Mediaboss Marketing

The Moroccan Confederation of Agriculture and Rural Development (Comader) has decided to defend Morocco's position against "certain false allegations regarding Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the European market."

According to the entity, if there has been no significant alteration in the fruit and vegetable trade relationship between the EU and Morocco since the entry into force of the trade agreement between them in November 2012, it is because the bilateral relationship is mutually beneficial. "This enables the sustainable development of agricultural communities in Morocco and the EU, as well as having high-quality products in EU supermarkets, especially outside the European harvest season," the Comader stated.

"Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the European Union market only account for 2% of the market. Thus, it's hard to understand how this 2% can be so damaging to European fruit and vegetable production."

"It's a shame that the different interest groups take advantage of the difficult conditions that all operators in the Mediterranean agri-food sector face, mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit, to question the free trade agreement that benefits the EU more than Morocco, as is demonstrated by the agricultural trade balance. This agreement brings prosperity and economic dynamism that is extremely necessary at this time," said Mohamed Alamouri, the president of Comader.

Regarding other false allegations about Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the British market, he stated that "contrary to the information disseminated by some organizations, Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the British market are carried out under a quota system that is similar to that of the EU, although this is an aberration as the UK is not a large producer of fruit and vegetables."

The entity insisted that the total quotas for fruit and vegetables provided for in the agreement between Morocco and the United Kingdom only account for 1.2% of all the UK's imports of fruit and vegetables.

Finally, the Comader assured that it was always open to dialogue with farmers and peasants on both shores of the Mediterranean and that it was happy that the Generation Green Moroccan agricultural strategy launched in 2020 which was hailed by the European Commission in its new strategy for the southern zone, especially for its contribution to the sustainability of the agri-food sector, continued to be a priority shared by all.

Source: agroinformacion.com

Visit link:
"Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports to the European Union market only account for 2% of the market" - FreshPlaza.com

A meeting of the European Unions leaders last week fell short of expectations. The summit, which focused on relations with Russia and Turkey, ultimately yielded a result that unsettled Moscow and did not satisfy Ankara.

The German-French proposal to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin was rejected. Furthermore, the leaders agreed on the need for a stronger response to Russias potential violations in the future and talked about fresh economic sanctions. The Russian government said that the EU had been taken hostage by an aggressive minority.

At the same time, a positive yet minor step was taken regarding Turkey, with which the EU leaders had committed to a "positive agenda" in December and March.

In their final communique, the Europeans conceded that developing their relations with Turkey was in the blocs strategic interest, yet did not go further than offering 3 billion euros ($3.58 billion, TL 31.39 billion) for Syrian refugees.

The high-level meetings on the customs unions modernization and pressing issues such as migration, health care, climate, counterterrorism and regional matters, have been spread over an extended period of time.

There was no mention of visa liberalization or the opening of new chapters in accession talks either.

Indeed, Turkeys Ministry of Foreign Affairs described that outcome as far from the necessary steps expected to be taken.

In a written statement on June 18, it welcomed the EUs acknowledgment of de-escalation, yet warned that it is clearly a delaying tactic, a lack of political will, and an abuse of membership advantages by certain EU states to postpone concrete decisions for the implementation of the positive agenda, including the modernization of the Customs Union. Refraining from making a reference to our candidate status in the text confirms this assessment.

The ministry also noted that degrading cooperation on migration to financial contributions alone was a mistake and stressed that the EUs remarks on Cyprus reflected the Greek and Greek Cypriot positions.

Some may find it satisfactory that a mildly positive agenda has replaced the threat of sanctions in EU-Turkey relations. There is the looming risk of a slowdown, however, due to the upcoming German and French elections. It remains unclear who will replace German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nor has French President Emmanuel Macrons fate been decided.

To make matters worse, the EU, which prioritizes consensus among its members, seems incapable of making bolder decisions pertaining to its own strategic interests.

Although U.S. President Joe Biden's administrations commitment to strengthening trans-Atlantic relations serves the EUs interests, managing the rise of China remains a challenging task. Washington has not even entirely lifted its pressure on Berlin over the Nord Stream 2.

The main problem is that the European Union cannot build a relationship with Russia and Turkey that serves its long-term interests. It cannot look beyond counterterrorism and migration.

