This Wednesday 7th February the European Parliament in Strasbourg will once again vote on transnational lists, with the difference that now there is a tangible opportunity to actually implement them in practice.
Find below in English an open letter of MEPs and also current and former EU officials calling on the necessity of transnational lists: Energising European Democracy_ Time for Transnational Lists_Open_Letter
Members of the European Parliament will stop at nothing until EU laws aimed at tackling court cases that intimidate investigative journalists and independent media are introduced, MEP David Casa said yesterday.
The Nationalist MEP gave comments to The Sunday Times of Malta in the wake of calls by a cross-party group of europarliamentarians on Friday, proposing new EU laws to address SLAPPs (strategic lawsuit against public participation).
The group – made up of Mr Casa, Ana Gomes, Monica Macovei, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Stelios Kouloglou and Benedek Jávor – wants the European Commission to create a directive which would allow journalists and media houses to ask for such suits to be dismissed and seek compensation while also fining companies which dodge the directive by filing SLAPP lawsuits in non-EU jurisdictions.
Read: SLAPP down companies bullying free press, MEPs urge Commission
The MEPs have also asked for the creation of a fund for journalists and media houses fighting such suits and that the Commission names and shames companies which resort to SLAPP tactics.
A call for such anti-SLAPP legislation was also made in the report by MEPs from the Pana and Libe committees, who carried out a two-day fact-finding mission in Malta last year. The report was published last Thursday.
The delegation looked into allegations of maladministration and money laundering in Malta, meeting with the Prime Minister, the Police Commissioner, the Chief Justice, representatives of the Malta Financial Services Authority and Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit, as well as journalists and civil society activists.
According to Mr. Casa, the MEPs will now be waiting for the Commission to respond, pointing out that if there is no action, a number of options were available to them, including making the call on the Commission during plenary.
“But more concretely we could also use a particular mechanism to draft the directive ourselves and send it to the Commission to propose. We can do this under a provision of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
“What is certain is that we are determined and committed to push for this legislation for as long as necessary,” Mr Casa said.
On the other recommendations in the report – mainly those calling on the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Central Bank (ECB) to assess whether the MFSA has fulfilled its obligations and to investigate whether Pilatus Bank holding a licence requires an intervention – Mr Casa said this was a different situation.
While the request to the ECB to take action had originally come from him alone, it was now the European Parliament which was making such calls on both the ECB and the EBA, the MEP explained.
“It should be the MFSA of its own volition that does what should have been done ages ago and revokes Pilatus’ license.
“On my part I will be communicating with the ECB again in the coming week, as I have received further evidence confidentially which needs to be passed on to them,” Mr Casa went on.
On a national level, the report points out that keeping politicians suspected of money laundering in office affects the government’s credibility, fuels a perception of impunity and could result in further damage to State interests by enabling the continuation of criminal activity.
When questioned on Friday about the recommendation to remove those named in the Panama Papers, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said simply: “We take our decisions”.
He added that the MEPs who travelled to the island on the fact-finding mission had decided what they were going to say even before coming to Malta.
The European Parliament has abandoned its long-held 40% energy efficiency target at the final hurdle, after political groups opted on Wednesday (17 January) to back a binding 35% goal for 2030 instead.
MEPs decided to choose the safe option and agree on one position ahead of talks with the Commission and member states but it meant downgrading its efficiency ambitions.
But they were able to preserve an all-important energy savings goal of 1.5% under Article 7 of the draft report and include the transport sector for the first time. EU climate chief Miguel Arias Cañete welcomed the result, pledging to help secure an “ambitious agreement” in talks with the member states.
German Socialist MEP Martina Werner said the outcome was “a big disappointment, as the Parliament has given up of its ambitious 40% target for the first time” but was hopeful that the result still shows that the institution is “serious about the energy transition”.
The result is a double-edged sword as it represents two milestones: the Parliament’s first shift to 35% and the EPP group’s first commitment to moving up from its previously rigid 30% position.
Wednesday’s vote was difficult to call before MEPs arrived in the hemicycle as the S&D, helmed by Czech MEP Miroslav Poche, and the EPP, under the guidance of German counterpart Markus Pieper, were unable to compromise on the fundamental aspects of the file.
After the vote, the EPP man was happy that his colleagues had rejected the “out-of-this-world” 40% target and said the agreed text is “a good start” with which to enter trilateral negotiations, an opinion shared by Greens/EFA shadow Jávor Benedek.
The Hungarian MEP called on climate chief Cañete after the vote to support the Parliament’s freshly adopted position and help convince the member states to back “at least” 35%.
