Mediaboss Marketing

During her visit to Beirut today, European Commission President Ursulavon der Leyen, accompanied by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Nikos Christodoulides, discussed the significant domestic and regional challenges faced by Lebanon, and how best the EU could support the country and its people.

She announced that the EU will provide afinancial assistance package for Lebanon worth 1 billion for 2024 to 2027.

This continued EU support will strengthen basic services such as education, social protection and health for the people in Lebanon. It will accompany urgent economic, financial and banking reforms. Furthermore, support will be provided to the Lebanese Armed Forces and other security forces with equipment and training for border management and to fight against smuggling.

Presidentvon der Leyensaid: My visit today is a strong testimony of the EU's continued support to Lebanon and its people. This was also the clear message of European leaders at our last summit, and are committed to provide strong financial support to the country in view of the significant challenges it faces. The 1 billion until 2027 will provide much needed assistance to the people in Lebanon and contribute to its security and stability.

Background

The visit of President von der Leyen to Lebanon follows the special meeting of the European Council on 17-18 April, where the Council confirmed the EU's determination to support the most vulnerable people in Lebanon, including refugees, internally displaced persons and host communities, as well as strengthening support to Lebanese Armed Forces, combating human trafficking and smuggling. The European Council also reaffirmed the need to achieve conditions for safe, voluntary, and dignified returns of Syrian refugees, as defined by UNHCR.

The EU's support will focus on:

Since 2011, the EU support to Lebanon amounts to more than 3 billion, including 2.6 billion to support Syrian refugees as well as host communities in Lebanon.

For more information

European Council Conclusionsof 17-18 April 2024

Factsheet_EU-Lebanon cooperation

EU-Lebanon cooperation

My visit today is a strong testimony of the EUs continued support to Lebanon and its people. This was also the clear message of European leaders at our last summit, and are committed to provide strong financial support to the country in view of the significant challenges it faces. The 1 billion until 2027 will provide much needed assistance to the people in Lebanon and contribute to its security and stability.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

Read the original post:
President von der Leyen reaffirms EU's strong support for Lebanon and its people and announces a 1 billion package ... - European Union

In the first quarter of 2024, seasonally adjusted GDP increased by 0.3% in both the euro area and the EU, compared with the previous quarter, according to a preliminary flash estimate published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. In the fourth quarter of 2023, GDP had declined by 0.1% in the euro area and had remained stable in the EU.

These preliminary GDP flash estimates are based on data sources that are incomplete and subject to further revisions.

Compared with the same quarter of the previous year, seasonally adjusted GDP increased by 0.4% in the euro area and by 0.5% in the EU in the first quarter of 2024, after +0.1% in the euro area and +0.2% in the EU in the previous quarter.

Among the Member States for which data are available for the first quarter of 2024, Ireland (+1.1%) recorded the highest increase compared to the previous quarter, followed by Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary (all +0.8%). Sweden (-0.1%) was the only Member State that recorded a decrease compared to the previous quarter. The year on year growth rates were positive for nine countries and negative for four.

The next estimates for the first quarter of 2024 will be released on 15 May 2024.

The reliability of GDP flash estimates was tested by dedicated working groups and revisions of subsequent estimates are continuously monitored. Further information can be found on Eurostat website.

With this preliminary flash estimate, euro area and EU GDP figures for earlier quarters are not revised.

All figures presented in this release may be revised with the GDP t+45 flash estimate scheduled for 15 May 2024 and subsequently by Eurostats regular estimates of GDP and main aggregates (including employment) scheduled for 7 June 2024 and 19 July 2024.

The preliminary flash estimate of the first quarter of 2024 GDP growth presented in this release is based on the data of 18 Member States, covering 95% of euro area GDP and 94% of EU GDP.

Comprehensive estimates of European main aggregates (including GDP and employment) are based on countries regular transmissions and published around 65 and 110 days after the end of each quarter. To improve the timeliness of key indicators, Eurostat also publishes flash estimates for GDP (after around 30 and 45 days) and employment (after around 45 days). Their compilation is based on estimates provided by EU Member States on a voluntary basis.

This news release presents preliminary flash estimates for euro area and EU after around 30 days.

European quarterly national accounts are compiled in accordance with the European System of Accounts 2010 (ESA 2010).

Gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices measures the production activity of resident production units. Growth rates are based on chain-linked volumes.

Two statistical working papers present the preliminary GDP flash methodology for the European estimates and Member States estimates.

