EASTERN PARTNERSHIP With or without Moscow
Transcription
EASTERN PARTNERSHIP With or without Moscow
THE EUROPEAN AFFAIRS DAILY europolitics.info EASTERN PARTNERSHIP With or without Moscow www.europolitics.info Wednesday 20 May 2015 N°5092 43rd year The European affairs daily - www.europolitics.info about EU policies at your door. THE PUBLICATION OF CHOICE FOR EU PROFESSIONALS AND THE WIDER PUBLIC Follow us EUROPOLITICS_SA Rue d’Arlon, 53 | B-1040 Brussels – Belgium | T: +32(0)2 737 77 09 THE LEADING EUROPEAN 08/01/14 AFFAIRS MAGAZINE D13115-AP-Europolitics-UK-V2.indd 1 11:21 No 8 Spring 2015 Europolitics is the publication of choice for EU professionals and the wider public. Subscribe at [email protected] and get all the latest news about EU policies at your door. Editorial advisors: Marc Paoloni Rory Watson is published by EIS (Europe Information Service S.A.), Rue d’Arlon, 53 B-1040 Bruxelles EDITORIAL TEAM Editorial director: Pierre Lemoine Editor-in-chief: Christophe Garach Editors: Anne Fekete de vari Tibor Szendrei Reporters: Ed Bray, Eric Bonse, Marie-Martine Buckens, Anne Eckstein, Anca Gurzu, Anke Harthoorn, Manon Malhère, Loreline Merelle, Sophie Mosca, François Paquay, Sophie Petitjean, Andreas Rogal, Isabelle Smets, Ophélie Spanneut, Joanna Sopinska, Nathalie Steiwer, Owen Stafford, Jorge Valero, Nathalie Vandystadt, Tanguy Verhoosel, Richard Werly Correspondents: Athens: Markus Bernath Berlin: Jakob Schlandt Berne: Edgar Bloch Paris: Joël Spaes Riga: Antoine Jacob Shanghai: Sébastien Falletti Strasbourg: Olivier Mirguet Warsaw: Jakub Iwaniuk Washington: Brian Beary Translators: Aïda Boghossian Christina Berta Betty Jackson Michèle Morsa Jessica Smith Layout, photo edition, website: Grégoire Maus Nathalie de Jamblinne Jean-Philippe Kets Anke Harthoorn Agenda: Zsolt Kozma ADVERTISING: Michel Deurinck Sophie Delaval [email protected] SALES: Virginie Goupy SUBSCRIPTIONS: Geneviève Jourdain Jelena Laverty Maximilien Nyst [email protected] Tel: +32 2 737 77 09 Fax: +32 2 732 67 57 TELEPHONE Editorial: +32 2 737 77 22 E-MAIL General: [email protected] Individual: [email protected] Europolitics is published in French under the name Europolitics. ISSN 1811-4121 3 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 Contents N° 5092 Top stories TELECOMS INTERVIEW EXTERNAL RELATIONS MEPs apprehensive about digital divide Page 4 Olivier Costa, researcher, College of Europe Page 11 Free movement: Switzerland never so attractive Page 14 Business & competitiveness MEPs apprehensive about digital divide............................................. 4 Conditional green light for Orange-Jazztel merger............... 5 Financial services, banks Benchmarks: EP ready to negotiate with Council............................................ 6 Sectoral policies Emissions from ETS-covered installations decline................................. 6 New vans becoming more fuel-efficient - EEA......................... 7 Don’t make us a digital laughing stock, Oettinger tells Council............................ 7 Economic and Social Committee in ombudsman’s sights......... 8 Tobacco: Tensions mount in Parliament................ 8 Parliament and US Congress: Investigative powers compared..............12 Trade policy Moscow backs down on demand to postpone EU-Ukraine DCFTA.............................14 External relations Free movement: Switzerland never so attractive..............14 Lavrilleux, Uspaskich, Korwin-Mikke, COP21: Merkel and Hollande call for general mobilisation...........................................15 In brief Juncker expects Greece deal in coming weeks.................. 9 Raffaele Fitto leaves EPP for ECR............................................ 4 EFSI financing: Commission presents options.................. 7 EUNAVFOR Med mission formally established.............................................11 Zagorakis: Immunity lifted .....................................14 German minimum wage: Infringement proceedings launched............................15 Institutions EU agenda...........................................23 Economic & monetary affairs Comitology: Consultation may expose policies to heavy lobbying......................10 Impact assessment: “EP doesn’t have to be a reasonable chamber”..........................11 Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language ENERGY PREMIUM On europolitics.info - Europe left out of global hydropower upsurge - study - Fossil fuel subsidies in EU 300 bn dollars a year - IMF - Lower Asian LNG prices could set ball rolling in Europe Eastern Partnership Divisive and getting nowhere................16 Diverging expectations and misunderstandings.................................17 Russo-Ukrainian hurdle.........................18 Review of neighbourhood policy not free of complications............19 From ‘sick man’ Belarus to exemplary Georgia.................................20 “Our partners are primarily interested in investments”.....................21 Open forum Eastern Partnership: EU needs political will and ambition....................22 www.europolitics.info 4 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS MEPs apprehensive about digital divide By Nathalie Steiwer The EP reacts coolly to the Commission’s digital strategy, saying it lacks ambition “There will be losers and some jobs will disappear, but digital technology creates more jobs than it destroys,” assured Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip, who presented his strategy for a digital single market to the European Parliament on 19 May in Strasbourg. His remarks were meant to be reassuring to the plenary, which nevertheless reacted coolly to the proposals announced by the EU executive on 6 May. The digital strategy is headed “in the right direction,” as the Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market (IMCO), Vicky Ford (ECR, UK), put it. But “the text could have been even more ambitious. It gives the impression it is already a compromise,” stated Dita Charanzová (Czech Republic) on behalf of the Liberals. “The proposals could have been more concrete” on copyright reform or net neutrality, added Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens, Germany). For Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium), the Commission’s initiative is “good news,” but there needs to be “more investment in infrastructure”. The Commission’s strategy is “too broad” and “lacks concrete actions,” regretted Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR, Belgium). From one end of the political spectrum to the other, MEPs are concerned about the risks of the “social divide” that may result from digitisation of the European economy. “The European Union needs to create - not just consume - digital technology,” observed Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France). This will require copyright reform that takes account of remuneration of authors, skills development and the financing of start-ups. “If we have to register online to go to school or have access to health care, what impact will the digital revolution have on social equality,” asked Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D, Finland). “Like my fellow members on the left, I think that the risks of exclusion need to be taken into account, otherwise the digital single market will not produce results,” added Róza Thun Und Hohenstein (EPP, Poland). Clare Moody, (S&D, UK) pointed out that an EU-financed digital project in Cornwall has enabled 40% of the population to access broadband and 43% of SMEs say they save time and money thanks to the new networks. “But the neighbouring county has a completely different experience because it did not obtain access to EU funds for this type of project,” said the Labour member. She asked the Commission to “think about that aspect of the issue”. All in all, MEPs nevertheless applauded the Commission’s determination to present proposals over the next two years. Like Charanzová, they hope “to advance quickly”. n Digital divide in figures According to the Commission staff working document presented on 6 May together with the digital single market strategy for Europe: - 39% of EU citizens have low or no digital skills - 18% of the EU population never uses the internet - One teacher in three uses information technologies regularly - 10% of the EU workforce is employed in high-tech industries and services (+20% from 2000 to 2011) - 90% of future jobs will require digital skills - Low-skilled jobs declined by 3% between 2008 and 2011 - 40% of companies trying to recruit highly-skilled ICT professionals have difficulty doing so In brief Raffaele Fitto leaves EPP for ECR Italian MEP Raffaele Fitto, a Forza Italia dissident, has joined the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament. “I am certain that he is the first and not the last of www.europolitics.info EPP deputies to join us over the coming months,” said Syed Kamall, president of the ECR group, announcing his new recruit on 19 May in Strasbourg. For Fitto, the seeds of divorce are of national origin: the former president of Puglia is seen in Italy as the leader of the rebellion against Silvio Berlusconi’s party. He intends to rebuild a new centre-right party in his country, “based on the British model: neither Merkel, nor Le Pen”. Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 5 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 Conditional green light for Orange-Jazztel merger By Sophie Mosca The Commission imposes commitments on Orange to ensure effective competition on the fixed internet access services markets operators, Telefónica (Spain) and Vodafone (UK). The Commission also had concerns that new players would have faced significant barriers to entering the market due to the high investments needed, and the costs imposed by Telefónica to use its network. purchaser of the FTTH network wholesale access to Jazztel’s national ADSL line for up to eight years (remunerated) for an unlimited number of subscribers. The leading French telecoms operator should also provide the purchaser with Nationwide providers of fixed telecommunications services in Spain New operator Jazztel Vodafone Concern The takeover makes Orange an integrated telecoms operator able to compete with the market leader, Telefónica, and with Vodafone. However, it reduces the number of providers of fixed Internet access from four to three. This could have led to consumers paying higher prices for these services Traditional Internet services and fixed voice services – by having access to Jazztel ADSL network Mobile services – by having access to Orange mobile network (if this operator does not yet have access to such services) Movistar (Telefónica) Orange’s bid to take over Jazztel for €3.4 billion, launched in September 2014, received the green light from the European Commission on 19 May – but on certain conditions, to ensure that a new competitor can enter the retail markets for fixed internet access services. The Commissioner in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said: “A very important thing before agreeing to Orange’s takeover of Jazztel was to make sure that consumers in Spain would not suffer from higher prices for fixed internet access services”. Vestager opened an in-depth inquiry into the proposed merger in December 2014, which concluded that the entity resulting from the merger between the third and the fourth providers of fixed telecommunication services in Spain – which would then become the second major provider - would have had fewer incentives to compete aggressively against the remaining major Ultra-fast Internet access services – by acquiring a next-generation fibre-optic network from Jazztel It also emphasised that “the main impact of this reduced level of competition would have been in the short to medium-term in the market segment with speeds up to 30 megabits per second, which represented around four out of five internet connections in Spain in 2014”. FOURTH COMPETITOR In order to avoid a veto from the Commission, Orange submitted commitments in March. It agreed to free up a