Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union has reconfirmed rejection to normalization with the Syrian regime, to reconstruction and to lifting of sanctions until a political solution in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254 is firmly underway.

Yesterday marked 11 years since the beginning of the tragic and bloody conflict in Syria, said High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell.

Unfortunately, the conflict continues still today, and the humanitarian needs are at their highest with 14.6 million Syrian people in need of assistance inside and outside of the country. Syrian refugees constitute the largest displacement crisis in the world with 5.7 million registered refugees. Another 6.9 million Syrian nationals are displaced within Syria.

He went on saying that the Syrian people remain a priority for the European Union. The international community must keep up the search for a durable and comprehensible political solution in Syria, and the European Union remains fully committed to this goal.

At their meeting with UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen at the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 January, EU Foreign Ministers restated their unity and reconfirmed the EUs position: no normalization with the Syrian regime, no reconstruction and no lifting of sanctions until a political solution in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254 is firmly underway.

At the same time, the European Union continues to support the efforts of UN Special Envoy Pedersen, including his steps-for-steps approach, and remains committed to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian state.

Borrell noted that on 10 May, the European Union will co-chair with the UN a sixth Brussels Conference on Supporting the Future of Syria and the region, with the participation of governments, international organizations and Syrian civil society.

The European Union and its Member States remain the largest provider of international aid and deliver humanitarian, stabilization, and resilience assistance inside Syria and in neighboring countries.

Last year the EU as a whole pledged 3.7 billion in total for 2021 and beyond. Since 2011, the EU and its Member States have mobilized over 25 billion for the conflict in Syria, according to Borrell.

Eleven years have passed on the US-backed terrorist aggression on Syria that mainly aimed to obstruct its economic development, shed blood of Syrian youths and destroy its achievements and infrastructure, SANA reported, citing Syrias Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates.

On Wednesday, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America released a joint statement on the occasion of the 11-year anniversary of the beginning of the Syrian conflict.

It is past time for the regime and its enablers, including Russia and Iran, to halt their ruthless attack on the Syrian people, the statement read.

The coincidence of this years anniversary with the appalling Russian aggression against Ukraine they said, highlights Russias brutal and destructive behavior in both conflicts.

We do not support efforts to normalize relations with the Assad regime and will not normalize relations ourselves, nor lift sanctions or fund reconstruction until there is irreversible progress towards a political solution.

We encourage all parties, especially the Syrian regime, to participate in the March 21 meeting of the Constitutional Committee in good faith and call for the Committee to deliver on its mandate.

Read more:
European Union Insists on Its Three 'Noes' in Syria - Asharq Al-awsat - English

More than 2.8 million people have fled Ukraine since the Russian invasion, according to the United Nations the swiftest mass exodus of refugees since World War II, some experts say.

The overwhelming majority of refugees from Ukraine are fleeing to European Union countries. More than half of those have fled to Poland, while hundreds of thousands are seeking safety in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia.

Leah Zamore, who leads the humanitarian crises program at New York Universitys Center on International Cooperation, told VOA the Syrian refugee crisis took several years to reach the number of people who have left Ukraine in less than two weeks.

So the swiftness of this outflow is really, really unprecedented, she said.Zamore said it is going to be difficult for Europe to accommodate so many people so quickly. But it has been a remarkably generous response, at least when it comes to the Ukraine crisis.

What is the current refugee policy for those fleeing the conflict?

Ukrainians already enjoyed visa-free travel to the European Union for up to 90 days. Since the invasion, the situation and the numbers are rapidly evolving. Because of that, the European Unions executive branch, the European Commission, has activated the Temporary Protection Directive, which grants immediate protection to those fleeing the war while providing access to schools, medical care, and work.

How can someone qualify for the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)?

The European Commissions decision to activate the TPD is historic. This is the first time it has been activated since 2001, when the commission created it. It applies to all Ukrainian nationals and their relatives displaced by the conflict.Under the guidelines, Ukrainian refugees are allowed to temporarily reside and work in European Union countries. But, in order to qualify for humanitarian status, they must have fled Ukraine after February 24, the day the invasion began.

How long can people stay?

Refugees from Ukraine will be granted permission for temporary residence in the European Union for at least one year, with the possibility of an extension for two more years.

What happens to people who are not Ukrainian nationals?

