Mediaboss Marketing

On the decision of General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of European Commission to coordinate aid scheme for renewable energy projects

AB Ignitis grup (hereinafter the Company) informs that on 14 April 2021 General Court of the European Union adopted a decision to annul the decision of European Commission to coordinate aid scheme for renewable energy projects implemented by the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter the Scheme).

Currently, the Companys subsidiaries UAB Vjo vatas, UAB Vjo gsis and UAB Eurakras are receiving feed-in tariffs according to the provisions of the Scheme.

Based on current market practice, after the General Court of the European Union annuls the coordinated Scheme, an in-depth investigation will be potentially launched in respect of the utilisation of the Scheme (hereinafter the Investigation), which may take several years. The Company notes that the decision to annul the decision of the European Commission to coordinate the Scheme does not constitute a negative decision on the utilisation of the Scheme in the Republic of Lithuania.

The Company is not a party of the Investigation which will be potentially launched, therefore, the Company will announce publicly about the progress of the Investigation only if the information disclosed publicly during investigation that is accessible by the Company is relevant to investors.

Based on the information currently available to the Company, the ongoing processes in respect of annulling the Scheme should not have significant effect on the financial results of the Group companies.

For more information please contact:

Artras KetleriusHead of Public Relations at Ignitis Grouparturas.ketlerius@ignitis.lt+370 620 76076

Read this article:
On the decision of General Court of the European Union - GlobeNewswire

BRUSSELS A yearlong ban on all but the most essential travel from the United States to the European Union may be lifted soon, just in time for summer vacation.

In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she would put forward a policy proposal for the unions 27 member states to accept visitors who have received E.U.-approved vaccines, paving the way for a reopening of travel.

The Americans, as far as I can see, use European Medicines Agency-approved vaccines, Ms. von der Leyen said. This will enable free movement and the travel to the European Union.

But many questions remain. Here is what to know.

While Ms. von der Leyens comments signaled a major shift from the current policy, the details of exactly how and when the restart of travel would begin are still being worked out.

In her initial comments, Ms. von der Leyen did not offer a timeline or offer details on how tourism would be enabled. But her public comments suggest that the European Commission will officially recommend the change in travel policy soon.

When asked about the shift during a Monday briefing, Eric Mamer, the commissions spokesman, said that there were still unanswered questions.

It is clear this is a policy direction. Many factual questions will need to be answered, but its important to set the horizon toward an objective, he said.

Countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal and Croatia, where tourism is the lifeblood of the economy and millions of American tourists normally visit each summer, are likely to jump at the opportunity to reopen.

Greece has already made such a move, declaring last week it would begin welcoming tourists from the United States with a negative coronavirus test or a vaccination certificate, starting Monday.

Individual member states may also reserve the right to keep stricter limits in place. Some might not permit citizens from outside the bloc to visit at all or could choose to enforce restrictions like quarantines.

When Brussels might change the policy guidelines for the bloc as a whole remains unclear and will depend not only on the pace of vaccinations in Europe and America but the broader pandemic situation.

Ms. von der Leyens comments made it clear that the eligibility of visitors from the United States would be linked to the use of approved vaccines and the virus situation in the country, so the assumption is that some form of a so-called vaccine passport could be used.

May 5, 2021, 11:26 a.m. ET

The practicality of issuing vaccine certificates that are broadly readable in each nation in the bloc, and launching the technology to do that, could pose a challenge.

U.S. and E.U. officials have already spent weeks in discussions on how exactly the program would work, both technically and logistically, and those discussions are continuing, officials in Brussels said.

But in the interim, it is possible that a low-tech solution could be used before a broader program is launched to enable people to travel freely on the basis of vaccination. For example, an adult traveler to Europe could get an equivalent to an E.U. vaccine certificate on arrival, after showing a bona fide certificate issued by his or her own government.

The hope, officials said, is that this step would soon be unnecessary as vaccine certificates issued by foreign governments would be acceptable and readable in the European Union, and vice versa.

Questions have already begun about whether children traveling to the bloc would need to be vaccinated. Children in the United States and Europe are not currently being vaccinated for the coronavirus.

Since E.U. authorities would likely try to write any travel policy in a way that was reciprocal, it seems unlikely children traveling into Europe would have to provide proof of vaccination.

So far, the blocs leaders have only weighed in publicly on the conditions for travelers from the United States, and have not mentioned any other countries that could benefit from such a reopening.