significant share of its optical fiber and copper networks to enable a fourth nation-wide competitor to enter the market. The French company must now agree to divest an FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) network that covers between 700,000 and 800,000 building units, and serves 13 local exchange areas in five of the largest cities in Spain: Barcelona, Madrid, Malaga, Sevilla and Valencia. Moreover, it must grant the Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language May 2015 Orange Solution The European Commission approves the merger subject to remedies that will allow the emergence of a new operator, which will be able to provide: wholesale access to the Spanish mobile network, including 4G services, unless the purchaser already has access to a mobile network. The Spanish daily newspaper El Pais said at the beginning of May that Yoigo, a newcomer on the Spanish market owned by the Swedish company TeliaSonera, is interested in the networks to be divested by Orange – as is the virtual operator Masmovil. Orange has welcomed the green light, emphasising that it has submitted balanced commitments, which simultaneously address the Commission’s desire to maintain the intensity of competition on the fixed internet market in Spain and meet Orange’s ambitions in termes of synergy, convergence and deployment of optical fibre. To recall, Orange has global synergies worth an estimated €1.3 billion, particularly due to economies in operational costs and network investment. n www.europolitics.info 6 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS Benchmarks: EP ready to negotiate with Council By Manon Malhère In plenary, a large majority of MEPs back the ECON committee’s position Negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission can get under way on the draft regulation setting rules for the establishment, use and governance of indices used as benchmarks (like Libor and Euribor) to determine other interest rates and the pricing of financial instruments and contracts, such as mortgages. During a 19 May vote in plenary (517 for, 146 against), MEPs supported amendments to this text, adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), and issued a solid negotiating mandate to rapporteur Cora van Nieuwenhuizen (ALDE, Netherlands). The position is nonetheless a compromise that shows certain weaknesses, some MEPs pointed out before the vote. The Council adopted its position in February, so the first three-way session will certainly be held in early June. The Commission’s 2013 text came in the wake of the scandal of manipulation of the Libor and Euribor interbank rates, which came to light in 2012. “I think we share common goals with the Council [halting conflicts of interest in the setting of benchmarks, transparency, supervision – Ed], but this is all about how to achieve results. I will fight for a proportionate approach,” the rapporteur told Europolitics. Indeed, the EP seeks a more proportionate approach to rules for benchmarks that are “critical” to financial stability, which would be subject to a strict regime, while other benchmarks would be covered more by rules on transparency. “It is very important that we not frustrate providers of smaller benchmarks because if we lose a lot of the smaller benchmarks, there would be less competition and we would become even more dependent on the few large benchmarks that we have. In fact, if we have more small benchmarks, the systemic risk for the whole financial system is smaller,” she added. “Enhanced transparency is sufficient” for smaller benchmarks, which need to be “kept alive,” the shadow rapporteur for the EPP, Ludek Niedermayer (Czech Republic) told Europolitics. Like the Commission’s initial text, the EP’s position establishes that benchmarks would be classified as “critical” if they are used for financial instruments with an average value of at least €500 billion. MEPs maintain that benchmarks below the €500 billion threshold should also be eligible for the “critical” classification if they can impact financial stability. n Emissions from ETS-covered installations decline By Anne Eckstein The rate of decrease was 4.5% in 2014, but air transport emissions are increasing According to data from the European registry, verified greenhouse gas emissions from stationary installations (power plants and industrial installations) amounted to 1,812 million tonnes CO2-equivalent in 2014, a reduction of around 4.5% from 2013. But emissions from air transport rose by 2.8% over the 2013 figure, reaching 54.9 million tonnes CO2. The cumulative surplus of emission allowances (one allowance = 1 tonne CO2) dropped slightly from 2.1 billion in 2013 to some 2.07 billion in 2014. The auctioning of allowances was cut by 400 million units in 2014 due to the implementation of back-loading. www.europolitics.info The European Commission, which published the findings, is pleased and notes that, overall, companies’ level of compliance with ETS rules is high. Less than 1% of installations that reported emissions for 2014 did not surrender allowances covering all their emissions by the deadline of 30 April 2015. These are generally small installations with cumulative emissions of less than 0.5% of those covered by the system. Only a small number of installations (accounting for less than 0.2% of emissions the previous year) did not report their 2014 emissions by 30 April 2015. AVIATION SECTOR REPORTED EMISSIONS In line with the directive establishing the ETS for the years 2013-2016, all commercial and non-commercial aircraft operators with activities in the European Economic Area (EEA) in 2013 and 2014 were required to report their emissions for both years and to surrender the corresponding allowances by 30 April 2015. Verified CO2 emissions from aviation activities carried out between airports located in the EEA amounted to more than 54.9 million tonnes CO2 in 2014, a 2.8% increase from 2013 (53.4 million tonnes). Application of the ETS to air transport is hotly contested by the sector. The Commission nonetheless notes that aircraft operators responsible for 99% of these emissions covered by the ETS comply with the rules. This includes more than 100 commercial operators outside the EU that operate flights in the EEA. Lastly, the total number of international credits exchanged into allowances since March 2014 amounted to 388.44 million. These came from projects taking place in a small number of countries, including China and Ukraine. n Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 7 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 New vans becoming more fuel-efficient - EEA By Anne Eckstein The automobile industry has already met the 2017 goal of bringing emissions from vans down to 175 gr CO2/km According to data published by the European Environment Agency, almost 1.4 million new light utility vehicles (LUVs) were registered in the EU in 2014. These vehicles consume less fuel (they are 2.4% more fuel efficient) and are less harmful to the environment, since on average they emit 169.2 gr CO2/km, which is 4 gr CO2/ km less than the average emissions from a van sold in 2013, and is also is well below the objective set for 2017. New passenger cars were also increasingly energy efficient in 2014 (+ 2.6% more fuel efficient). The market is in good health: sales increased by 18% in 2014, compared to 2013, while vehicle registration increased in all EU member states except Malta and the Netherlands. More than 60% of new vehicles were registered in France (24%), the UK (21%) and Germany (15%). Diesel is still used by 97% of new cars sold, while those using alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and natural gas (NG), account for less than 2%, and electric cars less than 0.5%. Average levels of emission vary according to country. Slightly more fuel efficient models were sold in the older member states (169 gr CO2/ km), compared to those purchased in the member states that joined the EU after 2004 (171.6 gr CO2/km). The new LUV ‘champions’ are Portugal (145.1 gr CO2/ km), Malta (145.7 gr CO2/km) and Bulgaria (148.6 gr CO2/km). At the other end of the spectrum, average emissions were around 30% for new vans sold in Slovakia (193.3 gr CO2/km), the Czech Republic (191.1 gr CO2/km) and Germany (190.4 gr CO2/km). n Don’t make us a digital laughing stock, Oettinger tells Council By Mari Eccles He calls on the capitals to move quickly on audiovisual modernisation Act soon or risk making us a joke: this was the gist of the message addressed by the Commissioner for the digital economy and society, Günther Oettinger, to the participants in the Culture Council, on 19 May, as he presented the European Commission’s digital single market (DSM) strategy. Blaming slow procedures in Council for potential delays, he said that “Change is so rapid that we could make ourselves a laughing stock if we come up with something in 2017”. The directive on audiovisual services is currently going through a REFIT review and Europolitics understands that the Commission may start a new consultation in June, after the REFIT process has been clarified. The directive was last updated in 2009, and the Commission believes some tweaking is vital to keep abreast of the technological advances. The Council debate was focused on ways to balance freedom of expression and security and the need to preserve cultural diversity. While the ministers agreed on the latter question, the former posed greater challenges. Freedom of expression has gained traction since the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the cyber attack on TV5 Monde and the rise of extremism within the EU and of censorship abroad. Many ministers recognised the need to tackle hate speech, agreeing that freedom of speech was not an “unlimited right” and that it had to be balanced against other priorities. Yet if Commissioner Oettinger was hoping for consensus, disagreement around the country of origin (COO) principle, which means providers come under the jurisdiction of their country of origin, will have been a little disappointing. Poland favours a country of destination approach, while some states advocating retaining COO, such as Ireland and Portugal, want to see exceptions. n reduce the short-term impact on the research envelope (Horizon 2020) and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), an EU official said. The European Parliament has insisted on minimising as much as possible the use of these two budget lines to finance the EFSI. Another three-way meeting is scheduled for 21 May as both sides stick to the goal of reaching an agreement by the end of May. However, the Council and MEPs still need to narrow their differences on important aspects, including the nomination of the investment committee´s top officials. Parliament wants to approve these nominations, but an EU source underlined that although the legislators could participate in the selection process, the final word should belong to the European Investment Bank. In brief EFSI financing: Commission presents options The European Commission presented, on 18 May, a paper to the co-legislators to analyse options for financing the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the main bone of contention at the three-way meetings on the EU´s investment plan. An extended period for ‚filling up‘ the EFSI could be considered in order to Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language www.europolitics.info 8 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS Economic and Social Committee in ombudsman’s sights By Sophie Petitjean Seven associations denounce a conflict of interest following adoption of a report on electromagnetic hypersensitivity The European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, has just opened an investigation to determine whether the opinion issued by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on electromagnetic hypersensitivity was adopted independently and in compliance with rules of procedure. On 12 May, she wrote to EESC President Henri Malosse to ask him to clarify