Feed aggregator

Fritz Egger és társai kontra ECHA
The decision of the European Chemicals Agency identifying melamine as a substance with probable serious effects on human health and the environment is upheld

Fritz Egger e.a. / ECHA (Mélamine)
La décision de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques identifiant la mélamine comme substance pouvant avoir des effets graves sur la santé humaine et sur l’environnement est confirmée

Gotek
Taxation
Nine months after jurisdiction to rule on references for a preliminary ruling was conferred on it, the General Court of the European Union delivers its first preliminary ruling

Gotek
Adózás
Kilenc hónappal azután, hogy az Európai Unió Törvényszéke hatáskört kapott az előzetes döntéshozatalra utalással kapcsolatban, meghozta első előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás során hozott ítéletét

Gotek
Fiscalité
Neuf mois après s’être vu confier une compétence en matière de renvoi préjudiciel, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne rend son premier arrêt préjudiciel

Quatre-vingts ans après l'explosion de la première bombe nucléaire par les États-Unis, quels sont les pays qui possèdent des armes nucléaires et comment les ont-ils obtenues ?

Malgré les sanctions de l’UE, des machines fabriquées en République tchèque continuent d’atterrir en Russie — parfois via des routes détournées en Serbie.

The post Des entreprises tchèques soupçonnées de contourner les sanctions contre la Russie appeared first on Euractiv FR.

By CIVICUS
Jul 9 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS speaks to Cristinel Buzatu, regional legal advisor for Central and Eastern Europe at Greenpeace, about how Romania’s state gas company is weaponising the courts to silence environmental opposition.

Cristinel Buzatu

On 10 June, the state-owned energy giant Romgaz filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve Greenpeace Romania. The legal attack came after the organisation campaigned against the company’s plans to exploit a Black Sea gas field. Politicians say the project is crucial for Romania’s energy independence and its ability to export gas to Moldova, while civil society is clear that fossil fuel extraction must stop to prevent runaway climate change. Romgaz withdrew the case just hours before the first hearing, but the lawsuit exposed how fossil fuel companies are exploiting legal loopholes to silence dissent, marking a dangerous escalation in corporate attacks on climate activists.

What’s the Neptun Deep project and why is Greenpeace challenging it?

The Neptun Deep project is the largest proposed fossil gas drilling project in the European Union (EU), and we’re fighting it on multiple fronts. Operated by Romgaz Black Sea Limited Nassau SRL and OMV Petrom SA in the Romanian Black Sea, this massive drilling operation threatens biodiversity, accelerates climate change and extreme weather and locks Romania and the EU into an outdated and harmful fossil fuel system.

Our legal challenge targets the project’s environmental permit. We asked the Bucharest Tribunal to suspend it, arguing the Constanța Environmental Protection Agency had approved it in breach of environmental law. The agency’s evaluation was superficial at best, relying on outdated data on the project’s climate impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. Crucially, they ignored its impacts on biodiversity and water bodies, failed to consider risks from potential military conflicts and bypassed meaningful public consultation. Key documents such as ecotoxicity tests and archaeological diagnostic reports were kept hidden from public scrutiny.

When the court rejected our application, it hit us with a massive bill of 150,000 lei (approx. US$34,550) in legal costs to each company. They had demanded even more.

How did Romgaz turn legal costs into a weapon?

Romgaz claimed we failed to pay those costs and were therefore insolvent, which is grounds for dissolving an organisation under Romanian law. They alleged we had no assets or bank accounts and were using several legal entities to avoid responsibility. But the truth is we’ve never received a formal payment notice. When we actively requested one, none came.

Yet Romgaz pressed ahead, filing for our dissolution while launching a media smear campaign. We prepared our defence, confident the facts would vindicate us, as Romgaz’s claims were demonstrably false. But we never got our day in court. Just hours before the first hearing, Romgaz abruptly withdrew the case. Even then, it publicly reaffirmed its accusations and vowed to try again. The strategy was clear: inflict maximum reputational damage while denying us any opportunity to defend ourselves.

Is this part of a broader attack on environmental groups?

Absolutely. This case exemplifies a troubling trend targeting civil society in Romania, particularly environmental groups that dare to use the courts. The playbook is simple: companies that win cases demand excessive legal costs. When organisations can’t pay, the companies pursue their dissolution on insolvency grounds.

We’ve seen this weapon deployed repeatedly. Take Militia Spirituala, a local organisation that was dissolved at the request of a real estate developer. The same developer also tried to shut down Salvati Bucurestiul over unpaid legal fees, although the organisation survived by paying up. Now that developer is suing several organisations for damages totalling a million euros.