The method used for compilation of European GDP is the same as for previous releases.

Euro area (EA20): Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland.

European Union (EU27): Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.

Excerpt from:
GDP up by 0.3% in both the euro area and the EU - European Commission

Contrary to the current European Union reform debate, it is possible to have the enlargement process and deeper EU integration run parallel, former European Commission president Jos Manuel Barroso told Euractiv.

A very important lesson learned from then is that its possible to enlarge and deepen [the EU] at the same time, Barroso said. There were always those who said, more enlargement means less deepening this is completely false.

Under Barrosos two Commissions, the EU first increased from 15 to 25 members when ten countriesCyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Sloveniajoined in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania followed in 2008, and Croatia in 2013.

It was a historic, unprecedented success of the EU, showing also the transformative capacity of the bloc, Barroso said, adding Europe should not lose the perspective of what happened back then.

Over the years, Barroso said the EU has made more progress in deeper integration, especially with debt mutualisation under the NextGenerationEU fund and a higher level of convergence between 27 member states in UN votes than at 12 members.

When asked about lessons learned from two decades of enlargement, Barroso said they would be to avoid grey zones of instability in the EUs neighbourhood and not to lose the standards of the EU.

Despite issues with the rule of law in some of the newer EU member states, Barroso said, They are now much better off than before joining the European Union, namely when they were under Communist rule.

I thought it was a huge mistake when, after my second Commission term in 2014, it was said there would be no more enlargement in the next five years, Barroso said.

It was creating disappointment, frustration and even resentment and it was ignoring the sensitivity of those countries and those people, he said.

Asked about European Council President Charles Michels 2030 target, Barroso does not favour definitive dates as it could create disappointment.

But its especially important now, namely because of Ukraine, how to deal with time because the reality is that its not realistic to have a country in the EU that is in a state of war, Barroso said.

Barroso echoed calls from the current European Commission and some EU member states for the gradual integration of candidate countries by letting them participate in some of the blocs meetings, programmes and institutional structures.

Precisely because its going to be difficult and probably long, we need to start earlier [to integrate them] as weve done before, he added.

In Brussels, the question of when the bloc is ready for new members goes hand in hand with how it will function when it expands from 27 to potentially over 30 members.

Asked whether the blocs treaties can handle 36 members or if it would require another treaty change, Barroso said it would be a huge mistake if now Europeans would start a fundamental revision of the [EU] institutions because of the enlargement.

Im not saying this to defend the Lisbon Treaty, which I negotiated, but because it requires unanimity to change a treaty, and if we start introducing other issues [like enlargement] in the process, the pretexts for opposing it are going to increase, Barroso said.

There will be people who want to block enlargement, so they will use institutional arguments, and there will be people who want to block institutional reform, so they will use enlargementwe should not mix the problems, he added.

Instead, the bloc should avoid too ambitious reforms and only make those strictly necessary for enlargement.

I was president of a Commission with 28 members and all studies, all opinions, showed that our Commission was taking decisions more effectively and quicker than the previous smaller Commissions, Barroso said.

Asked about the current debate on the potential cost of enlargement as an argument against it, Barroso said, The alternative will certainly cost more than to invest in enlargement.

Are we ready to pay for the instability of tomorrow, encouraged by the possible success of Russia in Ukraine? Does it cost less?

The issue of costs has to be seen strategically and not just in the short-term accounting manner, Barroso said, adding: Our conclusion [in 2004] was the advantages, not only political but also in economic terms, were higher than the costs.

He also called for reform of the EUs system of own resources. Instead of the current net payers and receivers system, the EU could have some own resources linked, for instance, to the VAT or member states paying according to benefits [they have] from the internal market.

According to him, the EU should really invest in the enlargement from all points of view.

Sometimes its not just about money its about attention, its about being present [in those countries], and its about giving advice and that requires something bigger and larger than what we have seen so far, Barroso said.

It cannot only be done by the DG and the respective Commissioner, with all due respect. It needs to involve the [European] societies as a whole.

In a reference to the current pro-EU protest in Georgia, where demonstrators rally against a foreign influence bill which could jeopardise the countrys path into the bloc, Barroso said:

We see people waving EU flags, [like they have done on the Maidan when I was in Ukraine]. What do we want more? How many people in current EU member states would do this at the moment?

This is why we need to deal with these aspirations in a way that is not just political or administrative and technical, he added.