Non-Ukrainian nationals of third countries and stateless persons, as well as their family members, will be protected under TPD as long as they can prove they were legally residing in Ukraine and cannot return to their country of origin.Esther Pozo-Vera, head of the asylum unit and directorate-general for Migration and Home Affairs for the European Commission, said the decision cuts the red tape.

You don't have to apply for temporary protection. This is granted by the decision. The only thing you have to do is basically ask for a residence permit and this residence permit will trigger the other rights, Pozo-Vera said during a recent webinar hosted by the Migration Policy Institute.

What exactly do refugees get under TPD?

Some countries are providing free transportation, which means free rail and bus travel for those fleeing Ukraine. They are also expected to receive medical care and other welfare benefits.

Those younger than 18 are allowed to attend school. Unaccompanied children will be placed under the guardianship of foster families, relatives, or facilities run by government officials that were adapted to welcome minors.

People will be allowed to apply for jobs, receive training in trades, and use their workplace experience to become self-employed workers.

When it comes to housing, members of the European Union must make sure people have access to accommodations, either in reception centers or with European families willing to house them.

Can refugees apply for asylum while being protected under TPD?

Yes. According to the European Commission's website the right to temporary protection is in addition to the right to apply for international protection.

Pozo-Vera explained the hope is that the conflict will not last and because refugees are protected under TPD, they will not ask for asylum immediately. And that means the asylum system of the member states will not be overwhelmed by a new flow of massive applications of asylum.

Are there any other ways to receive protection besides TPD or applying for asylum?

Yes. Those fleeing might be able to apply for a residence permit if they have a family member who is an EU citizen or if they were already legally residing in the European Union as a student, researcher, trainee, or worker.

Here is the original post:
European Union Grants Temporary Protection to Ukrainians - Voice of America - VOA News

March 11, 2022

Click for PDF

On 23 February 2022, the European Commission (EC) published its long-awaited draft directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (the Directive),[1] which sets out mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence obligations for corporates, together with a civil liability regime to enforce compliance with the obligations to prevent, mitigate and bring adverse impacts to an end.[2]

The draft Directive will now undergo further review and debate, with its likely adoption by the European Parliament and subsequent implementation into domestic legal systems anticipated by 2027.

This was hailed as an opportunity to introduce uniform standards for corporates operating in Europe, in circumstances where numerous individual jurisdictions have been developing their own, differing human rights and environmental due diligence and/or reporting obligations (see our previous client alert).

Key features of the Directive

Introduction of four key corporate due diligence obligations

The Directive lays down four key due diligence obligations regarding actual and potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts (both of which the Directive defines by reference to international conventions). The due diligence is to be conducted not only in relation to companies own operations and those of their subsidiaries, but also the operations of their established business relationships (whether direct or indirect), where those operations are related to the companys value chains.[8]

Value chain is broadly defined as activities related to the production of goods or the provision of services by a company, including the development of the product or the service and the use and disposal of the product as well as the related activities of upstream and downstream established business relationships of the company. For regulated financial services companies, the Directive gives further guidance, noting that the value chain shall only include the activities of the clients receiving such loan, credit, and other financial services and of other companies belonging to the same group whose activities are linked to the contract in question.

Integrate human rights and environmental due diligence

First, companies are required to integrate human rights and environmental due diligence into all of their corporate policies and have in place a specific due diligence policy which contains: (i)a description of the companys due diligence approach; (ii) a code of conduct to be followed by company employees and subsidiaries; and (iii) a description of processes put in place to implement due diligenceincluding measures taken to extend its application to established business relationships.

Identify actual or potential adverse impacts

Second, as noted above, companies are required to take appropriate measures to identify actual and potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts arising not only from their own operations, but their subsidiaries and the operations of established business relationships in their value chains. (Certain companies are, however, confined to identifying only severe adverse impacts.)[9] This is an ongoing, continuous obligation for companies within the scope of the Directive, except for financial institutions which need only identify adverse impacts before providing a service (such as credit or a loan).

In terms of how to identify the adverse impacts, the Directive contemplates the use of both qualitative and quantitative information, including use of independent reports, information gathering through the complaints procedure (see below) and consultations with potentially affected groups.

Prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts

Third, companies have an obligation to prevent potential adverse impacts and, where this is not possible, to adequately mitigate adverse impacts that have been or should have been identified pursuant to the prior identification obligation. This is contemplated through a number of strategies:

Bring to an end or minimise actual adverse impacts

Finally, companies must bring to an end actual adverse impacts that have been or should have been identified. Where this is not possible, companies should ensure that they minimise the extent of such an impact. Companies are required to take the following actions, as necessary: (i)neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent, including through the payment of damages to the affected persons; (ii)implement a corrective action plan with timelines and indicators; (iii) seek contractual assurances; and (iv)make necessary investments. As with the obligation to prevent and mitigate potential adverse impacts, there are provisions governing circumstances where the actual adverse impact cannot be brought to an end or minimised.[10]

Standalone climate change obligation

Group 1 companies are required to adopt a plan to ensure that the business model and strategy of the company are compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C in line with the Paris Agreement. The plan should identify the extent to which climate change is a risk for, or an impact of, the companys operations. Fulfilment of the obligations in the plan should then be taken into account in the context of directors variable remuneration, where such remuneration is linked to the directors contribution to business strategy and long-terms interests and sustainability.

Expansion of directors duties

The Directive introduces a directors duty of care provision requiring directors to take into account the human rights, climate change and environmental consequences of their decisions in the short, medium and long term. Directors[11] should put into place and oversee due diligence actions and policies, and adapt the companys strategy where necessary. Member States must ensure that their laws applicable to breach of directors duties are extended to the provisions in the Directive. As currently drafted, the Directive itself does not impose personal liability on directors for non-compliance.

In practical terms, this will likely carry with it obligations of transparency, and boards should document how they are engaging with sustainability requirements and considering risks in all relevant decision-making, including on matters of strategy. Directors should also ensure that they are sufficiently informed on how due diligence processes and reporting lines are resourced and managed within the company, and conduct training on ESG matters.

What will be required of the board will ultimately be industry-specific, but it will be important to demonstrate that the board is actively engaging with these issues.

Sanctions and enforcement

Non-compliance with the substantive requirements of the Directive carries the threat of civil liability and specific sanctions. A civil liability provision requires Member States to ensure companies are liable for damages if: (a) they have failed to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts; and (b) as a result of this failure, an adverse impact that could have been avoided in fact occurred and caused damage. Importantly, a company cannot escape liability by relying on local law (for example, where the jurisdiction of the alleged adverse impact does not provide for damages). Where, however, a company has taken the appropriate due diligence measures identified in the Directive, there should be no such liability unless it was unreasonable in the circumstances to expect that the action taken (including as regards verifying business partners compliance) would be adequate to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impact. This begs the question as to what may be considered unreasonable and what measures are to be considered appropriate for the relevant company, to which there are no clear answers in the Directive. Further guidance on the scoping of expectations and nature of appropriate due diligence will be essential.

Meanwhile, the Directive requires Member States to set up supervisory authorities to monitor compliance, but gives discretion as regards sanctions for non-compliance. These authorities will be empowered to conduct investigations, issue orders to stop violations, and publish their decisions.

In-scope companies which are incorporated outside the EU must also appoint an authorised representative, i.e. a natural or legal person domiciled or established in the EU Member State in which that company generated most of its annual net turnover in the EU in the previous year. The authorised representative must have a mandate to act on the companys behalf in relation to complying with the Directive, and will communicate and cooperate with supervisory authorities.

Next steps

The draft Directive will now be presented to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, upon whom it is incumbent to reach agreement on a final text. It is expected that the Directive will be subject to further debates by a range of industry, government and NGO stakeholders, and it remains to be seen whether any material changes will be made. The political tailwinds behind EU-wide action in this area are strong,[12] particularly as national governments across the EU continue to implement their own legislative measures and the European Parliament has already advocated for similar legislation. Current best estimates envisage adoption in or around 2023, with subsequent transposition into national law two to four years thereafter. Hence, it is likely that the earliest that companies will be required to report pursuant to the proposed Directive will be in relation to the financial years ending 2025 or 2026.

The draft Directive is an ambitious proposal and there remain a number of open questions regarding the scope and nature of the duties envisaged. Further guidance on issues such as the nature of due diligence has been promised by the Commission, and will be critical as corporates seek to understand their obligations and address them in practical terms.

__________________________

[1]On the same date, the European Commission also published a Q&A publication and a factsheet which provide further colour and background to the draft Directive. These are available on the European Commissions Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence website.

