Every provision, connected.
overview.legal connects the statutory text, the case-law, the fines, the guidance and the scholarship of European privacy and digital regulation — at the level of the individual paragraph, ordered by legal authority.
The problem
Legal research on the GDPR, the AI Act, the DSA or NIS2 today means: EUR-Lex for the text, Curia for the judgments, a different supervisory-authority website per country for fines, the EDPB site for guidance, and journals for the debate. Those sources cite each other constantly — but they do not link to each other. The researcher is the missing link, rebuilt by hand for every question.
And the sources are not equals. The law states a rule; courts interpret it; authorities enforce it; guidance operationalises it; scholarship debates it; news reports it. Research that ignores that hierarchy reads a blog post with the same weight as a Grand Chamber judgment.
How overview.legal works
1Everything is a document with an address
Statutes (GDPR, AI Act, DSA, NIS2, ePrivacy — with full consolidated version history from EUR-Lex), CJEU and national judgments, fining decisions, EDPB documents, open-access scholarship in full text, news and practitioner tools all live in one corpus. Not as summaries but as source text — split down to the paragraph. Article 6(1)(f) has its own address; paragraph 47 of a judgment does too.
2The citation network is the structure
Every citation — a judgment interpreting Article 6(1)(a), guidance quoting a ruling, a fine resting on a provision — is recognised and resolved into a link to exactly that provision or paragraph. Per provision, the complete picture assembles itself: which courts have interpreted it, which authorities have enforced it, what the EDPB advises, and what scholarship makes of it.
3Authority, made measurable
Every source carries an authority score along the doctrinal chain: the Court of Justice above national supreme courts above other courts; EDPB guidance above single-authority decisions; scholarship above news. On top sits the citation network: the judgment courts keep citing is the leading case. Lists on this platform sort by that — the leading case first, not the newest. Authority orders and annotates; it never hides anything.
4Tension between sources becomes visible
The most interesting moment in law is where the chain strains: a court departing from earlier case-law, guidance older than a departing ruling, scholarship converging on a single judgment. The platform classifies how each citation treats its target (follows · distinguishes · departs) and flags divergence on the page itself — with verbatim quotes from both sources, always verifiable through the link. Guidance overtaken by later rulings carries an explicit caution.
5Topics carry a diagnosis
The 200+ topics are the navigation — and each topic carries a profile derived from the data itself: settled case-law, contested in court, actively litigated, enforced but untested in court, regulator-defined, or emerging debate. Cookies is the most debated topic in the corpus; AI Act topics are still regulator-driven. You do not read that in a footnote — it sits on the topic page.
6Honest about facts and provenance
A date is the real decision date or it is not shown. A source is the deciding body — a court or supervisory authority, never the website that republished it. Every AI-derived conclusion on this platform (topic links, citation stances, tension signals) must produce a verbatim quote from the source text; if the quote cannot be found word for word, the conclusion is discarded. Summaries link to the provision and the paragraph they rest on.
Why this is the right way to do legal research
- Primary sources, not paraphrase. You read the provision, the paragraph and the decision themselves — the platform orders and connects, but never substitutes for the source.
- The hierarchy of law is built into the system. What you see first is what carries the most legal weight — verifiably, because each document’s score and its components are inspectable.
- Divergence is a signal, not a footnote. Where sources contradict each other is exactly where legal risk lives — and exactly where the platform points.
- Complete through automation, trustworthy through contract. Daily and weekly pipelines pull in new judgments, decisions and documents — and a data contract enforces that every record carries honest dates, real sources and a verifiable handle.
- Machine-readable by design. Every provision, topic and document has an LLM context bundle; a free API and an MCP server make the corpus usable from your own AI assistant. For developers →
What is inside
Five laws in full text with version history (GDPR, AI Act, DSA, NIS2, ePrivacy) · every EU-court decision citing them, plus Dutch national case-law · thousands of fining decisions from across Europe · the complete EDPB document register · open-access scholarship in full text · filtered news · a curated catalog of practitioner tools. All refreshed daily, all interconnected.