these matters by 31 July. On 21 January, EESC members were asked to vote on a report by Bernardo Hernandez-Bataller (Spain, Group III) recommending the adoption of “binding legislation to mitigate human exposure to electromagnetic fields”. They ended up adopting instead the more cautious counter-opinion drafted by Richard Adams (UK, Group III), which recognises the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity but does not recognise a cause and effect relationship between such hypersensitivity and electromagnetic or radiofrequency exposure. Seven associations representing persons suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (their names were not disclosed for data protection reasons) denounce a conflict of interest and a procedural irregularity. They single out for blame Adams’ alleged close ties with bodies such as Sustainability First and RWE AG. These bodies have an interest in defending smart grids and smart meters, which use radiofrequencies for data transmission. The associations also claim that the counter-opinion tabled by Adams fails to meet the initial objective, which is to support and make life easier for electrosensitive persons, and that it should have been sent back to working group level. Some associations go even further, maintaining that Adams’ reference to the preliminary opinion of SCENHIR (Commission’s scientific committee) is invalid because this group is also a victim of conflicts of interest. The French consumer organisation UFC Que Choisir recently questioned the credibility of the organisations representing electrosensitive persons, saying they are “willing to lie and publish distorted press releases to win their case”. Contacted by Europolitics, Adams said he was not aware of the complaints against him and not in a position to defend himself for the time being. He nonetheless has the support of one of his fellow committee members, who describes him as “honest and hard-working”. Adams has been a member of the EESC since 2001. n Background Electromagnetic fields are increasingly present in the environment, notably because of computer screens and cell phones. Some are concerned about the multiplication of these waves, alleging that they could impact human health. Tobacco: Tensions mount in Parliament By Sophie Petitjean In question is the extension of the cooperation agreement with Philip Morris, which currently hangs in the balance in Brussels The renewal of cooperation agreements between the EU and the tobacco industry was at the heart of debates during the European Parliament’s 18 May plenary session. MEPs unanimously called for greater transparency in future talks. The European Commission’s Vice-President for budget and human resources, Kristalina Georgieva, certainly took note of their request but indicated that the issue was not on the agenda for the time being. “At the present time, there are no negotiations underway. We have only undertaken exploratory discussions. That’s all,” she said. The European Union is collaborating with four major tobacco manufacturers to combat the smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes on its territory. This concerns www.europolitics.info Philip Morris International, Inc, Japan Tobacco International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco Limited. These agreements provide that companies make annual payments to the EU in order to help combat smuggling and counterfeiting, as well as additional payments each time illegal cigarettes (more than 50,000) are seized. The Commission is currently examining ways to extend the cooperation agreement relating to the fight against the smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes concluded with Philip Morris International. This agreement, which will expire in July 2016 (compared with 2022 for JTI and 2030 for BAT and Imperial), stipulates that in the two years preceding its expiry, the parties must consider a possible extension. According to Georgieva, several exploratory meetings have already taken place with PMI, during which the cigarette manufacturer expressed its desire to see the 2004 agreement extended. But the EU has not yet made its decision: it is currently in the process of evaluating the benefits of the agreement over these past ten years and the developments in illegal trade. “The results should be published over the next few weeks,” indicated Georgieva, after having underlined the numerous advantages of these types of instruments, which make it possible to go “where regulation cannot act”. There was disappointment on the part of some MEPs, who consider that each meeting with the tobacco industry and each document transmitted to it should be revealed on the big day. “We want greater transparency during the process. We also want to know the advantages and disadvantages of this type of agreement: does it really bring added value? Lastly, we want budgetary control of the criteria and conditions,” said Spanish MEP Ines Ayala Sender (S&D). “Parliament must not only be briefed once everything has been decided. It should also participate in discussions as an observer,” added EPP member Petri Sarvamaa (Finland). n Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 9 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 Juncker expects Greece deal in coming weeks By Jorge Valero and Markus Bernath in Athens A Commission proposal contemplates an agreement with Athens without the IMF´s involvement For the first time since the negotiations began between Greece and its international lenders in February, an agreement now appears to be within reach. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said, on 19 May, that he was “optimistic” that a compromise on the reform package could be found “toward the end of May or start of June,” he told Bloomberg news agency. This final agreement could be based on the European Commission´s latest proposal. This document, leaked to the press, proposes to cut Greece’s primary surplus target for this year to 0.75% of GDP (compared to the current 3%) and includes a reform of the VAT system, already accepted by the SYRIZA-led government. However, it is still vague on the crucial issues of reform of the labour market and the pension system. Commission officials have played down this proposal, describing it as but a sheet of paper from a thick wad of documents exchanged by the two sides. According to its proposal, the Commission does not count on the International Monetary Fund´s part of the €7.2 billion still in the aid scheme, as it does not expect the IMF to accept this ”light” version of the agreed programme. A Commission spokesperson pointed out that the outstanding funds will be disbursed only if it is approved by all institutions, including the IMF, as was agreed on 20 February. However, officials commented informally that this framework could be amended by the eurozone´s finance ministers. An agreement without the IMF on board will hardly be acceptable for Germany, as the fund´s strict stance on the list of reforms matches Berlin´s opinion. Eurogroup sources said that no extraordinary meeting is being planned for now. Meanwhile, Juncker has dashed Athens´ hopes of reaching a political agreement with the EU leaders during the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga on 21-22 May. “Riga isn’t made for that,” he said. But EU officials commented that the last week of May could bring a breakthrough as the finance ministers of the G7 will meet in Dresden on 27-29 May. Meanwhile, Yet again, Greece’s leftist Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras made good on his election promises and announced the reopening of the national broadcaster ERT on 25 May, with possibly more than 2,000 former employees to be rehired. The move has angered the country’s lenders, who have repeatedly complained that the Tsipras government had introduced legislation without consulting the creditors. “This undermines trust,” a participant in the negotiations in Brussels remarked when talking to Europolitics on condition of anonymity. “We read Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language about this in the newspapers.” The source described the current talks as being “substantive” on a number of issues and noted the replacement of negotiators who had represented controversial Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. At the same time, the creditors‘ representative noted that Greece’s fiscal gap has become “pretty big by now”. The primary deficit could easily shoot way above €1 billion if the government continues to insist on the suspension of the so-called ‘zero deficit clause for the pension system. Addressing a conference in Athens, on 15 May, Tsipras said his government’s negotiating plan was “realistic and viable” and he called on the lenders to be equally “realistic”. n Tsipras to visit Parliament Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is expected to attend the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament during the last week of May. “There is a strong possibility that Tsipras will come,” a Parliament source told Europolitics. Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem has also been invited to the same meeting to assess the ongoing negotiations on the Greek programme. Parliament sources expected Dijsselbloem to accept the invitation if Tsipras does the same. www.europolitics.info 10 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS the + LAST PLACES AVAILABLE 27-28-29 MAY For more information and registration, send an email to Hands-on training on [email protected] EU Unlock in days 3 EU decision-making EU lobbying delegated & implementing acts Comitology: Consultation may expose policies to heavy lobbying By Joanna Sopinska Accepting binding comments from different stakeholders, including from non-EU countries, could make the drafting process more political Although it seems to be a purely internal matter, the European Commission’s proposal for a new agreement on delegated acts might also assume an international dimension. The idea to include consultations with stakeholders in the process of drafting delegated acts might open the door for the US and other non-EU countries to become formally www.europolitics.info involved. The White House has been pushing for such a possibility under the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The US negotiators argue that the current comitology rules do not allow for any outside comments, unlike in the US, where all legislative proposals are subject to an up to 180-day notice and comment period. Opening the door for binding comments from different stakeholders, including from non-EU countries, could, however, make the drafting process more political - contrary to what the EU had wanted to achieve during the 2011 reform of the comitology system. Back then, the Commission insisted on including most trade measures under the new standard comitology rules with qualified rather than simple majority vote. This, according to the EU executive, was supposed to “help to avoid the politicisation of the process, leave less room for lobbying by any party or by third countries, and ensure a more robust trade defence policy”. “By proposing a system of stakeholder consultations, the Commission might want to increase the transparency of the whole system. But it would at the same time expose trade and other equally sensitive policies to stronger lobbying and political pressure, also from the White House,” an EU diplomat commented to Europolitics. n Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 11 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 Impact assessment: “EP doesn’t have to be a reasonable chamber” Commission, or a technocratic chamber that produces only perfectly reasonable texts. It is also tantamount to saying that all MEPs have to be technical experts. But not all of them are specialists. A Communist MEP has the right to vote for an amendment that can be considered completely off the wall by the Commission because it will have a considerable impact, for example, on one budget or another. There