@javorbenedek: “@MAC_europa ambitious outcome in the context of the leaked @IPCC_CH report could only mean to endorse the #EPlenary position of at least 35% – negotiations need to take the planet first!”
Poche thanked his colleagues for granting him a “strong mandate” after 485 MEPs voted in favour, with only 132 rejecting the text and 58 abstaining.
Poche, who replaced his predecessor Adam Gierek in December, will now represent the Parliament in the upcoming negotiations, where he will have to convince the member states that they should increase their 30% position.
MEPs agree to increase EU’s renewable and energy efficiency goals but that’s not going to sit well with national governments.
The European Parliament’s evident self-satisfaction over Wednesday’s vote to boost the EU’s green energy ambitions is likely to be punctured in the coming brawl with national governments.
MEPs’ push to speed up the bloc’s transition to clean energy puts it on a collision course with the Council of the EU, where several countries are angry at the possibility of being forced to shoulder an extra, and expensive, burden.
“We are expecting long and tough negotiations,” a Central European diplomat said, adding that the Parliament’s position “is more ambitious and challenging than what we agreed in the Council.”
MEPs said the EU should get 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, as well as achieving a minimum 35 percent gain in energy efficiency over the same period. They also agreed on strong rules for ensuring countries are on track to meet their goals.
The votes shape the Parliament’s position on the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive and the Governance Regulation. These are all key files from the European Commission’s Clean Energy Package, which aims to encourage the EU’s uptake of renewable energy and reform of its power market.
But Parliament’s higher targets are a lot more than many EU countries are prepared to accept.
“I expect the negotiations on all files from the Clean Energy Package to be tough,” said Martina Werner, a German MEP from the Socialists and Democrats. “The risk is to end up with the lowest common denominator.”
When EU energy ministers adopted their position in December, they left in place the current 27 percent renewable energy target. In May, when the Commission suggested increasing the target for energy efficiency from 27 percent to 30 percent, the idea ended up getting Council support but several Central and Eastern European countries fought an unsuccessful rearguard action to keep the old level.
National opposition is not too surprising considering the bitter talks over setting the 2030 energy and climate goals in the first place back in 2014. There was strong resistance from several Central and Eastern European countries who felt things were going too far, too fast; many still rely on coal, and were worried about the financial and economic costs of shifting to other power sources in a short period of time.
In the end, EU leaders committed to 27 percent targets for both energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Those promises have to be translated into laws, and now Central Europeans are outraged that Brussels and the Parliament are trying to push beyond the leaders’ 2014 deal by pressing for higher targets in the process.
“The targets are way beyond what is feasible. We cannot come up with commitments like that out of thin air,” said an Eastern European diplomat.
Green energy advocates argue that Central European concerns are outdated.
Renewable energy costs have dropped much faster in recent years than most anticipated, and recent Commission calculations found boosting the bloc’s renewable energy target to 30 percent would cost the EU roughly the same as implementing its current 27 percent goal.
The Commission and especially the Parliament are keen on greater energy ambition amid growing public alarm over global warming, as well as pressure to meet the bloc’s commitments under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete gave Parliament a pat on the back after Wednesday’s votes, calling it a “great day.” The Parliament “shows it means business with Europe’s clean energy transition and our #ParisAgreement commitments,” he tweeted.
His sentiment was largely echoed by NGOs and renewable energy lobby groups.
The differences between national positions and the Parliament will be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
“We are ready to face member states,” said Michèle Rivasi, a French Green MEP who co-led work on the Governance Regulation. “They will have to be more ambitious and they will have to start seeing things as we see them.”
A compromise could see talks settle on a target in between the positions of the Parliament and the Council. With a strong push from the Parliament, more ambitious governments from Nordic and Western European countries could help sway the general consensus toward a middle ground of just over 30 percent — despite Central European grumbling.
“European governments will now be under pressure to match their rhetoric on climate change with action by supporting the Parliament’s position,” Roland Joebstl, policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau.
Inter-institutional talks are expected to start within the next weeks under the leadership of the Bulgarian Council presidency.
This article is part of POLITICO’s new Sustainability coverage, tracking issues including the circular economy, air and water pollution, nature protection and chemicals, and including the Sustainability Insights newsletter every Monday afternoon. Email pro@politico.eu for more information.
MEPs call on European Commission to Protect Investigative Journalists and Stand for Media Freedom
MEPs David Casa (EPP), Ana Gomes (S&D), Monica Macovei (ECR), Maite Pagazaurtundúa (ALDE) Stelios Kouloglou (GUE) and Benedek Jávor (Greens) have joined forces to push for EU legislation that will address and end “SLAPPs” – lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence investigative journalists and independent media by burdening them with exorbitant legal expenses until they abandon their opposition. According to the MEPs, the practice is abusive, poses a threat to media freedom and has no place in the European Union.
