JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Press release: Luxembourg Leaks trial – Regrettable verdict a wake-up call on whistleblower protection

A Luxembourg court today ruled that ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet were guilty of stealing documents, revealing business secrets and violating trade secrets (1). Criticising the verdict, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor MEP, who was in Luxembourg for the verdict today, said:

“This deeply regrettable verdict should be a clear wake-up call on the need to finally recognise and protect the crucial role performed by whistleblowers in democratic systems by shedding light on vital information in the public interest. The vital information revealed by the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers threw the spotlight on the tax avoidance practices of multinational corporations, leading to investigations in the EU Parliament and elsewhere, as well as legislative proposals to close the loopholes that made this tax avoidance possible. There can be absolutely no doubt that Antoine Deltour, Raphaël Halet and Edouard Perrin were serving the public interest. To punish them for their actions is the opposite of what a rational legal system in a democracy should be doing. We will support them ni their appeal.

“This trial has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. The only way to ultimately resolve this is by providing clear legal protection for whistleblowers. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation to this end on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. Only last month, our group outlined a prototype for how such an EU law should look (2) and we are now again urging the Commission to act on this and bring forward a proposal.”

(1) The Luxembourg court delivered a guilty verdict to Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet. Antoine Deltour was sentenced to 12 months in prison with a €1500 fine and Raphaël Halet was sentenced to 9 months with a €1000 fine. In addition to the fine, they have clearly faced an arduous 2-year ordeal and the loss of their jobs. Journalist Edouard Perrin, who was also on trial, was acquitted.

(2) The Greens/EFA proposals for an EU whistleblower directive can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

 

Below is a video from the Greens’ Twitter account, in which Mr. Jávor explains the situation:

 

EU energy rules – Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

EU energy rules

Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

PRESS RELEASE – Brussels, 23 June 2016

The European Parliament today adopted two reports setting out its assessment of how the EU’s laws on energy efficiency and renewable energy are being implemented. The Greens welcomed the votes, which called for more ambition, ahead of reviews of the legislation expected to be presented by the European Commission before the end of this year. Commenting after the votes, Green energy spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The European Parliament has today set down a marker ahead of the forthcoming reviews of the EU legislation on energy efficiency and renewable energy. If the EU is to take its responsibility in delivering on the Paris UN climate deal, it will have to increase the ambition of its energy and climate goals. This would also bring clear economic benefits and create sustainable jobs in Europe. The EP has today sent out a strong call to increase the ambition of the EU’s energy targets and to ensure proper binding rules for meeting these targets.

“Crucially, MEPs have highlighted that the frontline in delivering on the EU’s energy and climate goals must be energy efficiency and saving. They have called for the EU’s 2030 energy efficiency target to finally be made binding and to be increased to 40% (up from the 27% suggested by Council). This is essential for delivering European energy security, reducing our energy imports as well as tackling the problem of energy poverty.

“Parliament has also called for a strengthening of the 2030 EU renewable energy target to 30% (up from the 27% suggested by Council) and for this to be delivered through binding national binding targets. This is the model that proved successful in the expansion of renewables to date.  The current overall ‘headline target’ for 2030 is little more than an aspirational goal, with no binding provisions on individual EU member states. This is a major step back for the promotion of renewables, which undermines the economic and employment creation potential of the sector, and which must be addressed. MEPs also called for the creation of clear rights for those who generate and consumer their own renewable energy, whilst strengthening the role of local and regional authorities in the energy transition, which is crucial to its success.

“Commission must now take these votes on board and ensure its proposals for reviewing the current legislation reflect the call for greater ambition.”

(1) The Greens last year outlined their proposals on what Europe’s energy union should look like. The paper and a short overview can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/a-green-energy-union-13369.html

 

(Image source: greens-efa.eu)

MEP Benedek Jávor’s message on strengthening Roma participation in politics

Mr. Benedek Jávor’s message on the political participation of Romas was given on the occasion of the European Roma Information Office’s conference titled “Strengthening Roma Political Participation”. The conference was held 10th of June, 2016; Mr. Jávor’s video message can be watched below.