The chilling effect is undeniable. While we lack exact figures on litigation rates, the reality speaks for itself: only a handful of organisations still dare to challenge corporate projects in court. Most have been scared off by the legal and financial risks. This amounts to a serious restriction on access to justice, and we urgently need to find ways to reverse this trend.

How did civil society fight back against Romgaz?

The response was immediate and powerful. Civil society recognised the Romgaz case for what it was: a textbook SLAPP – a strategic litigation against public participation. Within just 24 hours, over 25,000 people signed a petition condemning the attempt to silence us.

But the attack’s roots went deeper than one company’s aggression: it was a coordinated effort made from the highest levels of government. On 20 March, the Ministry of Energy held up the Energy Transfer lawsuit in the USA against three Greenpeace organisations as a model to emulate, explicitly encouraging national energy firms to launch similar legal assaults on environmental groups that challenge their projects. The message was unmistakable: the state stands with corporations against civil society.

This provoked unprecedented unity. Over 110 civil society organisations from diverse fields signed an open letter demanding the minister’s dismissal. Yet even this solidarity wasn’t enough to stop the attacks. In May, the minister openly welcomed Romgaz’s attempt to dissolve us, repeating baseless claims about our finances and structure – the same lies peddled in court.

Still, something remarkable has happened. Many people who have never supported us before reached out, saying that while they might not always agree with our campaigns, they recognised this legal action as pure intimidation. That support gives us strength to carry on, defend civic space and resist corporate capture of our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
The price of protest: Greenpeace hit with huge penalty CIVICUS Lens 09.Apr.2025
‘Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace is an attempt to drain our resources and silence dissent’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Daniel Simons 01.Apr.2025
Europe: ‘Member states must introduce national anti-SLAPP legislation to protect public watchdogs’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Francesca Borg Costanzi 21.Mar.2024

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Ces manifestations sont les dernières en date d'une vague de protestations antigouvernementales qui ont démarré au cours de l'année écoulée.

Der kasachische Tourismussektor gewinnt an Schwung. Nachhaltigkeit ist ein Eckpfeiler der kasachischen Tourismuspolitik, und es gibt einen neuen nationalen Ökotourismus-Standard.

Le secteur du tourisme au Kazakhstan prend de l'ampleur, avec la durabilité comme pierre angulaire de sa politique touristique et une nouvelle norme nationale en matière d'écotourisme.

The post Le Kazakhstan, prochaine frontière du tourisme européen appeared first on Euractiv FR.

The historical influence of colonial powers and the continued, deep-rooted engagement of international development actors in shaping social protection systems is widely recognised across academic and policy arenas. Nevertheless, evidence of the role of coloniality in social protection remains limited. This Discussion Paper explores the enduring impact of colonialism on contemporary social protection systems by considering the role of coloniality in social protection in the Global South, and Africa in particular. It does so by employing a three-fold methodology, namely (i) an examination of empirical and theoretical literature, including scholarship on coloniality, policy transfers and political settlements in the realm of social protection, among other topics; (ii) semi-structured interviews with international and regional stakeholders from academia, civil society and international organisations; and (iii) country case studies in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania. 
The paper proposes a “social protection and coloniality” analytical framework to allow for analysing and unpacking the role of coloniality in social protection. It zooms in on three key components through which coloniality in social protection is manifested, resisted or countered: (i) colonial legacies, (ii) postcolonial influences and (iii) domestic political economy factors. This framework provides a novel lens to examine historical path dependencies and pathways that have shaped and continue to influence contemporary social protection systems in the Global South. It enables the identification of context- and country-specific issues, bringing them to the forefront while emphasising enduring colonial footprints and their interplay with domestic factors. 
Findings suggest that colonial legacies and postcolonial influences continue to shape social protection across Africa, as moderated by domestic political economy factors. It advocates for more equitable partnerships and critical reflection among international actors. The paper also calls for stronger integration of local knowledge to support country-driven social protection frameworks. By addressing these challenges and promoting context-specific solutions, it is possible to develop social protection systems that are more home-grown and less reliant upon external influences.

