Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing debate in Europe regarding the potential withdrawal of the EU's ambitious green agenda, particularly the ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles starting in 2035, which has implications for both traditional and electric vehicle manufacturers [4][5][6]. Group 1: Industry Challenges and Opportunities - European automakers are struggling to transition to zero-emission driving but may receive a reprieve from stringent regulations, which could impact the future direction of the transportation sector [5][6]. - The proposed delay in the ban is a result of lobbying from major companies like Stellantis and Mercedes-Benz, aiming to avoid potential fines exceeding €1 billion (approximately $1.2 billion) in the coming years [5][11]. - The automotive industry, contributing about €1 trillion (approximately $1.2 trillion) to the economy, may welcome this flexibility, but it risks slowing technological advancement and widening the gap with competitors like Tesla and Chinese manufacturers [5][6]. Group 2: Political and Regulatory Dynamics - Six EU leaders, including Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have called for a relaxation of vehicle emission rules to prevent the effective ban on internal combustion engines in the mid-2030s [8][10]. - The letter to the EU Commission emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to climate goals without compromising competitiveness, highlighting the importance of technological neutrality [10][11]. - The review of current regulations has been expedited due to slower-than-expected electric vehicle adoption, with an announcement expected soon [10][11]. Group 3: Market Trends and Consumer Preferences - Data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) indicates that from January to October 2025, electric vehicles accounted for 16.4% of the EU market, up from 13.2% in the same period of 2024 [18]. - Hybrid vehicles remain the preferred choice for EU consumers, with a registration share of 34.6%, while plug-in hybrids accounted for 9.1%, an increase from 7% year-on-year [18]. - The combined market share of gasoline and diesel vehicles has decreased to 36.6%, down from 46.3% in 2024, indicating a shift in consumer preferences [18]. Group 4: Industry Perspectives on Policy Changes - Executives from companies like Volvo and Lucid Motors express concerns that delaying the transition to electric vehicles could undermine industry confidence and increase costs in achieving climate goals [12][19]. - The commitment to the 2035 target is seen as crucial for maintaining investor confidence and ensuring that substantial investments in infrastructure and technology are not jeopardized [18][19]. - The debate over extending the lifespan of fossil fuel-based vehicles is viewed as detrimental to long-term industry efficiency and innovation [19].

二、类型化分析：主要行为模式与辩护要点 在刑事法律的演进历程中，非法经营罪以其独特的兜底条款特性，逐渐从特定的经济管制工具演变为市场经济活动中的"口袋罪"。这一转变既反映了经济社 会发展的复杂性，也给刑事辩护带来了前所未有的挑战。 非法经营罪的规范体系经历了从具体到抽象的演进过程。1997年刑法最初确立本罪时，仅规定了三种具体情形：未经许可经营专营专卖物品、买卖进出口许 可证和批文、其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为。这一立法设计体现了当时对经济管制领域的明确界定。 然而，随着市场经济的发展和社会情势的变迁，通过《刑法修正案》及司法解释的不断补充，非法经营罪的适用范围持续扩大。目前已经形成包括非法从事 资金支付结算、非法经营出版物、非法经营电信业务等十余种具体类型，以及"其他严重扰乱市场秩序"的兜底条款。这种"具体列举+兜底条款"的立法模 式，既为打击新型非法经营行为提供了法律依据，也为辩护工作创造了空间。 1. 未经许可经营特定业务类型 此类案件涉及金融、电信、出版等特许经营领域。辩护重点应当围绕行政许可的范围和效力展开。例如在非法从事支付结算业务案件中，需要准确界定"支 付结算业务"的范围，区分单纯的资金 ...