The European Commission, responding to questions about the interview Monday during a news briefing, did say that a mutual agreement on how to recognize vaccine certificates, the use of vaccines approved by the European Medicines Agency and a positive virus situation in both the European Union and the country of interest would be required to take that step.

It also said that it was not yet engaged in discussions with the British authorities about a similar arrangement.

No. While the European Union has already taken tentative steps toward rolling out a Digital Green Certificate to enable safe travel within the bloc for European residents, the use of such a system is still months away.

The European Commission issued recommendations on the measures last month, in an attempt to standardize the documentation needed by travelers within the E.U. So far, travelers have been asked to provide various documents including medical certificates, test results, and declarations ahead of travel, making it hard to move around within the bloc.

The proposed certificate would provide digital proof that a person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus, has received a negative test result, or has recovered from the virus.

The initiative came after a push by tourism-dependent members of the European Union to salvage the summer travel season.

Matina Stevis-Gridneff reported from Brussels and Megan Specia from London.

Visit link:
The E.U. May Reopen to Vaccinated American Tourists. Here's What to Know. - The New York Times

Raf Casert| Associated Press

BRUSSELS A new European Union study finds that the two decade-old legislation on genetically modified organisms should be revamped, a process environmentalists claim will open the door to a new generation of bioengineered crops being allowed into the EU market without proper checks.

The study is a first step by the 27-nation EU to assess the latest technologies in crop production, and the European Commission said it found that the current 2001 GMO legislation is not for purpose to address many issues in the future.

GMOs have divided the EU for a generation, pitting those claiming that new sorts of Frankenfood would irreversibly damage health and nature against those who said that revolutionary techniques were the only way to feed an ever-growing global population.

The current legislation had given environmentalists the assurance that the European Union wouldn't become a free-for-all for agro multinationals to produce GMOs in bulk and sell them to the bloc's 450 million citizens without detailed labeling and warnings.

Based on the new evidence, EU food safety chief Stella Kyriakides said that New genomic techniques can promote the sustainability of agricultural production.

Still, the European Commission said the study also highlighted concerns over the safety and environmental impact on biodiversity, and problems with the traceability of such products, especially when it comes to coexistence with traditional farms.

Kyriakides insisted that any business considerations should come second to consumer safety and the environment.

Still, just suggesting that the current legislation should be revamped had environmental nongovernmental organizations up in arms.

The European Commission has fallen hook, line and sinker for the biotech industrys spin, and has set the future of food and farming in the EU down a dark path," said Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe, reflecting the views of many environmentalists.

She said that the study was suggesting tearing up decades of the precautionary principle, by allowing new GM crops onto our fields and plates without safety tests.

EU officials were insisting though that the study was the first step in a long legislative process that needed to get approval from the bloc's member states and the European Parliament where big changes could be made.

Read more from the original source:
European Union study finds that GMO laws need overhaul - Farm Forum

May 5, 2021, 11:07 AM

The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (CTA) isnt like most trade deals. As the EUs lead negotiator Michel Barnier noted recently, This is a divorce, not a union. Perhaps its fitting, then, that the European Parliament vote on ratification comes amid new threats of retaliation from Europe and lingering questions over the future of economic cooperation in the continent.

The underappreciated value of trade deals isnt that they promote trade. Its that they aim to promote market stability. Trade deals are designed to harmonize economic policies and prevent the introduction of new trade barriers among the members. The upshot is that a more stable policy environment should lead to smoother, more predictable trade.

The five years since the Brexit referendum show what happens when the rules break down and uncertainty reigns. When the referendum cast doubt over the future of economic cooperation, the impact on British traders was immediate and significant, leading to a sharp drop in exports from the United Kingdom in 2016. Over the subsequent five years, firms struggled to adapt. In turn, there was much more volatility in British trade relations than in recent decades, marked by shorter, sharper fluctuations in trade flows. More recently, UK exports to the EU were down markedly in the first months of 2021and not simply because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the costs already incurred, CTA ratification may bring welcome relief to the firmsand the workershurt by the last half-decade of uncertainty.

The deal does contain some good news. One of its most important features is a commitment to keeping trade in goods tariff- and quota-free. Maintaining the free movement of goods wasnt inevitable. If a deal had not been reached last winter, the United Kingdom would likely have traded with the EU under World Trade Organizations rules that apply to other partners like the United States and China. That would have meant higher tariffs as well as lengthier delays negotiating specific commitments. CTA ratification evades those two traps.