is a real democratic problem with submitting MEPs’ words or actions to technocratic oversight. By Ophélie Spanneut In its better regulation package, the Commission asks Parliament to carry out impact assessments on substantial amendments. What do you think about that? This in fact fits into a broader process, in which Parliament’s Bureau has for a number of years told MEPs to table “fewer amendments and better amendments, because we look like clowns when we hold talks with the Council and Commission”. In a way, Parliament’s vice-presidents have played the role of the Commission’s advocate, saying that MEPs spend their time adopting amendments that make no sense. So impact studies are the final stage of this process, where civil servants are put in charge of assessing the relevance of MEPs’ amendments. How does that represent an abusive practice? On the principle, there’s nothing new. The question of expertise in chambers is not new. Every parliament in the world has set up bodies to assess technical and scientific choices, whatever they may be © College of Europe Interview with Olivier Costa, researcher and director of political and administrative studies, College of Europe Olivier Costa called. What is troubling is the systematic aspect. It seems logical and relevant that an MEP who, for instance, wishes to table an amendment on the percentage of nitrogen dioxide in polluting emissions, would want an impact study. But submitting a large number of amendments to an impact study without taking account of the nature of the amendment or the political intention behind it seems problematic because Parliament has the right to adopt irrelevant amendments. Otherwise, this amounts to obliging Parliament to be a sort of second “There is a real democratic problem with submitting MEPs’ words or action to technocratic oversight” Parliament is not opposed, however. What is most troubling is that there is no reflection under way. The starting point is always the view that Parliament has to be as specialised as possible. That’s true for certain issues, because it empowers Parliament in relation to the Commission and Council. But for others, Parliament doesn’t have to be a reasonable chamber. n In brief EUNAVFOR Med mission formally established The framework decision launching the EUNAVFOR Med mission goes a step further than the proposals made by the EU high representative on 18 May. It was published on the morning of 19 May, before a vote by the UN Security Council expected at the end of the week. The document clearly states that the Union will lead a military crisis management operation, and sets out three phases - which do not each require a resolution. The first will support the detection and surveillance of migration networks by collecting information and organising patrols on the open seas, while adhering to international law. It will gather personal data from migrants. The second phase of the mission will focus on inspecting, seizing, searching and Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language diverting ships, firstly on the open seas and subsequently “in territorial waters and the internal waters of the coastal state” in line with the UN Security Council’s resolution. The third phase refers to “elimination” or disabling of the ships on the territory of this member state. The operation must still be approved by the Council in June. www.europolitics.info 12 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS Parliament and US Congress: Investigative powers compared By Ophélie Spanneut and Brian Beary in Washington a congressional aide involved in the process said. “It is very helpful when witnesses provide us with their bio and written testimony about a week before the hearing. Some do, but others wait until a few hours beforehand to give © EP As MEPs ramp up their probe into EU member states’ tax rulings, can US lawmakers teach them some tricks? tember 2012 attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four people, has had huge problems extracting cooperation for a star witness, the Democrats’ frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Meeting of TAXE committee in the European Parliament The United States Congress has had more than two centuries to hone its investigative skills, having launched its first inquiry in 1791 against President George Washington over a botched battle against the American Indians. “Investigations are an essential power for Congress and our courts have consistently upheld this,” says Donald Wolfensberger, scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, who has three decades of hands-on experience of congressional oversight. Congress exercises this power via ‘standing committees’ that meet regularly (foreign relations, finance, etc), and purpose-specific ‘select committees’ that usually handle hot political scandals like Watergate in the 1970s or Iran-Contra in the 1980s. PLENTY OF POWER, MIXED RESULTS But the US lawmakers have a rather chequered record in recent times. The select committee investigating the Sepwww.europolitics.info Clinton. House Republicans continue to demand that Clinton give them relevant correspondence and appear before the committee. A tense stand-off continues, made worse by recent revelations that Clinton had her own personal server installed to circumvent the US State Department’s e-mail system. On the plus side, the House Standing Committee on Oversight and Government Reform got better results when investigating the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious operation, an anti-gun running sting that went awry by unintentionally putting weapons in the hands of criminal gangs. In November 2014, then US Attorney-General Eric Holder, responding to a court order, gave the committee 64,280 pages of documents. When witnesses do appear before Congress – and it is hard to those summoned to ignore a congressional subpoena – rigorous preparations are key to getting the most from the witness, it,” the aide said. At the hearing itself, “we try to get our members to ask tight, specific questions as it helps in getting Committees of inquiry Made possible by the Maastricht Treaty, three committees of inquiry have been put in place by the European Parliament: - 2007: on the Equitable Life insurance crisis - 1997: on mad cow disease - 1997: on VAT and customs duties fraud in EU transit rules. These committees examined allegations of infringement of EU law or maladministration in the application of EU law. After a year’s work (or up to 18 months if extended), the committee of inquiry concludes its investigation with a report put to the vote in plenary. Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 13 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 more useful information”. The media can be very useful, the official noted. The dawn of television channels like CSPAN, which specialise in reporting on political events like committee hearings, “has been a game-changer in Washington. We can extract short sound bites and put them on social media. Then other outlets like Fox News pick them up on and rebroadcast”. MEPs DEMAND GREATER POWERS While MEPs have less experience in this domain, they have a solid legal basis for asserting this role, enshrined in Article 226 of the EU treaty and fleshed out in 1995 when Parliament, Commission and Council agreed on the powers of investigating committees. But Parliament’s powers of inquiry are in fact relatively limited, something MEPs complain about, saying they do not match Parliament’s political clout. The EU lawmakers would like to have the right to do on-the-spot investigations, request documents, summon witnesses, hear EU and national officials and request experts’ reports. Under the 1995 interinstitutional agreement, a committee of inquiry can summon civil servants as witnesses but it is the member state concerned that designates the official who testifies and that official speaks “in the name of, and on the instructions of, the institution”. MEPs are trying to revise this agreement to free themselves from such restraints but the negotiations with the Council and Commission are difficult. Ramon Jauregui Atondo (S&D, Spain) has been assigned to lead a new charge on behalf of Parliament. Until then, MEPs have the option of establishing either a ‘committee of inquiry’ (EP Rule 198), which has the greater political standing, or a ‘special committee’ (EP Rule 197), which has less standing but is easier to set up and more flexible in terms of what topics it can investigate. The latter was preferred in the LuxLeaks scandal that blew up in late 2014 over the Luxembourg government’s favourable tax rulings to multinationals based there. They picked this option as the European People’s Party, Parliament’s largest group, wanted to shield newly-elected Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, a fellow EPP member, from the heightened media and political scrutiny they felt that a ‘committee of inquiry’ would bring. ADMINISTRATIVE OBSTRUCTIONISM Probably the single biggest challenge that both Congress and Parliament face when investigating is getting administrations to cooperate. With Parliament, MEPs sometimes even refrain from requesting witnesses from member state governments to appear to avoid the humiliation of having their request rejected and having no legal power to compel them to testify. Asked about this obstacle, Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France), chair of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings (TAXE) that was set up in February 2015, says that to overcome it, “we are sending fact-finding missions to the member states with debatable practices”. When the committee wraps up its work, it will make recommendations, which Parliament will likely enshrine in a non-binding resolution. But with MEPs having no powers to set tax policy - in stark contrast to Congress which does - all they can hope for is that the Commission and Council will take on board their recommendations voluntarily. In the US, when subpoenaed witnesses refuse to cooperate, Congress is equipped with sharper tools to make them change their minds. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Congress used to actually imprison people inside the Capitol until they cooperated. Wolfsenberger notes that “no serious consideration” has been given to using this tool in recent times. Subtler means can be equally effective. For instance, Wolfsenberger notes how in 1987 the Senate managed to get Colonel Oliver North to testify in the Iran-Contra inquiry by granting him immunity from prosecution for the testimony he provided. By contrast, in 2013, the House failed to make a senior Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official, Lois Lerner, answer questions in a probe into whether the IRS held a bias against conservative ‘tea party’ political groups when granting tax exempt status. The House formally declared Lerner in contempt of Congress, which is a punishable offence. The problem was that it was then up to the Department of Justice (DOJ) - like the IRS, a part of the administration – to prosecute Lerner and the DOJ refused to do so. “The administration has been defying Congress on contempt orders more often in recent years, reflecting the heightened partisanship in Washington,” Wolfsenberger says. Despite the challenges, the congressional official, asked if investigations were worth the effort in terms of return-on-investment, says without hesitation, “absolutely. I am always amazed at the things we gather from hearings”. n Congressional investigations - 1791: First ever congressional investigation, focused on a battle the US military lost to American Indians. President George Washington refuses to hand over documents, setting the “executive privilege” precedent - 1912: Sinking of Titanic investigated by Senate Commerce Committee, leading to passage of the Radio Act requiring all ships to maintain constant radio alert for distress signals - 1929: Wall Street stock market crash leads Senate Banking Committee to hold investigations culminating in much tighter regulation of financial services sector - 1957: Supreme Court limits Congress’ right to question citizens about their political views in a case brought by labour union leader John Watkins in response to the anti-Communist witch-hunts - 1974: President Richard Nixon resigns after extensive congressional probes into the wire-tapping of the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate building - 1988: 120,000 Japanese-American civilians interned by the US during World War Two are financially compensated, eight years after Congress launches investigation into the episode. Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language www.europolitics.info 14 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS Moscow backs down on demand to postpone EU-Ukraine DCFTA By Joanna Sopinska Technical talks will continue to find “practical solutions to the concerns raised by Russia” It seems that the Kremlin has backed down on its demand to postpone by at least one year the provisional application of the EU-Ukraine free trade agreement, known as DCFTA. In “joint operational conclusions” issued by the European Commission on 18 May, after a day-long ministerial meeting, the EU, Russia and Ukraine confirmed that the deal “will provisionally apply as of 1 Jan- uary 2016”. The parties decided that until that date their experts will continue to seek “practical solutions to the concerns raised by Russia” within the “flexibility provided by the DCFTA”. The quest will focus on three areas in particular: customs cooperation, technical barriers to trade (TBT), and sanitary and phytosanitary issues. The results of the technical-level talks will have to be reported to the Ukrainian and Russian ministers and the EU trade commissioner no later than July, the conclusions read. Narrowing down the number of contentious issues to three areas only is another concession the EU and Ukraine secured during their talks with Russia. According to diplomatic sources, at the beginning of the consultations in mid-2014, Moscow’s list of concerns “was enormous” and included inter alia a demand for changing nearly all tariff lines. The EU, Ukraine and Russia agreed, on 11 July 2014, to initiate “a consultation mechanism” on the consequences of tighter trade links between Kyiv and the EU. The two-level process, including technical and political discussions, was meant to address the “potential economic risks” the DCFTA, signed on 27 June 2014, could pose for Russia. However, the process has been affected by the Ukraine-Russia crisis. n Free movement: Switzerland never so attractive By Edgar Bloch in Berne The increase in foreign and EU workers is more than twice that of Swiss nationals More than a year after the vote against mass immigration, Switzerland has never attracted so many workers from the EU. The labour force in Switzerland expanded by 2.8% between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, reported the Federal Statistics Office (OFS) on 18 May. But the number of foreign nationals (increase of 4.5%) rose far more than the number of Swiss in the workforce (only +2.1%). Nearly four-fifths of these workers come from the EU. The phenomenon is all the more striking because the increase is greatest, nearly 9%, among persons holding a residence permit and living in the country for a short time, compared with +4.2% for holders of a residence permit who have already lived in Switzerland for five to ten years, and +2.6% for cross-border commuters. Only the number of holders of a short-term residence permit shows a decrease (-7.6%). These figures may be correlated with the unemployment rate. According to the definition used by the International Labour Office (ILO), the rate declined over the same period from 4.8% to 4.4% in Switzerland and from 11% to 10.2% in the EU. The confederation’s power to attract foreign workers has thus remained steady. The general increase of 4.5% is even greater than the rise seen in the three previous years. “Although the tendency is not linear, the increase in the number of workers without a Swiss passport is more than 37% between 2005 and 2015,” observes Thierry Murier of the OFS. Based on this body’s data, there is a total of nearly 30% of foreign nationals living in Switzerland today, compared with just under 25% in 2005. The workforce currently stands at nearly five million (4.972 million), compared with 4.2 million ten years ago. n will prevent them from carrying out their functions, until a final verdict has been given. Regarding Viktor Uspaskich, this is not the first time his case has been brought to MEPs’ attention, but this time it concerns an accusation of contempt of court. Uspaskich faces up to two years in prison, especially since judges have not shown much clemency towards him so far – he has already been sentenced to four years in prison for illegal financing of a political party. Unsurprisingly, Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Poland) has had his immunity lifted for hitting MEP Michal Boni (EPP, Poland). Meanwhile, Theodoros Zagorakis (EPP, Greece), who is being prosecuted for financial inconsistencies when he was president of the PAOK football club, has also had his immunity lifted. In brief Lavrilleux, Uspaskich, KorwinMikke, Zagorakis: Immunity lifted Although the scandal surrounding Jérôme Lavrilleux’s actions during Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2012 presidential campaign has nothing to do with his role as an MEP, nonetheless he risks going to prison. He has defended himself using Article 9.6 of the regulation, which states that MEPs cannot be arrested or imprisoned if it www.europolitics.info Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 15 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 COP21: Merkel and Hollande call for general mobilisation By Anne Eckstein They bring the Petersberg Dialogue to a close with a joint declaration identifying the emergency measures to be taken With 200 days to go before the climate conference in Paris (COP21), “we have very little time,” underlined François Hollande on 19 May, while addressing the 35 countries meeting in Berlin from 17 to 19 May in the context of the Petersberg Dialogue. The objective of the meeting was to review international negotiations and consider ways in which to accelerate the process. The French president had joined German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the origin of this initiative launched in the wake of the Copenhagen failure (2009) to give political impetus to the negotiation process. In a joint declaration, the two heads of state call on all countries to deploy the greatest efforts to reach an agreement in Paris. “We have a duty to succeed,” hammered home President Hollande. Hollande insisted on the requirement to meet the needs of the most vulnerable countries, including small island countries, and stressed that “without financing there would be no agreement in Paris” and that developing countries would not accept anything if they were not supported in their fight against climate change. He reminded the countries of the G7 (who were due to meet in connection with this, also in Berlin) and the G20 (who will meet in September) “that belonging to the club of the richest countries assumes responsibilities and dictates duties”. To put it clearly: that it is urgent to maintain the promises made and to capitalise the Green Climate Fund. In their joint declaration, Merkel and Hollande call on the international community to urgently undertake a series of measures: 1. Establish a shared vision and concrete action for a profound transformation of the world economy and society to achieve full decarbonisation by 2100 and reduce emissions by 2050 to a level compatible with the recommendations of the IPCC while taking into account that global warming should be maintained under 2°C 2. Submit ambitious and transparent nationally determined climate contributions (INDCs) well before the COP21. It should be pointed out that Canada, which on 18 May submitted its nationally determined contributions, is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030 compared with 2005 emission levels. It is the 37th country to have done its duty, Japan being the only member of the G7 still not “in order” 3. Advance long-term national and regional strategies for low-carbon and resilient development 4. Mobilise climate finance for developing countries reaching US$100 billion per year goal by 2020 from a variety of sources, both public and private, as promised in Copenhagen 5. Strengthen support for low-carbon development and climate resilience in our development assistance 6. Establish initiatives for investment in low-carbon technologies, especially in renewable energies and resource efficiency, and sustainable land use (with a specific focus on the development of renewable energies in Africa) 7. Strengthen adaptation and resilience of the particularly vulnerable countries against climate change, including small island developing states, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean through the spread of insurance mechanisms and national early warning systems 8. Introduce carbon markets and pricing on national and regional level with the aim of giving strong economic incentives for low-carbon transformation. n minimum wage. On 19 May, the EU executive launched an infringement procedure against Berlin, saying that the application of this law to the transport sector creates disproportionate administrative obstacles to the functioning of the internal market. In particular, the Commission targets transit traffic and certain international transport operations, saying that «more proportionate measures could be taken to guarantee the social protection of workers and fair competition without threatening the free circulation of goods and services». The German authorities now have two months to respond to the arguments presented by the Commission. Busy week Besides the Petersberg Dialogue and the G7 meeting in Berlin, Paris will host a Business and Climate Summit on 20 May, which will bring together more than 1,000 representatives from the private sector (industry and finance), as well as a conference on climate financing, on 21 and 22 May. In brief German minimum wage: Infringement proceedings launched Three-and-a-half months of discussions with the German authorities have not been enough to appease the European Commission’s concerns over the legality of the Mindestlohngesetz, Germany’s new national regulation on Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language www.europolitics.info 16 INSIGHT Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS INSIGHT Eastern Partnership Divisive and getting nowhere By Antoine Jacob in Riga The 21-22 May Riga summit will reflect the difficulties the EU is encountering on its Eastern flank, faced with Russia’s offensive approach The EU’s fourth Eastern Partnership summit looks as though it will be calm and predictable. The crisis in Ukraine has dampened the 28’s inclination to advance. It has also heightened internal divisions between the member states that wish to reinforce the partnership and those calling for restraint and caution, not least to prevent fuelling tension with Moscow. Barring unforeseen events, the heads of state or government meeting in Riga will not endorse any major new advances. They will primarily reiterate certain key principles already formulated at previous summits (Prague, Warsaw and Vilnius). “The key message that will be reflected in the declaration is that the EU will reconfirm its commitments towards its Eastern www.europolitics.info neighbours and the strategic importance of the partnership as part of the European Neighbourhood Policy,” Juris Poikans, Latvia’s ambassador in charge of the Eastern Partnership, told Europolitics. As “strategic” as it may be, many experts find that the EU has not matched the partnership with a well thought out and consistent policy. Launched in 2009 on the initiative of Poland and Sweden, in the wake of the Union for the Mediterranean, it set ambitious