 

(Image source: erionet.eu)

Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant – Security Challenge for Entire Europe

European Parliament’s agenda for June 6 was focused on the question of safety and security of Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant. This construction implemented by Russian energy concern “Rosatom” in Ostrovec, Belarus, less than 20 kilometres from the European Union external border, is followed by multiple accusations for failing to conform with international environmental standards, such as set by United Nations Aarhus and Espoo Conventions, as well as to provide response on inquiries submitted by its nearest neighbour Lithuania on the safety and security of the project.

‘The issue is of utmost importance for people all over Lithuania and entire Europe, as the Ostrovec project is rapidly being implemented and the threats it pose are becoming more and more tangible. With this European Parliament’s plenary debate we ask for the issue of unsafe Belarusian NPP to finally appear on the Commission’s agenda. We urge the Commission to finally wake up from ignorance of threat, appearing at the very border of the EU and use all levers available to start impacting Belarus, a non-democratic country, to stop breaching international conventions and international nuclear security practices in building Ostrovec NPP. We need a strong message, political will and dedicated efforts of the Commission in order not to sacrifice the health and security of European citizens in exchange for unclear political gains’, – notes Bronis Ropė, Lithuanian member of the Greens / European Alliance Group at the European Parliament.

Despite multiple violations of international conventions and protests of neighbouring countries and civil society, Belarusian authorities take all opportunities to declare that Ostrovec NPP will be the cheapest and fastest built nuclear power plant. The commissioning of first reactor is expected in 2018, with the second following in 2020.

‘The plan to build two new reactors in Belarus, close to the Lithuanian border poses a great risk to citizens of the EU, but also to the citizens of Belarus that still suffer from the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe 30 years ago. The plans of Belarusian government to build these reactors under immense time pressure and at extremely low costs raises additional concerns. International conventions to include neighbouring states are not respected and there are serious doubts regarding the safety of the project. The EU-Commission has to use all possible avenues to make sure that international conventions will be respected and that Belarus will take part in the EU-stress tests and will accomplish IAEA SEED mission for the site in its full scope in order to ensure that international nuclear safety standards are applied’ – underlines Rebecca Harms, co-president of the Greens / EFA at the European Parliament.

It is noteworthy the so far ambiguous role of the European Commission. EU climate action and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete is known for assuring the conformity of Belarusian NPP to international stress test requirements in his reply to MEP Ropė’s request in December 2015. However in April 2016 the Commission, answering to another similar question, posed by three green MEP’s – Rebecca Harms, Bronis Ropė and Claude Turmes, has indicated that such stress tests are not conducted yet only planned, meanwhile announcing its reluctance apply pressure to Belarus on this issue.

Monday’s plenary debate shall encourage the Commission to take into more serious account the threats posed by the Ostrovec NPP to the health and security of the citizens of the European Union. Close involvement of the EU institutions rather than efforts of single Member State is expected to have tangible results on halting the construction of Belarusian NPP until its safety and security will be ensured in line with the international conventions and corresponding standards.

Frequently asked questions about whistleblowers and whistleblower protection

Draft directive for the protection of whistle-blowers across Europe:

A Greens/EFA Transparency and Democracy initiative

 

  1. What are whistleblowers and why should we protect them?

In a world in which transparency is not always the norm and in which institutionalised secrecy still allows some to act against the public interest with no fear of being caught or brought to justice, whistleblowers are essential for the protection of our democracies. Several scandals that have hit the news – such as the Panama Papers, SwissLeaks, LuxLeaks, or even cases of sexual abuse in Central Africa – would have probably remained unknown without the courage of the brave men and women who chose to speak up and defend the public interest. Since there is no strong legal protection, whistleblowers often risk their careers, their reputations and their privacy. The pressures they face as a result of their disclosures, which include criminal and civil proceedings, are a clear sign that our democracies have not yet developed satisfactory legal instruments to protect those who disclose information in the public interest. Furthermore, the soon-to-be-adopted trade secrets directive has expanded protections for business’ trade secrets and hence has made even more urgent the need to ensure adequate levels of protection for whistle-blowers across the EU. Finally, wrong-doing often occurs across borders, and often negatively affects the internal market.

 

  1. Why action at EU level rather than national level?

Protection of whistleblowers in Europe is very uneven. Where protection exists, provisions tend to be scattered across different laws, with some member states having regulated some level of protection in anti-corruption laws, others in public service laws, and again others in labour, criminal and sector-specific laws, leaving significant legal loopholes and gaps. As a consequence, whistle-blowers across EU Member States enjoy uneven levels of protection, or in six countries[1], no protection at all.