The bloc, which has always found it difficult to set a common policy, now has to wait for elections in Germany and France. That Brussels, under the influence of some anti-Turkish states, took a minor step toward Ankara as an indirect stalling attempt, suggests that the future must be carefully managed.

Although the European summits unsatisfactory outcome was hardly surprising, both sides need to make an effort to maintain the positive atmosphere, which emerged in recent months.

Brussels delivered a weak response to Ankaras calls for a new chapter. The weakness of that response will add to the workload of diplomats in coming months, as they attempt to prevent fresh tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and between Turkey and Greece.

Indeed, the quest for cooperation is better than escalation.

Read the rest here:
Is the last EU summit surprising? | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah

These spool-shaped weights from Tiryns, in Bronze Age Greece, weighed about the same as their counterparts in other parts of Europe and the Middle East.

By Andrew CurryJun. 28, 2021 , 3:00 PM

Merchants of the Bronze Age faced the same problem as merchants from London to Lisbon today: how to know youre getting what you pay for in a transaction. It usually takes a ruling authority, like a king, pharaoh, or perhaps the European Union, to establish standard weights, which amount to a unit of value in the age before coins and bills.

A new study suggests merchants in Bronze Age Europe were an exception: Through informal networks, Mesopotamian merchants established a standardized system of weights that later spread across Europe, enabling trade across the continent. The advance effectively formed the first known common Eurasian market more than 3000 years ago.

This is quite a blow to the idea that elites or a central authority is running the show, says Leiden University archaeologist Maikel Kuijpers, who was not involved with the work. The [researchers] make a really good case.

Standard weightsused by merchants to trade goods of equivalent valuewere invented in Egypt or Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. By 3000 years ago, they had spread across Europe, where some graves included pouches or boxes containing bone balance beams, tweezers for picking up scraps of gold or silver, and stone weights.

For more than 100 years, historians have assumed that weight standards were handed down from on high, first created by a king or religious authority to collect taxes or tribute, then later adopted by merchants. The first artifacts to clearly be weights, for example, were found in the highly stratified civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. But Bronze Age Europe boasted few such states when weights proliferated.

To find out whether standardization without centralization was possible, Georg August University of Gttingen archaeologists Lorenz Rahmstorf and Nicola Ialongo spent nearly 10 years visiting museum collections and weighing stones and other objects they thought might have been used for commerce. They analyzed weights from previously excavated sites spanning nearly 3000 years in Europe, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia.

To their surprise, more than 2000 such objects crafted over the course of 2000 years and an area spanning nearly 5000 kilometers weighed nearly the same amountbetween 8 and 10.5 grams from Great Britain to Mesopotamia. Over the time spans involved, the consistency was remarkable, they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is like we were still using the Roman systems of measurement [today], with just some minor variations, Ialongo says.

In Mesopotamia, that unit was referred to as a shekel. Weight systems in Europe were only slightly different from weight systems in Anatolia, which were only slightly different than in Mesopotamia, Ialongo says.

The researchers suggest that in all these areas it was merchants who kept the weights standard, because it was in their interest to do so. Each time traders met, the archaeologists write, they would bring out their own scales and weights and compare themor introduce them to new traders. With enough time and contacts, a standard system emergedlaying the groundwork for the equivalent of an integrated market from Great Britain to Babylon. The weight units were regulated by the market, Ialongo says.

To test its model, the team came up with a unique experiment. Using replica Bronze Age bone balance scales, co-author and Gttingen archaeologist Raphael Hermann carved 100 weights out of stone. Each new weight was modeled randomly from the weights already produced: Weight two was based on weight one, but weight three could be modeled on either weight one or weight two, weight 10 could be modeled from any of the previous nine, and so on.

Human error, combined with the slight imprecision of the ancient balance, led to deviations up to 25 grams from the original 153-gram weight. But the drift tended to stay within 5%, still within a range that would have been acceptable in an ancient marketplace, Rahmstorf says. In a system where all the weights were copied from a central standard under palace supervision, the deviations would have been much smaller.

When the researchers plotted their own weights on a graph, the pattern matched the distribution of the ancient samples they had found.

The research helps explain how far-flung Bronze Age societies traded across long distances, says Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz archaeologist Christopher Pare, who was not involved in the research. Complex systems are perpetuated by convention and exchange, rather than a central authority. Its fascinating.

