>>20554
I think it's a mix of common law (precedent law) and civil law (legislation law). Most things are solved by just reading the law as written, de lege lata (the law as it is written), and some are solved de lege ferenda (the law as it should be). Though, since legislation here is mostly somewhat vague and open for interpretation at times, whenever there are edge cases, some civil (and penal) trials go to higher instances and have to get decided by the superior courts in which case, their rulings become method of guidance for similar cases in the future in lower instances. The courts arent bound by these precedent rulings, but they usually follow somewhat in line with them.
So it seems its not too different between here and with your law. It's just that until now, it was probably a grey zone that the police, after having been denied information when they requested customer records over whom IP addresses belonged to etc, took offense to and took them to court over, which got to the highest possible instance and ruled that they have to give out this information.

Though, I just read a bit more into it and it has to do with NAT-ed(?) IP addresses where more than one customer has the same IP address but on different ports. It can be up to 65k people one one but usually it tends to be 10s-100s of them apparently. Apparently, in most cases the coppas would send a request regarding personal identifying customer data behind an IP address without specifiying the type of crime investigated, information regarding which port number or other data to reduce the amount of suspects involved. Basically, they didnt want to release the info on upwards of thousands of innocent people just because they were after one person.
So the ruling basically says that ISPs now have to release all of the information on every customer on that same IP address without the coppers having to specify anything, it seems. They dont even need proof of someone having committed a crime, just "suspicious" of it which I have come to find out is an incredibly loose and nebulous criterion. Add together the already existing laws for communications surveillance and I am quickly seeing how it is turning dystopic here 🥰