SLAPP was used, for instance, against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and is now being used against Maltese media houses by firms associated with government corruption and the Panama Papers scandal that are threatening legal action in the United States.
David Casa, Ana Gomes, Monica Macovei, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Stelios Kouloglou and Benedek Jávor stated:
“In Malta we have seen that firms like Pilatus Bank and Henley & Partners that employ these practices, using American litigation, have succeeded in having stories altered or deleted completely from online archives. And investigative journalists are prevented from reporting further on corrupt practices out of fear of further legal action. But this is not just a Maltese problem. In the UK, Appleby, the firm associated with the Paradise Papers, is using similar tactics against the Guardian and the BBC.
The cross-border nature of investigative journalism as well as the tendency to pursue legal action in jurisdictions outside the EU that only have a tenuous connection with the parties justifies and requires an EU response”.
The MEPs are calling on EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans to propose an EU Anti-SLAPP Directive that will include:
“We are committed to the protection of investigative journalists and media freedom across the EU and will pursue this issue until Anti-SLAPP EU legislation is in place”, the MEPs stated.
Thomas Gibson from the Committee to Protect Journalists stated: “SLAPP is a serious threat to journalism and media freedom. These sums of money are in no way proportionate. Independent journalists in Malta already face enormous challenges and restrictions. Critical journalism must not be stifled. In addition to pushing for full justice of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Commission needs to address the climate in which investigative journalists work in the country.”
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said: “Having a media that is free to investigate corruption and abuse of power – and free to publish the results of those investigations – is fundamental to democracy. These vexatious law suits – deliberately aimed at preventing journalists from carrying out such work – must be stopped.”
The European Parliament’s Industry, Research and Energy committee has today backed a report on the energy efficiency directive.With two alternative compromise deals on the table, the Greens backed a 40% binding target on energy efficiency by 2030 (1).
Greens/EFA shadow rapporteur Benedek Jávor comments:
“An ambitious energy efficiency policy is needed to bring down energy bills for European citizens and businesses. It can also help to combat energy poverty and is key to our health, well-being, as well as achieving our climate policy targets and the commitments made under the Paris Agreement.
“We are pleased to have helped secure agreement on an overall 40% target for energy efficiency for 2030 across the EU, which would be underpinned by national binding targets to ensure it really delivers. We have also fought to close loopholes and make sure the transport sector is included in the targets.
“The ambition on targets needs to be matched with concrete measures, especially on lifting people out of energy poverty. The transition towards energy efficiency must deliver real benefits for the poorest, most vulnerable ones in our communities.”
Tomorrow (Thursday 23 November), the High Court in Luxembourg will rule on the appeal of the LuxLeaks whisteblowers, Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet, plus journalist Edouard Perrin.
In March, Antoine Deltour was sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence and a €1,500 fine, while Raphael Halet received a €1,000 fine. They have appealed these sentences.
Journalist Edouard Perrin was originally acquitted, but the Luxembourgish authorities have appealed against this decision.
Greens/EFA transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor comments:
“This trial shows why we need protection for whistleblowers. It is thanks to people like Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet that the public was made aware of the many tax and fraud scandals to break in recent years. Their principled and brave action has been a major factor in bringing about much needed policy changes to tackle tax fraud, money laundering and corruption. Yet despite this, the EU doesn’t have rules in place to ensure their protection. The European Commission must urgently bring forward robust proposals to make sure that future whistleblowers don’t face the same ordeal.
“It is deeply regrettable that the journalist Edouard Perrin is also facing renewed conviction. In light of the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, we have called for the creation of an annual prize to celebrate investigative journalism, which serves a crucial function in our democracies.”
(Image source: euractiv.com – Gwenael Piaser/Flickr)
Here below, you can find the documents I received following an access to documents request regarding the documents of the infringement procedure point towards the fact that the European Commission took a political decision in closing the infringement procedure. And this political decision is against EU law.
The infringement that had been initiated following my complaint, was closed on 17th November 2016. The documents clearly show that the initial arguments of the Hungarian party on international agreements and the financial package that would accompany the Russian offer were dismissed by the Commission. Consequently, in the Commission’s view also there should have been an open call for the project.