In addition, the public interest in whistle-blower disclosures extends beyond the national level. There is a general European public interest which cannot be reduced to the sum of the particular interests of a given Member State. For example, the LuxLeaks scandal could be considered an example of this: although the authorities in Luxembourg might believe that there is a public interest in keeping their “sweetheart” tax deals secret, it is hard to argue that this public interest is the same for the other Member States, who are losing tax revenue as a result. For this reason, a collection of national pieces of legislation to protect whistle-blowers will never ensure that, within the EU, those who have the courage to disclose information of public interest are properly protected.

  1. Is the EU competent to legislate on the protection of whistleblowers?

Yes, the EU has several possibilities to provide protection to whistleblowers, as shown by the fact that European legislation already covers those who reveal sensitive public interest information when it comes to the fight against money laundering or against market abuse, so as to protect the functioning of the internal market.

In addition, articles 151 and 153(2)(b) TFEU provide a clear and unambiguous basis for EU legislative action which would empower employees to report wrongdoing by setting up a framework that provides for legal certainty and a which establishes a common minimum level of legal protection for workers throughout the Union. After all, although the hardships a whistle-blower might have to face are multifaceted, they almost always start at the workplace and have consequences on a whistle-blowers’ future career prospects too. In choosing this legal basis, we have ensured that the Directive would apply to all sectors of activity, thus covering both the public and private sectors.

 

  1. Who would be protected?

This directive seeks to protect all whistleblowers, defined as any worker or contractor who discloses, attempts to, or is perceived to disclose information or supporting evidence that is in the public interest or that is related to a threat or prejudice to the public interest, of which he or she has become aware in the context of his or her work-based relationship. By using a broad definition of “worker” (any person employed by an employer, including trainees, apprentices and former employees) we are able to cover a wide range of cases, including for example the case of Edward Snowden, who was a contractor for the US National Security Agency.

 

  1. Does the intention behind the protected disclosure matter?

As recommended by the Council of Europe and the UN, and as included in the Irish whistle-blower law, we believe that the personal intentions behind the disclosure of information are not relevant. Instead, we focus on the information itself, and on whether its exposure is in the public interest. In this way, controversies over whether or not selling the information counts as a public interest disclosure are avoided – this is relevant for example to the Swissleaks case involving Hervé Falciani who reportedly offered the information on HSBC’s clients in return for a fee. Since the information itself was beneficial to the public interest, he would be covered by this draft directive.

 

  1. How/to whom can the whistleblower provide the information?

According to our proposal a protected disclosure can be made by any means available to the whistleblower. By not requiring the whistleblower to go through a specific reporting channel (except for where the information concerns national security or classified material), we avoid situations in which the whistleblower should disclose information to people or organizations that already know about the potential scandal, which could create a risk that the information is never actually reported.

In the directive also include a requirement that the employer or relevant authorities must acknowledge receipt of the whistle-blowers’ alert and must inform them within 30 days of any action taken as a consequence of the disclosed information.

 

  1. What protection does the directive provide for whistleblowers?

Protections include exemptions from criminal proceedings related to the protected disclosure, exemptions from civil proceedings and disciplinary measures, and prohibitions of other forms of reprisal, including inter alia dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion, coercion, intimidation, etc.

Furthermore, the directive foresees that there the whistle-blower must be granted anonymity and confidentiality in their protected disclosure.

 

  1. What happens if a whistle-blower reveals trade secrets or information related to national security?

The Directive protects whistle-blowers who disclose trade secrets as well as confidential information related to national security, though a specific procedure is envisaged for the latter.

In case of an overlap or clash between the whistle-blower protection directive and the trade secrets directive, the provisions to protect whistle-blowers must be complied with. The same is true where the information relates to national security issues. Thus, protection of trade secrets may not be invoked to the detriment of the whistle-blower concerned, even if the information revealed is not actually illegal in itself. In this way we can be sure that the directive would also protect people like Antoine Deltour, currently on trial following the LuxLeaks revelations.

 

  1. What will you do next?

The European Parliament’s latest call for legislation to protect whistle-blowers established, in the TAXE special committee report, a deadline of June 2016 for the European Commission to react. We plan to continue to campaign so that the European Commission finally proposes legislation to protect whistle-blowers across the EU. We already have broad cross-party support on the matter, as shown by the numerous European Parliament resolutions that called on the Commission to propose specific legislation.