 

The historical influence of colonial powers and the continued, deep-rooted engagement of international development actors in shaping social protection systems is widely recognised across academic and policy arenas. Nevertheless, evidence of the role of coloniality in social protection remains limited. This Discussion Paper explores the enduring impact of colonialism on contemporary social protection systems by considering the role of coloniality in social protection in the Global South, and Africa in particular. It does so by employing a three-fold methodology, namely (i) an examination of empirical and theoretical literature, including scholarship on coloniality, policy transfers and political settlements in the realm of social protection, among other topics; (ii) semi-structured interviews with international and regional stakeholders from academia, civil society and international organisations; and (iii) country case studies in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania. 
The paper proposes a “social protection and coloniality” analytical framework to allow for analysing and unpacking the role of coloniality in social protection. It zooms in on three key components through which coloniality in social protection is manifested, resisted or countered: (i) colonial legacies, (ii) postcolonial influences and (iii) domestic political economy factors. This framework provides a novel lens to examine historical path dependencies and pathways that have shaped and continue to influence contemporary social protection systems in the Global South. It enables the identification of context- and country-specific issues, bringing them to the forefront while emphasising enduring colonial footprints and their interplay with domestic factors. 
Findings suggest that colonial legacies and postcolonial influences continue to shape social protection across Africa, as moderated by domestic political economy factors. It advocates for more equitable partnerships and critical reflection among international actors. The paper also calls for stronger integration of local knowledge to support country-driven social protection frameworks. By addressing these challenges and promoting context-specific solutions, it is possible to develop social protection systems that are more home-grown and less reliant upon external influences.

 

The historical influence of colonial powers and the continued, deep-rooted engagement of international development actors in shaping social protection systems is widely recognised across academic and policy arenas. Nevertheless, evidence of the role of coloniality in social protection remains limited. This Discussion Paper explores the enduring impact of colonialism on contemporary social protection systems by considering the role of coloniality in social protection in the Global South, and Africa in particular. It does so by employing a three-fold methodology, namely (i) an examination of empirical and theoretical literature, including scholarship on coloniality, policy transfers and political settlements in the realm of social protection, among other topics; (ii) semi-structured interviews with international and regional stakeholders from academia, civil society and international organisations; and (iii) country case studies in Côte d’Ivoire and Tanzania. 
The paper proposes a “social protection and coloniality” analytical framework to allow for analysing and unpacking the role of coloniality in social protection. It zooms in on three key components through which coloniality in social protection is manifested, resisted or countered: (i) colonial legacies, (ii) postcolonial influences and (iii) domestic political economy factors. This framework provides a novel lens to examine historical path dependencies and pathways that have shaped and continue to influence contemporary social protection systems in the Global South. It enables the identification of context- and country-specific issues, bringing them to the forefront while emphasising enduring colonial footprints and their interplay with domestic factors. 
Findings suggest that colonial legacies and postcolonial influences continue to shape social protection across Africa, as moderated by domestic political economy factors. It advocates for more equitable partnerships and critical reflection among international actors. The paper also calls for stronger integration of local knowledge to support country-driven social protection frameworks. By addressing these challenges and promoting context-specific solutions, it is possible to develop social protection systems that are more home-grown and less reliant upon external influences.

 

Wednesday, 9 July

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday, 9 July

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday, 9 July

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday, 9 July

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Rebecca Zamponi.

Staying true to his commitment, European Council President António Costa once more concluded the June European Council meeting within a single calendar day. Costa said that EU leaders focused on ‘how to ensure a strong position for the European Union on the global stage’, notably by discussing in detail defence, the war in Ukraine, the Middle East, and competitiveness. EU leaders also adopted conclusions on other topics, notably migration, internal security, hybrid activities, preparedness, the rules-based international order and external relations.  

General

The European Council again had new members, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Romanian President Nicusor Dan joining for the first time. As is customary, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, opened the meeting. She also raised, as she often does, issues which were not on the European Council’s agenda – this time, the preparations for the next multiannual financial framework, the simplification agenda, and the EU Electoral Act.

At the start of the meeting, the European Council marked the 40th anniversary of the signature of the Schengen Agreement and celebrated the signing by Spain and Portugal of their Accession Treaties 40 years ago, the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden 30 years ago, and the signing of the Accession Treaties by Bulgaria and Romania 20 years ago.

European Council meeting Ukraine

Described as the ‘new normal’, the conclusions on Ukraine were again ‘firmly supported’ by 26 of the 27 Member States, with Hungary being the only country, for the third consecutive time, not to agree to the Ukraine conclusions. EU leaders agreed to the renewal of existing sanctions without discussion, according to Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever (Coreper approved the renewal of sanctions the following day). However, they did not reach an agreement on the 18th package of sanctions (reportedly due to being blocked by Hungary and Slovakia), but did mention that future sanctions packages could target Russian energy revenues.

