the European Union, which regimes apply and in what order, and you must write an analytical report that the client's management can use to plan the launch while its lawyers check the sources. Facts: the client is [Client], the software does [Software function and intended purpose], it uses [Type of AI or algorithm], it processes [Categories of health data], the data are collected in [Member States of operation], the users are [Clinicians or patients], and the client plans to go live in [Target launch date] with a notified body [Named or not]. Deliverables: 1. A classification analysis of whether the software is a medical device, and if so its risk class, with the intended-purpose wording that drives the result. 2. A map of the regimes that apply at the same time, including the medical device regime, the AI regime and the data protection regime, with the obligations each adds. 3. A table of overlaps and conflicts between those regimes, and how the client should reconcile them in one technical file and one governance process. 4. The conformity route, the role of the notified body and the clinical evidence the client must be ready to show. 5. The rules for health data, including the legal basis, the extra conditions for special categories, impact assessments and cross-border transfers. 6. The points on which Member States differ in the countries of operation, kept in separate rows. 7. A sequenced plan to launch with decision gates, the earliest realistic date and the activities that can run in parallel. 8. The assumptions made and the facts that would change the classification. 9. A short section for the management team on what to decide this quarter. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, class, threshold or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for counsel in each Member State. Name only the Medical Devices Regulation, the AI Act and GDPR, and only for what they are known to do. Do not say that the software is or is not a medical device without the facts on intended purpose, and do not promise certification or approval.
EU Sanctions Export FAQ for Manufacturing ClientsQ&A / ExplainerEnterpriseSanctions & Trade
You are writing, in plain language, a question-and-answer guide for a manufacturing client that exports goods from the European Union through distributors and must understand how sanctions and export controls affect its sales, how its duties differ across the chain, and which rules take priority when systems conflict. Facts: the client is [Client], it is established in [Member State], its goods are [Goods and any dual-use features], its customers and distributors are in [Destination countries], its payments are routed through [Banks and currencies], the shipping route passes through [Transit countries], and the client also has [Links to other sanctions systems]. Deliverables: 1. What sanctions and export controls are, and how they differ from each other, in two short answers. 2. How to tell whether the goods need an export authorisation, and who decides. 3. What the client must check about customers, end users, intermediaries and ownership before accepting an order. 4. What a clause preventing re-export to a restricted destination can and cannot do, and what to do if a distributor refuses it. 5. What to do when a red flag appears in an order, a payment or a shipment, in the order the steps should be taken. 6. How the client's duties differ from those of its distributors, its bank and its freight forwarder. 7. What happens when EU rules, the rules of a Member State and the rules of another country point in different directions, and which the client must follow first. 8. What records to keep, for how long and who should review them. 9. When to stop and call a lawyer. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule, list or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for counsel in the Member State concerned. Sanctions lists change often, so tell the reader to check the current official list rather than relying on any list in your answer. Write each answer so a non-lawyer can act on it, explain any technical term, and do not tell the client that a particular transaction is lawful.
Equal Pay Research Memo for a National CourtMemoAdvancedCompensation & Benefits
You are researching how European Union law on equal pay for equal work or work of equal value bears on a pay dispute pending before a national court, and writing a formal research memo addressed to that court. Facts: the claimant is [Claimant Role] employed by [Employer Name] in [Member State]; the claimant compares their pay with that of [Comparator Description]; the pay components in dispute are [Pay Components]; the national court is [Court Name] and the question it must decide is [Question for the Court]; the employer's stated reason for the difference is [Employer Justification]. Deliverables: 1. A statement of the question presented, framed neutrally. 2. The EU-level rule on equal pay and how a comparator is identified, with the source for each proposition. 3. How the burden of proof is allocated between claimant and employer once a difference in pay is shown. 4. Which pay components count as pay for this purpose, including bonuses and benefits in kind. 5. The kinds of justification an employer may rely on, and the limits on each. 6. The points on which the national court may need to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a ruling. 7. A closing section separating what is settled, what is contested and what the memo could not verify. Mandatory rules: never invent a directive, treaty provision, article number, case name or citation; cite the named source for every rule you state, or mark it unverified and flag it for counsel in [Member State]. Write for a court, so no advocacy: present the points against the claimant with the same care as those for. Do not decide the dispute or say who should win. Where EU law and the national law of [Member State] may differ, state the difference and which prevails, and ask for the national text if it was not supplied. This memo is research support and is not legal advice on the parties' specific situation.