[2]This follows a public consultation period held between 26 October 2020 and 8 February 2021, and an EU Parliament draft directive on Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability published on 10March 2021 (the EU Parliament draft Directive). See our previous client alert, addressing the 27January 2021 report containing the proposed EU Parliament draft Directive.

[3]The definition of companies extends beyond corporate entities to other forms of enterprises with separate legal personality by reference to the Accounting Directive 2013/34 and to certain regulated financial undertakings regardless of their legal form. See Article 2(iv) of the draft Directive (defining Company).

[4]See Article 2(2) of the draft Directive. Whilst the parameters of application of the Directive draw upon thresholds and definitions that have been utilised in other EU sustainability and ESG-related regulations (such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive and the proposed new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)), this threshold relating to turnover attributable to high impact sectors is a new development.

[5]Namely, the reporting requirements under Articles 19a and 29a of Directive 2014/95/EU (the Non-Financial Reporting Directive), which will soon be replaced by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive).

[6] This compares to the broader scope of the CSRD which is expected to capture around 50,000 entities.

[7]See Article 2(iv) of the draft Directive (defining Company).

[8]The italicized terms are defined under the Directive (Article 3).

[9]Namely, Group 2 companies, and non-EU companies generating a net turnover of more than EUR40million but not more than EUR 150 million in the EU in the preceding financial year, provided at least 50% of its net worldwide turnover was generated in a high-impact sector.

[10]Namely, as in Article 7, the company may seek to conclude a contract with an entity with whom it has an indirect relationship with a view to achieving compliance with the companys code of conduct or corrective plan (Article 7(4)), and refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with the partner in connection with or in the value chain where the impact has arisen, and shall temporarily suspend commercial relationships or terminate the business relationship where the adverse impact is severe (Article 7(6)).

[11]Directors is defined broadly in the draft Directive as those who are part of the administrative, management or supervisory bodies of a company, the CEO and any Deputy CEO, in addition to other persons who perform similar functions. Board of directors is broadly defined as the administrative or supervisory body responsible for supervising the executive management of the company, or those performing equivalent functions. See draft Directive, Articles 3((o), (p).

[12]This proposal also comes off the back of a flurry of other developments in the EU in relation to ESG-related regulation. These developments include the European Commissions presentation of the same date of a Communication on Decent Work Worldwide, and very recent feedback and developments on proposed changes to the CSRD from various European Parliament committees, including the Permanent Representatives Committees (Coreper) general approach regarding the European Commissions proposed CSRD, published on 18February 2022 and European Parliaments Economic and Monetary Affairs Committees (ECON) opinion and proposed changes to the CSRD, published on 28February 2022.

Gibson Dunns lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firms Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practice, or the following authors:

Susy Bullock London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4283, sbullock@gibsondunn.com)Selina S. Sagayam London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4263, ssagayam@gibsondunn.com)Sophy Helgesen London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4261, shelgesen@gibsondunn.com)Stephanie Collins London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4216, SCollins@gibsondunn.com)Ashley Kate Hammett London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4240, ahammett@gibsondunn.com)

Please also feel free to contact the following ESG practice leaders:

Susy Bullock London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4283, sbullock@gibsondunn.com)Elizabeth Ising Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8287, eising@gibsondunn.com)Perlette M. Jura Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7121, pjura@gibsondunn.com)Ronald Kirk Dallas (+1 214-698-3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)Michael K. Murphy Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8238, mmurphy@gibsondunn.com)Selina S. Sagayam London (+44 (0) 20 7071 4263, ssagayam@gibsondunn.com)

2022 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

Read the original:
European Commission Proposes Far-Reaching Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Obligations - Gibson Dunn

Batteries are critical to a clean energy economy. They help decarbonise the transport and energy sectors, by electrifying vehicles and providing stationary storage for the renewable-powered grid. Advancing the battery supply chain therefore requires an all-hands-on-deck, global approach.

On 14 March 2022, the Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced support for a collaboration between the European Battery Alliance and the U.S. Li-Bridge alliance to accelerate development of robust supply chains for lithium-ion and next generation batteries, including the critical raw materials segments.

Bolstering the clean energy economy and strengthening the battery value chain is a top priority for the European Union and the United States. This is in step with their commitment to address the climate crisis and accelerate the transition to clean energy, through renewables, energy efficiency and necessary technologies like batteries.