The European Council reiterated its support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as for a just and lasting peace. Taking into account the ‘peace through strength’ approach, EU leaders committed to continuing their ‘comprehensive political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support’ to Ukraine, alongside international partners. Air defence, anti-drone systems and large calibre ammunition were identified as particularly pressing in the context of Member State support for Ukraine’s military and defence needs.

EU leaders welcomed the upcoming Ukraine Recovery Conference, taking place in Rome on 10‑11 July 2025. They also reiterated their support for Ukraine’s EU path and commended the pace of its accession-related reforms. The Council was invited to take the next steps in the accession process in line with the merit-based approach.

The European Council condemned Russia’s ceaseless attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. A recent United Nations report showed that there has been a significant rise in civilian casualties and human rights violations in Ukraine, notably the widespread and systematic use of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in facilities managed by Russia. EU leaders praised the readiness shown by Ukraine to work towards a ceasefire and directly called on Russia to show genuine political will to end the war, agree to a ceasefire and engage in meaningful negotiations. They also emphasised the importance of efforts to exchange prisoners of war, release civilians, and return abducted Ukrainian children and civilians.

Main message of the EP President: The EU must remain strong in its support for Ukraine, and she called for the EU to ‘wean itself off Russian energy imports’.

Middle East

EU leaders reiterated their calls for an immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages, leading to an end to hostilities. Furthermore, they ‘deplored’ Hamas’s refusal to return remaining hostages – according to reports, there are 53 hostages still held by Hamas. While calling for further restrictive measures against Hamas, the European Council reaffirmed its commitment to a lasting and sustainable peace based on the two-state solution. It also reiterated the EU’s continuing support for the Palestinian Authority and its reform agenda.

The European Council deplored the humanitarian situation in Gaza, noting in particular the ‘unacceptable’ number of civilian deaths and the levels of starvation (according to the World Food Programme, 100 % of people in Gaza face acute food insecurity and approximately 470 000 of those are facing catastrophic hunger). EU leaders called on Israel to comply with its obligations under international law and to allow unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza. They also reiterated the importance of ensuring the protection of civilians, including humanitarian workers and civilian infrastructure. The World Health Organization has noted that the health system in Gaza is at breaking point, with 697 attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza since October 2023 and 94 % of hospitals in the Gaza Strip damaged or destroyed.

Recalling previous conclusions, the European Council also condemned the escalation in the West Bank (specifically settler violence, the expansion of illegal settlements and Israel’s military operation) and called on the Council to make progress on further restrictive measures against extremist settlers and those that support them. An issue identified in advance of the meeting was the European Council’s response to the report on Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and calls by some Member States for a review of the agreement. At the doorstep, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stated that he would push for the suspension of the association agreement due to Israel’s violation of Article 2. In the end, the European Council just invited the Council to follow-up on the issue at its July meeting.

The European Council welcomed the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East (initially between Israel and Iran, and later with US involvement) and called for all parties to show restraint and abide by international law. EU leaders reiterated that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. They welcomed the recent further lifting of economic sanctions against Syria, and recalled the importance of a peaceful and inclusive transition. EU leaders also condemned the terrorist attack at the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus, calling for those responsible to be held accountable. Reports state that the terrorist was linked to the jihadist group Islamic State. Leaders reiterated the EU’s support for the Lebanese people, and the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and called for full implementation of the November 2024 ceasefire agreement.

Main message of the EP President: The EU needs to have a coherent and united front in its approach to the Middle East.

European defence

A few days before the European Counci metingl, NATO members met in The Hague and committed to investing 5 % of gross domestic product (GDP) annually in core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035. The increase in defence spending to 5 % of GDP had previously been discussed by EU leaders at the informal European Council retreat on defence in February 2025. With 23 of 27 EU Member States being members of NATO, it is unsurprising that the NATO meeting fed into European Council discussions on defence. In their press conference, Presidents Costa and von der Leyen stated that the EU would help Member States reach the 5 % target. EU leaders agreed to return to the issue of defence at their October 2025 meeting, and tasked the Commission and the High Representative to present a roadmap on defence readiness.

EU leaders highlighted the importance of working with partners on security and foreign policy goals, and in this context welcomed the recent Security and Defence Partnerships with the UK and Canada. They also welcomed the adoption of the Regulation establishing the Security Action for Europe and the upcoming activation of national escape clauses under the Stability and Growth Pact. The European Council asked the co-legislators to quickly examine the proposal on defence-related investments in the EU budget and to progress on the proposal to address security and defence challenges in the context of the mid-term review of cohesion policy.