objectives in certain respects. The association agreements negotiated with three partner states (Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) are deemed the most comprehensive ever offered to neighbourhood countries. But implementation and the resources invested have not been equal to the task. This ambiguity has already created frustration and disappointment in some of the populations living in the six countries concerned and among certain local elites. For others, including some of the leaders of partnership countries attend- ing the Riga conference, the European offer is not a priority. Belarus in particular, but also Azerbaijan and Armenia, are not expecting much from the partnership, for (geo)political and economic reasons alike. So not everyone will be upset over the guarded attitude expected in Riga. That includes Moscow, where the foreign minister nevertheless denounced in April the summit’s “pronounced anti-Russian purpose”. That is its way of keeping up the pressure on neighbouring countries that the Kremlin has no intention of seeing ‘defecting’ to the West. It may be only small comfort for proponents of a more pronounced rapprochement, but a process of revision of the European Neighbourhood Policy (of which the Eastern Partnership is just one element) has just been launched. Its primary focus, a more individualised and differentiated approach, is meant to better meet the needs of the countries concerned. The question is whether it can be put into practice. n Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language INSIGHT EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 17 Diverging expectations and misunderstandings By Antoine Jacob in Riga By its very nature, the Eastern Partnership cannot please all member states. The Russian element complicates matters How can the Eastern Partnership’s achievements be summed up? Association agreements signed with three of the six partner countries, schemes ranging from visa facilitation to elimination of visa requirements with five of the six partners and relatively poorly funded multilateral cooperation. Does that equate to success or failure? The question that will be hanging this week over the National Library in Riga, seat of the Latvian EU Council Presidency, begs another. What do the Union and its partners expect of this Eastern chapter of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)? The problem is that the different parties do not all necessarily want the same thing. This was the case even before the European Council set the wheels in motion with its March 2009 approval of the partnership. At the time, Poland and other new member states were looking for a way to stabilise their own Eastern neighbourhood, starting with Ukraine. But regionalisation of the ENP was not considered a priority by the Union’s Western and Southern members, including Berlin (see box). The situation nevertheless changed when, at the insistence of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) was set up in July 2008. Backed by Stockholm, Warsaw then succeeded in obtaining the creation of an Eastern Partnership that essentially would be the equivalent to the UfM. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova were joined by Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. “A coalition of member states got what it wanted but there has not been any strategic debate in the EU about this neighbourhood policy,” observes Stefan Meister, head of the Eastern Europe and Russia programme at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). “That is the limit of the EU policy. It is based on the minimum on which the member states can agree.” Setting up this partnership with former Soviet republics obviously constituted a strategic turning point. “But the EU didn’t think enough about certain aspects: Russia’s importance in the region, what these countries really need, their differences and the split between societies and the elites,” Meister told Europolitics. Disappointment is already pronounced among those who expected a lot – too much? – from the EU’s involvement. That is the partnership’s principal misunderstanding. Indeed, this initiative requires the keenest among them (Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) to adopt a range of reforms meant to bring about extensive change. The association and free trade agreements signed with them provide for “transposition of around 80% of the EU acquis. That’s a lot,” notes Krzysztof Bobinski, co-chair of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum Steering Committee. Compared with the treatment of applicants under the 2004 and 2007 enlargements, however, what is lacking is “the same political will, financial resources [and] the ultimate prize of EU membership,” explains Adam Hug in a report Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language published in February by the Foreign Policy Centre in London. Further, adds Bobinski, “the programme offered to these countries will lead basically to eliminating oligarchs and corrupt governments and will destroy the basis of power, which makes everything complicated”. For Bobinski and others, though, it is worth the effort. “We can’t abandon the good and young people who live there.” The Polish national finds that “the Eastern Partnership has some tangible successes” compared with the “mess of the Southern dimension”. One more reason to give priority to the latter? n German shift The Eastern Partnership has never been a priority for Berlin. “As with the UfM, Germany was not particularly disposed towards a regionalisation of the neighbourhood policy. But since this innovation materialised, it sought to advance its own interests, as usual,” commented a French member of a Brussels institution, who preferred to remain anonymous. At the start of the partnership, “Germany only tried to bring in projects with Russia and not to provoke Russia,” recalls Meister (DGAP). But with the tougher Russian policy and the war in Ukraine, “this has changed towards a more balanced approach” by Germany towards the partnership. There is nonetheless “no real will to seriously develop the Eastern Partnership,” adds the researcher. www.europolitics.info 18 INSIGHT Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS Russo-Ukrainian hurdle By Antoine Jacob in Riga The armed conflict, a unique case in the Eastern Partnership, is impeding progress that date. Meanwhile, the EU grants trade preferences to Ukraine. As for the visa-free regime, there is every indication that it will not be granted to Ukraine at the Riga summit. The risk of a surge in emigration if the conflict should worsen doubtless has something to do with the postponement. It is clear that Russia has the means to stall or even prevent Ukraine’s rapprochement with the EU. While it denies doing so, its Permanent Representative to the Union, Vladimir Chizhov, observed recently that “it was a mistake of the EU to push the association agreement without taking into consideration existing ties between those focus countries and their neighbours”. “We are trying to explain to our Russian partners that this is not about a geopolitical competition in the area,” replies Poikans. That approach does not sit well with Ukrainians like Volodymyr Kuprii, head of an NGO based in Kyiv: “The result of the policy of appeasement is that each EU concession was succeeded by Russia’s further demands”. n © EPYF Conforming with a new international agreement in spite of a war on one’s territory and without being certain of the area to which it will apply is just one of the many challenges facing the Ukrainian government. Without being the most urgent of these challenges, the Eastern Partnership is not neglected either. Because, for Kyiv, starting to put into practice the association agreement concluded with the EU means maintaining its crucial ties with the European bloc. It also means acting consistently: the Euromaidan protest movement originated with the agreement, or rather with the refusal of the previous regime to sign it at the EU summit in Vilnius, in late November 2013. Under pressure from Russia, the previous government abandoned the deal for establishment of a free trade area, political and financial support, elimination of the visa requirement and cooperation in a large number of areas, in return for reforms meant notably to strengthen the rule of law. For now, “the key element is reducing the security challenge,” says Juris Poikans, Latvia’s Eastern Partnership ambassador. An effort is being made on both sides to make sure that the Minsk agreements restoring peace continue to hold. As fighting raged in the eastern part of the country, Kyiv’s parliament ratified the association agreement on 16 September 2014, together with the European Parliament. A month and a half later, some of its provisions – human rights, fundamental freedoms and rule of law, political dialogue, justice, economic and financial cooperation – entered into force. But these did not include the important free trade component, postponed until January 2016 at Moscow’s request. On 18 May, the Commission indicated that Moscow would not oppose this component’s entry into force after Juris Poikans www.europolitics.info Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language INSIGHT EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 19 Review of neighbourhood policy not free of complications Differentiation and flexibility lie at the heart of the review under way, along with greater involvement of civil society The European Commission and Federica Mogherini, the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, have until the autumn to present proposals to “reform” the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Given the determination to consult extensively, the European machinery and the complexity of the issue on both the Eastern and Southern flanks, this time frame does not seem excessive. Opinions and proposals have been streaming in since the 4 March launch of a public consultation on review of the ENP. They implicitly contain a criticism of the policy launched a decade ago. The main objection expressed in the East is the Eastern Partnership’s overly systematic approach, regardless of which of the six countries is concerned (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). “It is important to differentiate, to put more resources in the countries with which we have an interest in integrating, and to take into consideration those countries which don’t share such an interest at the moment, like Armenia, but without closing the door on them,” points out Stefan Meister, head of the Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia programme at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). The European External Action Service has received the message loud and clear. “One size fits all doesn’t fit. We need to differentiate,” its Deputy Secretary-General, Maciej Popowski, told MPs from the 28 meeting in Riga in March. Since then, the Foreign Affairs Council has followed suit. In its 20 April conclusions on the ENP review, the European Council endorsed the concept of ‘differentiation’, which promises to be one of the leitmotifs of the revised ENP. Another “priority area” that the Council wishes to address is “flexibility”. The idea is to make the EU’s action “more flexible and responsive to changing situations on the ground”. “Very good, but all the instruments are already in place. It won’t be possible to revise the multiannual financial framework before its mid-term review in 2017,” regrets Elzbieta Kaça. This specialist in the European Neighbourhood Policy at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) is concerned that the review may serve primarily to allow member states to channel available resources into other priorities not connected to neighbourhood policy. A more differentiated and flexible ver- it is hard to imagine initiatives that could be misinterpreted by Russia. Moscow’s concerns are also taken into account. The Council “acknowledges that the broader geographical context of