However, its important to remember that tariffs are only one of the many ways in which government protect their markets. There are a litany of other trade-related policies over which the EU and United Kingdom still disagree.

Take sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. SPS is a fancy name for health and safety regulations pertaining to animal and plant products, such as the EUs (in)famous limits on GMOs. SPS is a complex area of trade law that comes under frequent debate among countries at the World Trade Organization. The EU and United Kingdom will now maintain their own SPS standards, which is a small political victory for British officials who wanted greater autonomy. In the UKs view, independent standards could provide greater leeway when negotiating future deals, particularly with the United States, which has longstanding disagreements with the EUs SPS regime.

Yet maintaining two SPS regimes also means additional bureaucratic headaches for agricultural firms. The president of the United Kingdoms National Farmers Union noted that new checks, paperwork, and requirements on traders will add costs and complexity to doing business across the Channel. And, in the first months of 2021, there have already been supply chain delays as businesses try to navigate the new regulatory environment relating to a products origin and other technical barriers.

Then there is the much-discussed level playing field. The EU originally wanted firm commitments on competition policies like government procurement rules and labor regulations. This includes policies like subsidies, which are controversial because subsidies are often viewed as trade-distorting, providing an unfair competitive advantage to the firms who receive them. While there is some agreement on subsidies, the deal also includes flexibility for the United Kingdom to make its own determinations. This has already led to disagreement and raised questions over enforcement of the rules moving forward.

The disagreements over SPS and subsidies are just two examples. Doubts also surround fishing rights allocated to EU members, the movement of labor within the region, access to financial services, and the rules governing Northern Ireland trade, just to name a few.

In all these areas, the EUs preference for policy harmony continues to conflict with the United Kingdoms demand for autonomyhence last weeks tough talk. Most notably, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyens warned that the EU will not hesitate to use retaliatory measures if the British fail to honor their end of the deal. Those sentiments were echoed by some member countries, including France, that threaten reprisals over fair market access. Its clear that the process is far from over.

None of this is to say that the old trade rules were perfect. There is a growing consensus that global trade rules need updatingif not a full-scale overhaul. At the same time, doubts about the enforceability of many CTA provisions are nothing new. Enforcement problems are endemic to most areas of international law, including trade. Just ask the EU and the United Kingdom, which have both faced their fair share of trade litigation to iron out disagreements over the rules.

Long, costly disagreements are precisely what most trade deals aim to avoid. However, given current tensions, there may be many more disputes before we see the greater stability.

Read the rest here:
The New Agreement Between the United Kingdom and the European Union May Deepen Instability - Foreign Policy

The EU has accused Russia of seeking confrontation after the Kremlin sanctioned senior officials in Brussels and the president of the European parliament in a retaliatory move.

In a joint statement by Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel and David Sassoli, the heads of the European commission, council and parliament said Moscows action on Friday had been groundless.

The three leaders of the EU institutions said the 27-member-state bloc was now prepared to take further action against Russia in the latest phase of a steady deterioration of relations in recent months. The EUs response to the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny has until now been widely criticised for its lack of bite.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms todays decision of the Russian authorities to ban eight European Union nationals from entering the Russian territory, the EU leaders said in a statement. This action is unacceptable, lacks any legal justification and is entirely groundless. It targets the European Union directly, not only the individuals concerned.

This decision is the latest, striking demonstration of how the Russian Federation has chosen confrontation with the EU instead of agreeing to redress the negative trajectory of our bilateral relations. The EU reserves the right to take appropriate measures in response to the Russian authorities decision.

The EU response followed an announcement by the Kremlin that eight senior figures in the blocs institutions had been put on a travel blacklist preventing them from travelling to Russia in retaliation for EU sanctions over Navalnys imprisonment.

The Russian foreign ministry claimed the EU had been seeking to punish Moscow for its independent foreign and domestic policies, citing EU sanctions imposed on six Russian officials in March over Navalnys imprisonment.

All our proposals for settling problems between Russia and the EU through a direct professional dialogue have been consistently ignored or rejected, the Russian ministry said.

Vra Jourov, the EU commissioner for values and transparency, who is from the Czech Republic, said she was pleased to be in such good company, referring to the other officials prohibited from entering Russia.

I will continue to stand up for human rights, for media freedom and for democracy, she said. Russias constant efforts to sow disinformation and to undermine human rights deserve strong and continuous reaction. If this is the price for telling the truth, then I will gladly pay it.

See the original post:
EU condemns groundless Russian sanctions against its officials - The Guardian