Core Viewpoint - The emergence of "universal remote controls" for gate barriers raises concerns about security and legality, as these devices can potentially bypass access control systems, leading to unauthorized entry into residential areas and other secured locations [1][3]. Group 1: Product Overview - "Universal remote controls," also known as "gate-lifting devices," can replicate signals to control various access points, including residential gates and parking barriers [1][3]. - These devices are sold online at prices ranging from a few yuan to over a hundred yuan, with some listings indicating high sales volumes and user comments suggesting their use for unauthorized access [3]. Group 2: Functionality and Limitations - Testing revealed that these remotes are not truly "universal" as they require on-site signal copying and can only operate on specific frequency bands, making them ineffective against more advanced systems like license plate recognition [3][4]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The legality of producing and selling these remotes hinges on the "technological neutrality" principle; if designed to bypass security systems, they may violate laws [4][5]. - Producers face legal risks related to intellectual property infringement and liability for damages caused by unauthorized access facilitated by their products [5][6]. Group 4: Responsibilities of E-commerce Platforms - E-commerce platforms are legally obligated to monitor and take action against the sale of products that may endanger public safety, and cannot evade responsibility by claiming to be mere intermediaries [5][6]. - Disclaimers from sellers claiming that their products are intended for legitimate use do not absolve them of liability if the products are inherently illegal [5][6]. Group 5: Recommendations for Stakeholders - Manufacturers should enhance legal awareness and refrain from producing devices with illegal functionalities, while sellers must verify the legitimacy of their products [6]. - E-commerce platforms should actively enforce regulations to prevent the sale of such devices, and technology providers should improve security measures to prevent signal replication [6].

生产、销售这种遥控器违法吗？对此，南京大学法学院教授宋亚辉表示，通常情况下，判断产品是否违 法可以援引"技术中立"原则。如果此类"万能遥控器"的设计意图就是通过复制或解码信号绕过门禁系 统、帮助使用者规避正常管理措施，超出技术中立的边界，就可能违法。 宋亚辉认为，生产者面临两方面的法律风险：一是知识产权问题，门禁系统、电路解码装置通常受到专 利和商业秘密保护，绕过这些技术的行为本身就是对知识产权的侵犯；二是责任问题，利用设备非法进 入小区、车库，造成财产或人身损害，如果设备生产者因提供工具，与直接侵权人共同构成侵权，那就 需要依法承担责任。 在销售环节，电商平台和卖家同样不能置身事外。电子商务法第三十八条规定：电子商务平台经营者知 道或者应当知道平台内经营者销售的商品或者提供的服务不符合保障人身、财产安全的要求，或者有其 他侵害消费者合法权益行为，未采取必要措施的，依法与该平台内经营者承担连带责任。宋亚辉指出， 平台不能以"只是中介"为由拒绝监管。如果平台"明知或应知"商家在销售违法产品，却没有及时采取下 架、屏蔽等措施，同样要承担法律责任。 轻轻一按，小区大门的闸杆便升起，不刷卡、不登记，也无需保安确认…… ...

本文转自【法治日报】； 今年9月，澳大利亚汽车服务与维修监管机构（AASRA）向比亚迪、极氪、小鹏、Smart和零跑5家中国 车企发出合规警告，指控其涉嫌违反澳大利亚《机动车服务与维修信息制度》（MVIS）。若指控成 立，每家车企可能面临最高1000万澳元（约合4700万元人民币）罚款。 从全球视野看，强制公开维修数据信息成为监管趋势。除澳大利亚外，欧盟建立了系统化法规，要求车 企以非歧视方式向独立维修商公开技术信息；美国多州也通过维修权法案，保障消费者对维修渠道的选 择权。更值得关注的是，这一趋势正从汽车行业向电子设备、农业机械等领域扩散，折射出全球市场对 公平竞争生态的共同追求。 由此看来，强制公开维修数据信息已成为重塑产业生态的监管共识。上述实践共同指向一个核心命题： 维修垄断引发的系统性代价已迫使全球监管从被动纠偏转向主动构建公平竞争生态。 北京圣运律师事务所高级合伙人王有银指出，车企通过控制技术信息、配件供应链和服务网络，构建排 他性售后闭环，导致消费者陷入双重困境：一方面，维修选择权被压缩，被迫接受品牌授权服务商的高 报价；另一方面，故障代码与维修细节不透明，使普通用户难以判断维修必要性，过度维修 ...