In the spring of 2016, after the official reply to the letter of formal notice, Hungary made for the first time counter-arguments of technical exclusivity which had also been dismissed on service level initially by the EC and 4 scenarios were envisaged at this stage of which the closure of the case is clearly stated to be a political solution. This option was taken and the Minister for the Prime Minister’s Office personally thanks the Commissioner for their smooth cooperation.
The letter of Alexander Italianer, Secretary-General of the European Commission
LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN CASE 2016/6535
1 Note for the launch of the interservice consultation on the letter of formal notice (LFN) in infringement procedure NIF 2015/4231-4232 concerning the PAKS NPP project, with Annex (draft LFN), dated 10/11/2015, Ref No Ares(2015)4966089 and also this letter
3 Interservice consultation – DG ENER opinion, dated 11/11/2015
The first part of this document
4 Interservice consultation – DG COMP opinion, dated 11/11/2015
The second part of this document
5 Interservice consultation – DG TRADE opinion (with comments to draft LFN in Annex), dated 13/11/2015
The third part of this document and its annex
7 Reply of the Hungarian authorities to the letter of formal notice (with Annexes A and B), dated 21/01/2016, Ref No Ares(2016)358726
11 Flash report on the meeting with Hungarian authorities, dated 02/03/2016, Ref No Ares(2017)495771
24 Note for the launch of the interservice consultation on the closure of infringement procedure NIF 2015/4231-4232 concerning the PAKS NPP project (with Annexes 1 and 2), dated 24/08/2016, Ref No Ares(2016)4766008 and its annex
25 Interservice consultation – DG TRADE comments, dated 26/08/2016
The first part of this document
26 Interservice consultation – DG ENER opinion, dated 30/08/2016
The second part of this document
27 Interservice consultation – DG COMP and DG TRADE opinion, dated 02/09/2016
The third part of this document
28 Day Note of 17 November 2016 (SEC(2016)469/4) concerning the Commission decision closing infringement procedure 2015/4231-32 (with Annex (SEC(2016)475/2)), Ref No Ares(2017)162348 and its annex
ELD is a key piece of legislation aiming to establish a framework of environmental liability based on the ‘polluter-pays’ principle and to prevent and remedy environmental damage.
Note: The ELD has recently undergone a REFIT evaluation to check whether the legislation is fit for purpose. A (long overdue) implementation report based on Member States reporting has also been published. This provided the basis of the current work of the Parliament. I am providing remarks as rapporteur of the ENVI opinion to the JURI’s work on the implementation report on ELD (ENVI was associated committee under Rule 54)
As both the Commission report and the JURI Committee has highlighted, despite some improvements the directive has shown ‘incompleteness’ and thus limited effectiveness.
The implementation still varies significantly from one Member State to another.
We have a patchwork of liability systems (also due to the interplay with existing laws) which in my opinion can undermine common standards and expose some Member States or regions to greater risk of environmental disasters and the financial consequences thereof.
As it is clear from the ENVI opinion, better implementation of the directive (incl. the via improving the information base and providing more trainings and assistance to MSs a key pillar of the Commission’s action plan and multiannual work programme) is needed, but not sufficient.
We should remaining challenges in a systemic manner and revise the directive in the near future in the light of the recent REFIT exercise.
A revision would allow us to extend the scope and the applicability of the directive by making operators of all activities strictly liable for all environmental damage they cause (=removing the limitation in Annex III).
In this context, the INI report rightly calls on the Commission to impose liability for damage to human health and the environment in the future and for the removal of certain exemptions.
I also welcome the call for rethinking of the financial security system.
This would imply
I also stress that the proper involvement of inspection bodies is key. In this context, the Commission should further develop inspection support capacity at EU level and help Member States strengthen their national bodies.
Let me highlight one more message: we urgently need EU legislation on the minimum standards for implementing the Aarhus’ Conventions access to justice pillar.
The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia is a tragedy and at the same time deterrent manifestation of what lengths the power can go to in order to conceal the truth. Even the smallest constriction on independent journalism is a serious violation of citizens’ rights to the pluralism of information. And where a journalist pays with her life for revealing corruption and abuse of the power, there democracy is shaken to its core.
In several Member States, the systemic curtailing of the free press has already started or has been already going on for years. In these countries, it is in the power’s interest to abolish the independence and pluralism of the media. This cannot ever deteriorate into a situation, in which people who seek to reveal the truth can no longer feel safe. Urgent and effective action must be taken in order to prevent any government from using intimidation of journalists as a means to hide the truth.
Transparency and a free, independent media are core European values, the protection of which now sadly needs to constantly be reinforced, we Greens propose an award with the name of Daphne Caruana Galizia to be given each year to investigative journalist in order to value and protect their work