[1] Spain, Greece, Finland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal

Press release – Whistleblower protection Greens present draft EU law as Deltour trial continues

The Greens/EFA group in European Parliament are presenting a draft for a new EU directive on whistleblower protection. The draft directive, which has been launched coinciding with the trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour, aims to provide the basis and further impetus for a proposal to this end from the European Commission. Outlining the draft directive, Green MEP and transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The Panama Papers leak has once again underlined the essential role performed by whistleblowers in shedding light on vital information in the public interest, just as the ongoing trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. Whistleblowers serve a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability and it is a scandal that they are very often hung out to dry, with no protection, once they have revealed information in the public interest.

“We believe there needs to be a basic level of protection for whistleblowers across Europe. Whistleblowers face uneven levels of protection in the EU, with no protection at all in some member states. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation on the protection of whistleblowers on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. In the absence of an initiative to this end from the Commission, this draft directive on whistleblower protection aims to provide the basis and further impetus for such a proposal. We want to work to build a broad consensus around this legislation with a view to ensure whistleblowers can finally have a basic level of protection across Europe.”

The draft directive and a summary can be found at:http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

The Greens/EFA group will host a conference on whistleblower protection tomorrow in the European Parliament at which the draft directive will be outlined. More details: http://www.greens-efa.eu/the-right-to-speak-out-15199.html

ITCO Press Statement – Trade Secrets Directive hampers prevention of corruption

Today, the Trade Secrets Directive was adopted during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The highly contested directive harms the protection of whistleblowers and hinders the work of investigative journalists and trade unionists. The ITCO intergroup regrets that the European Commission does not attribute a more prominent role to whistleblowers and investigative journalists in the struggle against corruption.

 

The public consultation held by the European Commission, clearly indicated that the Trade Secrets Directive lacks public support: citizens trade unions, civil society organizations and SME’s reacted negatively. Although several improvements have been made in comparison to the original proposal, the final proposal still burdens the journalist, the whistleblower or the trade unionist with the obligation to prove that he or she acted in the realm of the (restricted) freedom of expression, for the purpose of the general public interest, or as part of helping workers’ representatives in their legitimate exercise of their representative functions. These strict conditions, combined with a very broad definition of ‘trade secrets’, restrict the possibilities of whistleblowers to be acknowledged and for journalists and unionists to do their work properly.

 

Consequentially, disclosing information on practices that may not be illegal but are yet undesirable, such as tax avoidance, will become more easily punishable. Dennis de Jong, co-chair of the ITCO intergroup comments: ”One would think that after Luxleaks, the Panama papers and Dieselgate, in which whistleblowers or investigative journalists have played a crucial role in revealing crucial information, the Commission would do anything to stimulate the important role of whistleblowers and investigative journalists. Instead, the Commission subordinates the struggle against corruption to the interests of multinationals. Antoine Deltour, who revealed the Luxleaks scandal, is already facing criminal charges against him, and the directive will undermine his position.

 

Benedek Javor, ITCO bureau member adds:

“We as Greens wanted to reject the proposal or at least delay the vote until the directive can be packaged with a Whistleblower Protection Directive. Adopting a text that creates a situation where secrecy is the legal norm for companies’ internal information and transparency is the exception is clear proof of the European Commission preference of corporate interest over the public interest, as also shown most recently by the glyphosate authorization.”

 

(Image source: itcointergroup.eu)

The Russian Presence in Key European Countries’ Energy Market – Conference and study

A joint conference was held in Budapest by Policy Solutions Institute and the Greens of the European Parliament on the 18th of March on the role of Russia on the European energy market.

 

From among the speakers of the conference, MEP Benedek Jávor named energy dependency the most pressing issue of Europe in conjunction with the migration crisis. In his opinion Russia’s negative influence both on Europe and Hungary partially leaks through the developments of the energy market. This dependency on Russia is present not in the form of gas-dependence, but also of nuclear dependence and through the influence of Russian players among company owners in the energy market.

 

An additional problem, Mr. Jávor pointed out, is the influence of the Russian secret services on energy market decision-making processes, which poses a national safety threat as well. He urged action to be taken in the form of, for example, gaining intelligence on the existing risks as well as recognizing that the solution reaches beyond the simple diversification of gas supply sources. He also called attention to the need of the strict application of existing EU regulations as well as the establishment of new legal procedures.