With each passing year, the growing urgency of the climate crisis demands swifter action, smarter solutions, and more comprehensive collaboration. The European Battery Alliance and U.S. Li-Bridge Alliance are collectively assuring the resilience of battery supply chains by

In the months ahead, EIT InnoEnergy and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) will lead efforts between the two alliances to build bridges across the battery ecosystems and conduct forums to carry out specific collaborative efforts to ensure resilient battery value chains.

Go here to see the original:
European Commission and US Department of Energy support collaboration between the European Battery Alliance and US Li-Bridge Alliance to strengthen...

Overshadowed by other world events is the possibility that European courts help resolve differences between U.S. interests and the European Union on tech and antitrust policy. The dust is settling after the most recent round in the fight between Intel, the American semiconductor giant, and the EUs European Commission. Rounds one and two went to the commission and three and four went to Intel. The final victor remains uncertain, but courts appear increasingly willing to make it a fairer fight.

The result of round four alone may have broad implications for other companies entering the ring with the European Commission in the future. Innovation, growth, and economic stability are all on the line, with the commission pushing for a tech market that can best be described as permission-based. Reducing the incentives to innovate and invest freely in the EU could have ripple effects across the global economy.

European and American antitrust enforcers have already been on the same page in the sense that they favor an ever more prescriptive regulatory environment, presuming that conduct by large businesses is anticompetitive unless proven otherwise an almost impossible task. In Europe, the Digital Markets Act (which becomes effective in 2023) seeks to rebalance the digital economy and is clearly targeted at some of the most successful U.S.-based technology companies.

In a speechlast October, European Commission antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager stressed that over the past few years, antitrust ideas have increasingly been converging, in Europe and America, and that the growing sense of a common approach to the new challenges for competition law tells me that now is the time to cooperate even more closely than weve done before.

Indeed, the United States is following in the EUs footsteps. Some U.S. bills target only seven technology companies and would make corporate acquisitions or self-preferencing a companys use of its platform to boost its own products or services presumptively illegal, regardless of the effects on the economy. These proposals put aside economic analysis in favor of hard-and-fast rules about what a dominant company can and cannot do and imposes hefty fines for offenders.

The concept of rigid legal presumptions, devised by the European Commission and directed against certain large firms practices, is far from new. Its been used against Intel as far back as 2009. Intel, the dominant semiconductor manufacturer then and now, gave price rebates (loyalty discounts) to manufacturers (think Dell or HP) in exchange for those companies buying nearly all their computer chips from Intel alone. The European Commission claimed that Intel abused its market power and fined the company over 1 billion euros.

The commission did not come to this conclusion by conducting a careful and robust economic analysis. It asserted that since discounts can be anticompetitive, under the right conditions, they must be anticompetitive, despite a lack of evidence. The commission alleged harm between 2002 and 2005 using only evidence from the final quarter of 2002.

But the European General Court pushed back against the commissions overreach. In a recent decision, the need for better evidence was put front and center, and the court struck down the fine. In so doing, the court adopted an approach that has long been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Economic evidence has now become a powerful right hook for companies operating in the European Union. This should always be the case, but the new development nonetheless represents a victory for objective, innovation-friendly policy. No longer is the European Commission able to ignore similar evidence in cases where discount schemes were presumed illegal. No longer is the commissions judgement infallible, and this could mean a new wave of fights in court.

American companies are among the most ridiculed within the European Union, having faced numerous fines over the last decade. Until now, European courts have generally sided with the commission, leaving little recourse for companies fighting these fines. Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm have received some of the harshest fines ever imposed by the commission.

Other punches have begun to land. Both Apple and Amazon have won rounds against the commission on tax cases. But the European Commission has signaled that it is still ready to enter the ring with the whole gamut of industry-leading American technology companies, alleging wide-ranging anticompetitive harm across the European Union.

Likely gone are the days when companies tap out after the first round. Is the commission beginning to lose steam, and is it at risk of a knockout in a future case? Its too early to call, but some of the commissions punches seem to be weaker thanks to the European courts.

Alden Abbottis a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a former general counsel with the Federal Trade Commission.AndrewMercadois an adjunct professor with the Antonin Scalia Law School.

Link:
US companies should bring their boxing gloves to Europe's courts | TheHill - The Hill