our partners and their relations with their neighbours are important considerations impacting upon the ENP”. The conclusions go on to add that “it is the sole right of the EU and its partners to decide in a sovereign way on how they want to proceed in their relations”. The art of not offending either side. n © MP By Antoine Jacob in Riga Maciej Popowski sion of the ENP “will not solve the problems,” notes Meister, who mentions “the fact that Russia has the capacity to put pressure” on the Union’s partner countries. The ENP should therefore place greater emphasis on security. “You cannot implement reforms, democratisation and good governance policies without addressing the serious security threats that these countries have to face,” insists the German expert. In its conclusions of 20 April, the Foreign Affairs Council advocates “closer coordination between ENP and wider CFSP [Common Foreign and Security Policy] and CSDP [Common Security and Defence Policy] activities”. What will this mean in practice on the ground? That remains to be determined, but considering the extremely guarded attitude of member states like Germany and France, Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language Civil society interested The reproach comes from non-governmental organisations: the assistance granted by the EU in the context of the Eastern Partnership should be further channelled through civil society. This would help better involve civil society and the risks of corruption would be partially reduced. For the changes recommended by the Union to have a chance of succeeding, “they must come from the inside, from civil society,” argues Meister (DGAP). In its 20 April conclusions, the Foreign Affairs Council “underlines the need to broaden the EU’s engagement with civil society and the business community”. www.europolitics.info 20 INSIGHT Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS From ‘sick man’ Belarus to exemplary Georgia By Antoine Jacob in Riga A brief review of ties between the EU and the Eastern Partnership countries (except Ukraine, addressed separately) ARMENIA The only partner country (of the six in all) to break off association agreement negotiations, Yerevan announced its decision ahead of the Vilnius summit (November 2013), bringing rapprochement with the EU to a halt. Armenia then joined (in January 2015) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. The EU claims that this is not incompatible with a new agreement and has even drawn up the outlines of a new text. The Riga summit could mark the official launch of negotiation of a new agreement. Since January 2014, this country of three million inhabitants has benefited from a visa facilitation regime. The territorial conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is poisoning Armenia’s relations with Azerbaijan. AZERBAIJAN The country furthest geographically from the EU, Azerbaijan has limited interest in an association agreement with the Union. Its oil and gas reserves are such, though, that it is wooed by the EU and others despite its human rights violations. While it is free to choose what interests it in the European offer, Baku sees its relations with the Union primarily in a strategic perspective. At www.europolitics.info the Riga summit, the Azeri government is expected to explain to the 28 how it visualises this partnership in the future. This country of 9.5 million inhabitants has benefited from a visa facilitation regime since September 2014. The territorial conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is poisoning its relations with Armenia. BELARUS A special case in the Eastern Partnership, cooperation between the EU and Belarus was for years kept to a minimum due to the nature of the regime in Minsk and President Alexander Lukashenko’s rejection of the principles promoted by the 28, such as freedom of expression and human rights. However, there have been signs of a possible detente in the wake of the leader’s involvement in brokering the Minsk agreements for a solution to the crisis in Ukraine. At the Riga summit, the EU may initiate a visa facilitation agreement with this country of 9.5 million inhabitants. In keeping with its “policy of critical engagement,” the Union continues to apply targeted sanctions against this member of the Eurasian Economic Union. GEORGIA Together with Ukraine, this country of 4.5 million inhabitants is considered the most determined in its rapprochement efforts. On 27 June 2014, it signed an association agreement with the EU (including a deep free trade agreement) that has been applied provisionally since September pending ratification by each of the 28 EU national parliaments. Tbilisi has achieved what are seen as positive results in preparing the way for a visa-free regime. The European Commission has nevertheless stopped short of recommending this step. In addition to its serious measures to tackle corruption, Georgia set itself apart with its participation in the EU military mission in the Central African Republic, where it provided the largest contingent (150 troops). One of the country’s problem areas is the situation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, occupied by Russia since the war of August 2008. MOLDOVA With a population of 2.9 million, Moldova is the first of the six Eastern Partnership countries to be granted a visa-free regime. Since the end of April 2014, its citizens holding a biometric passport are entitled to spend up to three months in the Schengen area. In addition, the association agreement and its free trade component, signed on 27 June of the same year, have been applied provisionally since September pending ratification by the 28 EU national parliaments. These steps look promising on paper, but cannot mask the negative points of state corruption – “endemic,” according to a recent study – the conflict in Transnistria (breakaway region backed by Moscow), a complex ethnic situation and the very pronounced temptation of rapprochement with Russia. n Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language INSIGHT EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 21 “Our partners are primarily interested in investments” Interview with Elzbieta Kaça, specialist in ENP, Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) Shouldn’t the EU take on a greater role as a geopolitical player? The problem is that the EU pretends not to be a geopolitical player. It should be more engaged in its neighbourhood, especially in the area of security, to help resolve frozen regional conflicts. But the member states’ different foreign policy priorities are problematic. The 28 disagree over the extent of engagement in the Eastern policy. Many states – mainly in the South – question the need for an ambitious engagement in the Eastern Partnership, which they hold responsible for the destabilisation in Ukraine. So the EU is not likely to become more involved. In recent years we have also seen the lack of political will to develop the Common Security and Defence Policy. The EU is showing itself incapable of acting to address the current crisis. One of the main problems of the Eastern Partnership is the ineffectiveness of its financial instruments. What can be done to make sure that European money is better spent? The current financial instruments are not suited to circumstances in the region. Budgetary support, which goes directly into the partner states’ budgets, is not effective in countries where corruption is rampant. The EU does not have the means to oversee the way this money is spent. The second problem is that the EU makes budgetary support conditional on legislative changes, but does not really monitor implementation of reforms. Most of the time, these exist only on paper. To improve the situation, the EU should start by reducing the rate of budgetary support and then increase funding on the basis of tenders and direct subsidies to players on the ground. The EU should also improve mechanisms for supervising effective implementation of reforms. Lastly, it should improve the consultation process on the conditions of such reforms by organising transparent consultations with all interested stakeholders, not just There is also a need to develop projects that aim to place business people from these countries in contact with those in the EU. The East Invest project is a very good idea, but it is an initiative with a budget of barely €8.75 million for the years 2010-2014. That’s not enough to have a significant impact. The Eastern Partnership also needs to cut the number of its priorities. What should it focus on to try to better meet the expectations of its partners? In this financial perspective, the EU has put in place three priorities at bilateral level, differentiated according to country. In Georgia, for instance, the focus is reform of the judicial system, the public administration, agriculture and rural development. The problem is that there is a considerable dissonance between the priorities chosen by the External Action Service and the funds allocated by the European Commission. Better coordination is needed. The partner states would like to see more positive impacts in the short term. The EU should give up its Eurocentric approach based on the assumption that we can impose our values and complex reforms on these countries with promises of benefits only for the longer term. The implementation of deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTAs) will be a very long process and the EU has few ideas on new incentive measures. Our partners are primarily interested in greater European investment on their territory. Programmes for SMEs and the business community could be tangible incentives. Since there is no possibility of giving these countries membership perspectives, there is a need for more win-win solutions with tangible short-term effects for the population. And most importantly, budgetary support must be conditional on efforts to tackle corruption, which is the principal barrier to these countries’ economic development. n © EK By Jakub Iwaniuk in Warsaw Elzbieta Kaça civil servants, but also MPs, the business community and civil society, so that implementation of reforms takes account of local circumstances. That would considerably improve the effectiveness of the funds committed. Shouldn’t the EU do more to support the business community and SMEs in the Eastern Partnership states? Up until now, EU support for business in these countries has been very limited. In the partner states, SMEs are developing in a dynamic manner but in difficult conditions. Their main problem, above and beyond unfavourable legislation, is access to capital. It would be a good idea to boost EU aid for business projects with micro-credits, in association with the EIB and the EBRD. This type of funding already exists but on too small a scale. Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language www.europolitics.info 22 Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS OPEN FORUM Eastern Partnership: EU needs political will and ambition This week, the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will arrive at the Eastern Partnership summit in Riga with different track records and agendas. The EU will arrive divided and undecided on its goals for the region and the way to achieve them. The developments in Ukraine have caught many EU leaders by surprise. Most member states were not paying attention while the Eastern Partnership - the 2009 brainchild of the ex-Foreign Ministers of Poland, Radek Sikorski, and Sweden, Carl Bildt - was gaining ground, covered behind a veil of bureaucratic and technical cooperation. They only woke up to the fact that the Eastern Partnership has real political impact when bloodshed casted Ukraine’s decision to opt for Europe. Unlike elsewhere in the world where it strives to find its political relevance and influence, in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia the EU has become deeply relevant. It supported home-grown transformation and transfer of political power. The EU nurtured the reformers who took to the streets in Kyiv in 2013, Chisinau in 2009 and Tbilisi in 2003. They invoked European standards of rule of law and governance to call for change in their countries. Today, all three have proven that they are prepared to pay a high price with their security and welfare to defend these standards and the EU association agreements they have signed. Ukraine has lost lives and territory. It faces all-out war in its East and barely averted bankruptcy. Moldova suffers punitive trade measures. Both Chisinau and Tbilisi are under permanent threat of destabilisation in their separatist territories, controlled by Moscow. They need the EU’s support to become stable and prosperous states. The EU’s other partners - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus - are less interested in integration but look to the EU for market access, financial aid, visa-free travel, technology and energy links. They all need changes of government and at great personal risk, expect that the EU will uphold its commitment to base relations on respect for human rights and democratic standards. But will the EU do either in Riga? With war dragging on in Ukraine and the deadlock in talks with Russia, EU support for Ukraine and the other signatories of association agreements has started to falter. At the previous summit in Vilnius - just before Euromaidan - EU leaders “acknowledged the European aspirations and the European choice of some partners” and pledged to support them in seeking “an ever closer relationship with the EU”. Nowadays, as demonstrated at the recent EU-Ukraine summit, they are reluctant even to repeat that the association agreement is not the final goal in relations. EU concessions to Russia on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (DCFTA) and its insistence to maintain trilateral talks on what is a bilateral trade deal, is another sign of its readiness to scale back its commitments and ambitions to yield to Moscow. As regards its commitment to rights and democracy, the EU recently started a rethink of its neighbourhood policy, questioning whether a partnership driven by the promotion of democratic and economic reforms gives it enough political influence. Events in Ukraine confirm that it does. Well-governed, sovereign neighbours are a better guarantee for long-term security than any short-term deal making. The Eastern Partnership is a good enough policy to establish the EU as a strong player in the region. What is missing are the political will and ambition to defend it and make real use of what it offers. n © OSEPI By Iskra Kirova (*) Iskra Kirova the Eastern Partnership to broaden their foreign policy options and strengthen their independence vis-à-vis Russia. It is in the EU’s long-term interest to use these levers to sustain cooperation and invest in political inclusion, stable and transparent institutions, and economies free from corruption. But the EU member states do not seem willing to embrace these opportunities. Some seem prepared to bargain the countries’ European aspirations and their future potential to reform in order to reach an accord with Moscow or with regional political elites bent on preserving their power. Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine expect to be rewarded for their pro-European choice and the sacrifices they have made. It will be hard to sell EU-inspired reforms to the peoples of these countries without tangible returns. Rights defenders and reformers in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus, who have carried the democracy agenda through (*) Iskra Kirova is policy analyst at the Open Society European Policy Institute Europolitics is offering a platform for outside comment and opinion by opening a regular Open forum section. All contributions are welcome, up to 4,500 characters (including spaces). They should be sent in to [email protected] and, if possible, accompanied by a translation into English or French along with a photo of the author in jpg format (300 dpi). The final decision on whether to publish these contributions or not remains solely with Europolitics. www.europolitics.info Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language 23 EUROPOLITICS N° 5092 Wednesday 20 May 2015 EU agenda Wednesday 20 May EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT PLENARY SESSION Strasbourg 09:00 - 11:50 Debates •European Agenda on Migration 2015/2648(RSP) 12:00 - 14:00 Votes followed by explanations of votes •Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament 2015/2696(RSO) •Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions – 2016, 2015/2695(RSO) •Trade, development and cooperation agreement with South Africa (Protocol to take account of the accession of Croatia) 2014/0236(NLE) Report Davor Ivo Stier (A8-0146/2015) DEVE •Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing 2013/0025(COD)II Report Judith Sargentini , Krisjanis Karins (A80153/2015) LIBE , ECON •Information accompanying transfers of funds 2013/0024(COD)II Report Timothy Kirkhope, Peter Simon (A80154/2015) LIBE , ECON •Insolvency proceedings 2012/0360(COD)II Report Tadeusz Zwiefka (A8-0155/2015) JURI •Self-certification of importers of minerals and metals originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas 2014/0059(COD)I Report Iuliu Winkler (A8-0141/2015) INTA •Commission Delegated Directive ../…/EU amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annex III to Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for cadmium in illumination and display lighting applications” 2015/2542(DEA) •Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy 2014/2220(INI) Report Arnaud Danjean (A8-0054/2015) AFET •Financing the Common Security and Defence Policy 2014/2258(INI) Report Eduard Kukan , Indrek Tarand (A80136/2015) BUDG , AFET •Security and defence capabilities in Europe 2015/2037(INI) Report Ana Gomes (A8-0159/2015) AFET •Maternity leave 2015/2655(RSP) Report (O-000050/2015 - O-000049/2015) •UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2015/2684(RSP) •Outbreak of Xylella fastidiosa affecting olive trees 2015/2652(RSP) Report (O-000038/2015) 15:00 - 23:00 Debates •2014 Progress Report on Turkey 2014/2953(RSP) •Situation in Ethiopia 2015/2703(RSP) •Situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2015/2704(RSP) •Eastern Partnership summit (21-22 May) 2015/2610(RSP) •EU - CELAC summit (10-11 June) 2015/2637(RSP) •Youth Employment Initiative 2015/2679(RSP) Report (O-000051/2015) •Japanese whaling activities in the Antarctic 2015/2702(RSP) THE PRESIDENT’S DIARY Strasbourg n09:00Chairing of the Plenary: Council and Commission statements - European Agenda on Migration n11:00 Meeting with Michel Vauzelle - President of the regional council of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur n12:00 Chairing of the votes in Plenary n14:45 LEX signing - Louise Weiss building, Floor 0, Salon Protocolaire n17:30 Meeting of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean - Louise Weiss building N3.2 Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language COUNCIL OF MINISTERS COREPER I Brussels COREPER II Brussels EASTERN PARTNERSHIP MEDIA CONFERENCE Riga EASTERN PARTNERSHIP CIVIL SOCIETY CONFERENCE 20 – 21 May, Riga “PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS IN THE RESOCIALISATION PROCESS” II 18 – 20 May, Brussels EUROPEAN POLICE COLLEGE (CEPOL) GOVERNING BOARD 19 – 20 May, Riga EUROPEAN COMMISSION TRAVEL AND VISITS nMaros Sefcovic participates in the ministerial conference on the International Energy Charter in The Hague, Netherlands. nJyrki Katainen participates in a panel debate at European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services (CEEP), in Brussels. nJohannes Hahn participates in the First Eastern Partnership Media Conference, in Riga. nNeven Mimica attendsthe Sustainable Energy for all Initiative forum, in Brussels. nMiguel Arias Canete participates in the Petersberg Climate Dialogue VI, in Berlin, Germany (17-20 May). nPierre Moscovici heard by the European www.europolitics.info 24 Affairs Committees and Finance of the French Senate (Paris). nPhil Hogan in Memphis USA; participation in OECD 10th Rural Development Policy Conference (19/0521/06). nMargrethe Vestager in Madrid (20-21 May): meets representatives of the Joint Committee for the EU and the Committees for Financial Affairs and Competitiveness of the Spanish Parliament and Senate; meets with Luis de Guindos,Minister for Economy and Competitiveness; meets with José Manuel Soria, Minister for Industry, Energy and Tourism; meets with José María Marín Quemada,President of the Spain’s National Authority for Markets and Competition; meets with José María Roldán, President of the Spanish Banking Association (AEB). nCarlos Moedas is on mission to Lorraine, France. COURT OF JUSTICE 09:30 Third Chamber nHearing C-141/14 Commission v Bulgaria 09:30 Third Chamber Wednesday 20 May 2015 N° 5092 EUROPOLITICS GENERAL COURT 09:30 First Chamber nHearing T-9/11 Competition Air Canada v Commission 09:30 Ninth Chamber nHearing T-195/14 Intellectual property Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v OHMI - Reeh (Prima Klima) 09:00-18:30 09:30 Second Chamber nJudgment T-310/12 Commercial policy Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council 14:30 Fifth Chamber nHearing T-276/13 Commercial policy Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council INT/736 Space policy project - event in Lituania, Hrs siège nHearing Joined cases T-292/14, T-293/14 Intellectual property Cyprus v OHMI (Halloumi), Cyprus v OHMI (Halloumi) 09:30 First Chamber nHearing T-78/14 Intellectual property Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHMI Andechser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele Kloster Andechs Seit 1455) nHearing Joined cases C-283/14, C-284/14 Commercial policy CM Eurologistik GLS 09:30 Fifth Chamber nHearing C-319/14 Customs union B&S Global Transit Center 09:30 Fifth Chamber nOpinion C-595/13 Taxation Fiscale Eenheid www.europolitics.info 2nd SG meeting TEN/567 “Energy storage: a factor of integration and energy security”, JDE61 09:00-17:30 14:30 Fourth Chamber 15:00 Eighth Chamber 09:30 Fourth Chamber Eastern Partnership Civil Society conference 2015: empowering civil society in the European Union Eastern Neighbourhood, Hrs siège 09:00-12:30 nOpinion C-177/14 Social policy Regojo Dans nOpinion C-240/14 Transport Prüller-Frey •integration of satellite data •nanosatellites •regional cooperation in the space industry •funding opportunities at EU and national level. The conference will bring together representatives from the European Commission, national and regional governments, space associations, scientists, big businesses and SMEs and many others. www.eurisy.org/event-satellite_applications_ benefits_for_the_Baltics/about 09:00-13:00 NAT/664 Common Agricultural Policy: implementing arrangements - hearing on 19/5, SG on 20/5, JDE60 12:00-20:30 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE BOOSTING REGIONAL SUCCESS IN SPACE: THE BALTIC WAY! Kaunas, Lithuania In the framework of the Space & Society project, the EESC and the project partners will organize six events in six different countries. The objective is to inform, network and discuss on specific thematic subjects related to EU space policy. Lithuania is one of the six selected countries. The main topics discussed at the conference will include: •space market in the Baltic region and SMEs Business & Climate Summit, Paris, France, 20-21 May 2015, Hrs siège 13:30-18:00 European Youth Conference - Let’s Take Care of the Planet! in partnership with Monde Pluriel, JDE63 16:00-19:00 Group Delegation Eastern Partnership Business Forum (Riga), Hrs siège CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS Symposium SECURITY OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY – A 360° VIEW OF MARKET DEVELOPMENTS AND POLICIES IN THE EU 3 June, Brussels Organisers: Egmont – Royal Institute for International Relations, Development Group Sold by subscription only © reproduction strictly prohibited in any language