In a related study, published last month in the Journal of Archaeological Science, Ialongo and colleagues found nearly 3000 bronze fragments from the same time period in hoards in central Germany and Italy that were all multiples of the same 10-gram weight. That suggests people in both regions were using hacked-up bronze in standard amounts as an early form of currency, Ialongo says.

However, Pare and others caution that its tricky to apply modern economic concepts to the distant past. Pare notes that when 19th century archaeologists applied their concepts of how societies were organized to the question of weights, they concluded a king must be in charge. The idea of the market standardizing itself fits a little too well into our modern neoliberal discourse, he says. Should we really be using these terms to talk about societies which are so foreign to us?

Originally posted here:
These ancient weights helped create Europe's first free market more than 3000 years ago - Science Magazine

June 23, 2021

Click for PDF

Overshadowed in the media by the historic judgment of 3February 2021 by the Administrative Court of Paris in the Affaire du sicle (the Case of the century), a ruling by the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal (the Court) on 29January 2021 could also result in a historic ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU). Indeed, upon referral by the Court, the CJEU will be called upon to rule on the existence of a right to breathe clean air and on the liability incurred by the Member States of the European Union in the case of disregard of their obligations in terms of air quality (Case C-61/21).

I. Context of the ruling rendered by the Court

Under Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the Directive), Member States must establish zones and agglomerations throughout their territory in which air quality is assessed (Article4).

Article 13-1 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that levels of fine particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) do not exceed limit values set out in an annex.

Article 23-1 of the Directive provides that where these limit values are exceeded by levels of pollutants in ambient air, Member States must, in the given zone or agglomeration, adopt air quality plans. If the limit values are exceeded after the deadline for their application, the air quality plans provide for appropriate measures to ensure that the period of exceedance is as short as possible.

At the end of 2019, following an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that France had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles13(1) and 23(1) of the Directive with regards to NO2 for several French regions, including the Paris region (CJEU, 24October 2019, case C-636/18). On 30October 2020, the European Commission announced that it would bring a new action against France before the CJEU for failure to fulfil obligations , it being specified that the failures this time deal with the excessive level of PM10 in the air.

For its part, the Conseil dEtat (Council of State, France), the highest administrative court in France, had already ruled in 2017 that, given the persistence of observed exceedance of PM10 and NO2 concentrations in the air, the air quality plans for certain areas, including the Paris region, had to be considered insufficient with respect to the obligations and thresholds set by the Directive. The Conseil dEtat had then enjoined the State to take the necessary measures to bring PM10 and NO2 concentrations below the limit values (CE, 12 July 2017, No.394254). In a decision dated 10July 2020, the Conseil dEtat considered that the French State had not complied with the injunctions requested in the decision of 12July 2017, and imposed a 10million penalty on them if they did not justify having taken the required measures within six months of the decision (CE, ass., 10July 2020, No.428409). In light of the publicly available information, the Conseil dEtat should soon rule on whether the French State has finally fulfilled its obligations.

It is in this context that the Court, sitting in plenary session, was called upon to rule on the action for damages brought by an applicant, resident of the Paris region, who attributed his various allergies to air pollution. The applicant considered that the deterioration of the air quality resulted in particular from the disregard by the French authorities of the obligations set by Articles13(1) and 23(1) of the Directive.

II. Reasoning steps followed by the Court

It has been consistently held that the principle of State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of [Community] law for which it can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] (CJEU, 5March 1996, cases C-46/93 and C-48/93).

The CJEU also recalls that a right to reparation is recognized by European law if the following three conditions are met:

In the present case, since it was seized of a claim for damages based on the breach of the Directive, i.e. of a norm of European law, the Court had to verify whether the three conditions mentioned above were met.

In order to determine whether the first condition had been met, the Court had first to decide whether Articles13(1) and 23(1) of the Directive, which the applicant claimed had been disregarded, gave him a right. In other words, the Court had to determine whether these Articles conferred a right to breathe clean air eligible of giving rise to a compensation claim.

As early as 2014, the CJEU had indicated that Articles13(1) and 23(1) allowed persons directly concerned by the limit value being exceeded to obtain, before the national authorities and courts, the establishment of an air quality plan in accordance with the requirements of Article 23 (CJEU, 19November 2014, case C-404/13). It is, moreover, this right that was implemented by the Conseil dEtat in the 2017 and 2020 decisions outlined above.