 

Tamás Boros, director of strategy at Policy Solutions (a Hungarian institute for political advice and analysis), introduced the institute’s recent study, made in collaboration with the Greens, on the topic of Russia’s role in the EU energy market and the energy dependency of various Eastern European countries as well as Germany, Austria, Finland and Greece. The study shows that the majority of these countries rely heavily on Russian energy import and Hungary is one of the least independent countries, as its dependency on Russia is determined by its gas, oil and nuclear energy needs. Mr. Boros pointed out, however, that the dependency is mutual, as Russia is dependent on money coming from Europe.

 

Julia Sokolovicova, adviser for the East-Central European segment of Greencpeace, called attention to the strengthened dependency on Russia in connection with the European projects of Rosatom.

 

The abovementioned study of Policy Solutions has recently been published and is now available in English by clicking here.

Conference on the accountability of the EU

 

On the 14th of January, Mr. Benedek Jávor took part in a conference at the College of Europe in Bruge, Belgium, where along with Carl Dolan, director of Transparency International EU and Fergal O’Regal, representetaive the Head of Unit at the European Ombudsman, he held a presentation on the transparency and accountability of the European Union as well as the EU’s efforts to tackle corruption. The presentation can be found on this link.

Reconsidering EU-Russia energy relations: a basis for a new balance

The aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian military intervention and the undeclared war in eastern Ukraine brought about a crucial change in the EU’s foreign affairs. The new understanding of a conflict-oriented and imperial rationality-based attitude of the Russian leadership caused a substantial shift in the EU’s Russia-politics – and raises security questions not only at European level but also on the global scale.

The military conflict in Ukraine has brought to the forefront the issue of energy security and the need to reduce all forms of energy dependency from Russia. Underlining this is importance of the EU speaking with one voice in energy policy as well as in its foreign policy.

Russia is the EU’s biggest neighbour and its third biggest trading partner. In the last decade, EU-Russia relations have been characterised by mutual recognition and increasing cooperation, which was evident not only in the fields of trade and economic cooperation. The so-called common spaces cover aspects such as research, culture, education, environment, freedom and justice. Moreover, negotiations have been ongoing since 2008 to further strengthen the partnership and have legally binding commitments in all areas including political dialogue, freedom, security and justice, research, culture, investment and energy. After 2010, the partnership for modernisation has become the focal point for cooperation, reinforcing dialogue initiated in the context of the common spaces.

Not acceptable in any sense

The role of Russia in the Ukrainian crisis shed light on the fact that Russia is not on track in the process of democratisation and modernisation in the way the EU had believed. Russian politics did not become more moderate through the cooperation with the EU, but rather the opposite occurred. Even if we accept the experts’ argumentation for the need for a ‘buffer zone’ between the EU and Russia, the illegal annexation of Crimea and the continuous destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine including aggression by Russian armed forces on Ukrainian soil cannot be considered acceptable in any sense. These issues give a clear indication of the unchanged aggressive nature of Russian politics and leadership. It became clear that Putin is primarily led by imperial rationality and now it seems that Putin’s Russia is no longer interested in a trustworthy and functional relationship with the EU.

Since 2014, the EU has progressively imposed restrictive measures in response to the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine. After a series of rocket attacks in Mariupol by pro-Russian separatists in January this year, the Latvian EU presidency has called on a council of EU foreign ministers to prepare the ground for a summit of EU leaders on the crisis with Russia and to determine the role the EU should take. The developments over the past two years call for a new interpretation of the Russian-EU relationship as they demonstrate that Putin’s Russia is impossible to handle with peaceful approaches and methods based on seeking consensus. It is all the more important that the EU speaks with one voice and acts in a united manner. And this is exactly what is missing.

A need for clear signals

Some EU member states including Poland and the Baltic states regularly use strong anti-Russian rhetoric, while others, such as Hungary, take political decisions showing an opening towards Russia. These seemingly contradictory attitudes, however, might stem from a common fear of growing Russian influence – partly due to historical reasons. The only difference lies in the role these national governments attribute to the EU (or the US) in handling the conflict, depending on the extent they believe that the EU is willing and able to send clear signals to Russia.