Main message of the EP President: European security is about much more than just defence.

Competitiveness

Considering the growing uncertainty and tensions in global affairs, the agenda items ‘EU in the world’ and ‘competitiveness’ were closely interlinked at the June meeting. Building on the 20 March conclusions, EU leaders reflected on competitiveness in light of the latest economic developments and key economic figures, which envisage moderate growth for the EU in the near future.

Trade was not mentioned in the invitation letter or the conclusions, but it was still discussed. President von der Leyen presented the EU leaders during dinner with different trade policy options, and identified joining forces with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) as being the most attractive one. This might help to reform the WTO, for which the European Council has been calling for some time. Furthermore, the 9 July deadline for the entry into effect of the US’s 50 % tariffs is soon approaching. The EU and the US are currently negotiating, and EU leaders have different views on the process. Chancellor Merz would prefer ‘a quick and simple deal’, while French President Emmanuel Macron has taken a more cautious approach.

The role of the single market, a key component in achieving improved competitiveness, was mentioned several times in the conclusions. EU leaders notably ‘reaffirm the commitment to the objectives of the Single Market and reiterate their calls to remove remaining barriers, in particular in the areas of services and goods, including essential goods, to overcome fragmentation, to prevent new barriers and to improve the application and enforcement of Single Market rules’. As expected, the European Council endorsed the new single market strategy, originally requested by them in April 2024, and also the EU start-up and scale-up strategy. EU leaders highlighted the challenges faced by traditional industries, mentioning specifically i) automotive, ii) shipping, iii) aviation, and iv) energy-intensive industries, such as steel, metals and chemicals.

The international role of the euro was also on the agenda, after European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde recently argued that this is ‘Europe’s global euro moment’. It is worth noting that issues such as the role of the euro are usually discussed at Euro Summits, as was the case in March 2025, rather than European Council meetings. EU leaders asked the Council, the Commission, the ECB and the Eurogroup to take the work forward to strengthen the euro’s international standing, notably as a transaction currency and a reserve currency. Additionally, the European Council endorsed the Commission proposal for Bulgaria to adopt the euro, and reiterated the need to advance with the savings and investment union.

EU leaders mentioned simplification as well as the avoidance of over-regulation, highlighting the need for a ‘simplicity by design’ approach. They also asked the Commission and the co-legislators not to add additional administrative burdens in the legislative and implementation phases.

The European Council expressed its concern about the global instability of and pressure on energy markets. In this context, it reiterated its call for ‘building a genuine energy union by 2030’. Security of supply and reducing dependencies was mentioned as a separate point, and EU leaders ‘welcomed the progress achieved since 2022’.

As usual in June, EU leaders discussed the integrated country-specific recommendations, thus allowing the conclusion of the European Semester.

Migration

The European Council adopted conclusions on migration, which confirmed the new orientation taken on migration since October 2024, with a focus on the prevention and countering of irregular migration, including through new approaches and means, while respecting EU and international law. The core aspects of the policy include the external dimension of migration; the implementation and application of legislation; the fight against instrumentalisation, human trafficking and smuggling of migrants; the increase and acceleration of returns; visa policy alignment by neighbouring countries; providing safe and legal pathways for migrants; and the strengthening of security at the EU’s external borders. The conclusions invite the co-legislators to continue examining the Commission’s legislative proposals of March 2025, notably on the better management of returns of migrants.

The most important discussion on migration nevertheless took place in the margins of the European Council meeting. Organised by Denmark, the Netherlands and Italy, a group of EU leaders have met ahead of European Council meetings since October 2024 to discuss among themselves, and with the European Commission President, the issue of migration. When first introduced in 2024, the breakfast club included 11 national leaders; after several recent government changes, this number has risen to 14 Heads of State or Government (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden), originating from all European political families apart from the liberals. Despite the growing number of members, Viktor Orbán is not satisfied with the progress of this group, which in his view only talks without any real consequences, so he invited his peers to join his ‘rebellion’ on migration policy.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council meeting of 26 June 2025‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Avec Wondrous Is the Silence of My Master (Otapanje vladara, 2025), Ivan Salatić fait le pari de démystifier le prince-évêque et poète monténégrin Petar II Petrović-Njegoš (1813-1851), une figure littéraire, politique et religieuse dont l'impact ne se mesure plus sur le territoire post-yougoslave... Entretien.

- Articles / Une - Diaporama - En premier, Une - Diaporama, Monténégro, Culture et éducation, Histoire, Courrier des Balkans