The Court probably considered that the right thus available to individuals to compel Member States to implement the obligations laid down by the Directive did not necessarily imply the recognition for their benefit of a right to breathe clean air, the disregard of which is likely to give rise to an action for damages.

Since the answer was uncertain and the issue was related to the scope of a European norm, the Court chose to refer two questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on Articles13(1) and 23(1) of the Directive in order to obtain the appropriate interpretation of these Articles.

The first question is relative to whether Articles13(1) and 23(1) of the Directive give individuals, in the event of a sufficiently serious breach by a Member State of the European Union of the obligations arising therefrom, a right to obtain from the Member State in question, compensation for damage to their health which has a direct and certain causal link with the deterioration of air quality.

If the answer to the first question is affirmative, the Court then asked the CJEU to specify the conditions for the opening of this right, in particular with regards to the date on which the existence of the breach attributable to the Member State in question must be assessed.

III. Possible consequences of the Courts ruling

If the CJEU were to answer the first of the questions asked by the Court in the affirmative, it would then be for the Court to determine whether the other two conditions for the French States liability to be characterized are met.

Insofar as France has already been subject of a breach judgment for failure to comply with its obligations with respect to NO2 (CJEU, 24 October 2019, cited above), the condition relating to the sufficiently serious breach of a right conferred on individuals does not seem to pose any particular difficulty.

It will then be up to the Court to assess whether there is a direct causal link between the violation and the damage claimed by the applicant, it being specified that this demonstration will depend on the answer given by the CJEU to the second question, namely from what date the existence of the violation attributable to the Member State in question must be assessed, and will probably require recourse to a medical expert opinion.

The recognition of a right to breathe clean air likely to be subject of an action for compensation would very probably constitute a strong constraint weighing on the Member States of the European Union. In this respect, it should be emphasized that France is far from being the only country in the European Union to have been condemned for failure to comply with the obligations set out in Articles 13(1) and 23 of the Directive: Italy has been condemned for systematic and persistent exceeding of the PM 10 limit values (CJEU, 10 November 2020, case C-644/18), the United Kingdom and Germany have been condemned in the same way, but for N02 (CJEU, 4 March 2021, case C-664/18 and CJEU, 3 June 2021, case C-635/18). The question of a possible compensation claim based on the disregard of the right to breathe clean air could thus have a repercussion in all of the European Union States.

The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this client update: Nicolas Autet and Grgory Marson.

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, the authors, or any of the following lawyers in Paris by phone (+33 1 56 43 13 00) or by email:

Nicolas Autet(nautet@gibsondunn.com)Grgory Marson(gmarson@gibsondunn.com)Nicolas Baverez (nbaverez@gibsondunn.com)Mawenn Bas(mbeas@gibsondunn.com)

2021 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 here:
The Right to Breathe Clean Air: The European Judge Is Called Upon to Give a Decisive Ruling - Gibson Dunn

28 June 2021

Rahman Ravelli Solicitors

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The European Union's fraud chief has warned that its800 billion pandemic recovery fund is at risk of abusebecause some countries will not join an EU-wide database oftransactions. Ville Itala, director general of the EuropeanCommission agency Olaf, said the stance taken by some EU statescould lead to a lack of central supervision, making it difficult tomonitor the way the money is used.

He said: "It is a huge amount of money, prevention isimportant. We see that it is a great risk, that's for sure.Because we don't have the same possibilities of following theflows of money and information and finding the final beneficiaries."

This month has seen the European Commission begin its loanprogramme, which is aimed at raising EU funds for the nextgeneration with the issuance of 20 billion of debt. This isseen as a first step towards spending the total of 800billion to help revitalise pandemic-ravaged economies. The use ofthe recovery fund is clearly going to require close monitoring inorder to prevent potential misuse of EU funds. But this isdefinitely going to be made more difficult if all member states arenot using the same database. However, requirements for individualstates to set up their own internal systems to record the use anddestination of recovery funds could well tackle some of therisk.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Criminal Law from European Union

More:
There Are Fears That The EU's COVID-19 Recovery Fund Could Be Targeted By Those Looking To Make Fraudulent Gains - Criminal Law - European Union -...