Germany itself, having a huge influence on EU politics, has recently re-evaluated the Russian relationship. Before, Germany had the standpoint that a close economic cooperation could have a stabilising effect on Russia and reduce the possibility of aggressive geopolitical measures. They hoped that this cooperation might also further the modernisation of the Russian economy and thus it might contribute to the creation of a Russian state that was linked to the world economy not only through its energy export, but with many other ties and which has its interests in sustaining the balance of international relationships. Germany, however, has realised that these presuppositions and hopes were wrong. Therefore, Chancellor Merkel placed harsh measures and defends consistently the sanctions that the EU adopted in response to Russia’s military intervention in the Ukraine.

The sanctions in place include the suspension of most cooperation programmes, suspended talks on visas and the new EU-Russia agreement, as well as restrictive measures targeting sectorial cooperation in the fields of defence and sensitive technologies, including those in the energy sector. Russian access to capital markets is also restricted. The European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have suspended the signing of new financing operations in Russia and a trade and investment ban is in force for the Crimea region.

The sanctions would have expired in the course of this year, yet various EU leaders stressed that the EU should maintain the sanctions until Russia stopped the aggression in Ukraine. Thus, the Council meeting of June 2015 extended the restrictive measures and economic sanctions until June 2016. These sanctions, however, are somewhat questionable in their effect.

Thus, the EU has to find a way to ensure aid and protection for the civilian population in eastern Ukraine as well as to find a new balance in the EU-Russian relations.  In this respect, again, speaking with one voice is essential. Finding a new balance is key in the broader context, for the sake of a global equilibrium as well, as Russia might opt for building stronger links to China.

Extreme dependency

These recent developments also affect the issue of energy security in the EU, which is very high on the political agenda now. However, the impacts of Russia’s nuclear investments in the EU are not seriously considered.

We are all aware that the EU is extremely dependent on external energy sources, mainly coming from Russia. (And vice versa, supplies of oil and gas make up a large proportion of Russia’s exports to Europe, which are crucial for the Russian economy. The recent collapse of the Russian economy due to the rapid fall of oil prices is a clear proof of this, as it has shown that the country’s self-confidence merely stemmed from high oil prices.)

The dependency on Russian fossil fuels and the lack of diversification of energy sources have been widely recognised in the EU’s energy policy. However, these are only a small part of the whole picture. The impacts of Russia’s fossil or nuclear investments in the EU are hardly considered in the energy-related acquis, even though it is obvious that through its energy corporations, the Russian government has means of influence far beyond the mere business transactions.

Energy dependency can appear in multiple forms including financial, technological or fuel dependence in the nuclear and fossil sectors, acquisition and ownership of strategic energy infrastructure as well as investments in energy projects by Russia in the EU, in particular, the Baltic and the Central-Eastern European member states. Here again, we see no unified behaviour from EU member states. Some EU member states have reconsidered their cooperation with Russia, or Rosatom in particular, as a consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. For example: Germany refusing to sell gas storage capacities to Russia; Bulgaria refusing a second Rosatom nuclear plant; Slovakia stopping negotiations with the Russian nuclear complex; and the UK suspending its negotiations with the company. At the same time, some EU countries such as Finland or Hungary still consider building new nuclear power plants partly using Russian financial sources, technology, fuel and waste management facilities. It is the responsibility of the EU bodies to ensure that decisions in any member state do not undermine the energy security of the EU as a whole.

Equally importantly, the EU should think out of the box and look beyond resource route diversification and new infrastructure projects, when it comes to improving energy security. A systemic, long term solution for the problem is increased energy efficiency with special attention to the transport sector, residential buildings and industrial sites and the wide-scale use of local, renewable energy sources building upon, inter alia, novel financial solutions and community-based models. Energy efficiency and renewables projects could be very useful components of this project, as they could contribute to reducing all forms of energy dependencies.

To conclude: even if the hopes of the EU for the stabilisation and democratization of Russia have failed to come true, geopolitical realities are given. The EU has to reassess its relationship with Russia, to act firmly in a united manner and to tackle security threats at all levels, including in the field of energy policy. The EU should work for a healthier relationship with Russia in this regard, as well, by systemically reducing its dependency, wherever possible – yet acknowledging long-term mutual dependencies which can be used as a basis for the new balance.

(An earlier version of this article was published on the website of the Green European Journal in February 2015.)