Originally posted here:
Possible to enlarge and deepen EU at the same time, Barroso says - EURACTIV

The European Union is getting ready to launch a new investigation into Meta over its handling of election-related content, according to a new report in The Guardian. Details of the investigation could be announced later this week, but European officials are reportedly concerned about deceptive advertising and political content.

According to the Financial Times, the EU has also raised concerns about Russias efforts to undermine upcoming European elections and other foreign interference campaigns. The EU is set to hold parliamentary elections in June. If the company is found to have run afoul of the Europes Digital Services Act, it could be hit with large fines.

EU officials are also particularly concerned about Metas plan to shut down CrowdTangle in August. The tool has been widely used by researchers and fact checkers for years to study how content spreads across Facebook and Instagram. Dozens of researchers and fact-checking groups signed an open letter to the company last month saying that shutting down the tool ahead of dozens of global elections would be a direct threat to election integrity efforts around the world.

We have a well-established process for identifying and mitigating risks on our platforms, a Meta spokesperson told Engadget in a statement. We look forward to continuing our cooperation with the European Commission and providing them with further details of this work.

Elsewhere, the EU is also investigating Meta over its ad-free subscription plan available to European users. That investigation, which could last up to a year, will look into whether the social media company has violated Europes Digital Markets Act, by not offering users a real alternative to opt out of data collection.

Originally posted here:
The European Union will reportedly open a new investigation into Meta over election policies - Engadget

May 2, 2024

Click for PDF

The Directive extends the list of criminal offenses to the environment on EU level. EU Member States have two years to transpose the directive into national law after the its entry into force on May 20, 2024.

On April 30, 2024, the European Union (the EU) published directive 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (the Directive) in its official journal.[1] The Directive was adopted by the European Parliament (the Parliament) on February27, 2024[2] and by the European Council (the Council) on March26, 2024[3].

The goal of the Directive is to combat environmental offenses more effectively. To this end, it introduces (i) new environment-related criminal offenses, (ii) detailed requirements regarding sanctioning levels for both natural and legal persons and (iii) a variety of measures that Member States must take in order to either prevent or effectively prosecute offenses.

The Directive will come into force on May20, 2024[4], after which the Member States (with the exception of Ireland and Denmark[5]) will have 24 months to transpose it into national law.[6] Importantly, the Directive by its nature only establishes minimum requirements. Member States may choose to go beyond those minimum requirements and adopt stricter criminal laws when implementing the Directive.

A. Background

In its founding treaties, the EU has committed itself to ensuring a high level of protection of the environment.[7] To this end, in 2008, the EU adopted the Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, obligating Member States to criminalize certain environmentally harmful activities. A subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Directive identified considerable enforcement gaps in all Member States. Further, it concluded that the number of cross-border investigations and convictions in the EU for environmental crime had not grown substantially as expected.[8] Since environmental crime is growing at annual rates of 5% to 7% globally[9], creating lasting damage for habitats, species, peoples health, and the revenues of governments and businesses, the European Commission concluded the current directive to be insufficient and proposed a new directive.

The Directive should be seen in the context of other recent EU regulations that have already been passed or are still in the legislative process, which aim at protecting the environment in the context of the EUs transition to a climate-neutral and green economy (Green Deal[10]). For example, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which has come into force on January5, 2023, requires certain companies to report on impacts as well as risk and opportunities related to sustainability matters.[11] On April24, 2024, after lengthy negotiations and several postponements, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) which sets out due diligence obligations for companies regarding actual and potential adverse impacts on the environment and human rights in their value chains was finally passed by the Parliament.[12]

B. Environmental Crime Defined

The Directive provides for 20 basic criminal offenses addressing various ways of conduct.[13] Conduct in this respect relates, for example, to

Unlawful Conduct Conduct in Breach of the Unions Policy on the Environment

The offenses defined by the Directive require unlawful conduct, i.e. either (1) a breach of Union law contributing to the pursuit of at least one of the objectives of the Unions policy on the environment or (2) a law, regulation or administrative provision of a Member State or a decision taken by a competent authority of a Member State that gives effect to such Union law.[21] Pursuant to Article191 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:

Importantly, the Directive makes clear that conduct shall be deemed unlawful even when it is carried out under an authorization if such authorization was obtained fraudulently or by corruption, extortion or coercion, or is in manifest breach of relevant substantive requirements.[22] The recitals suggest that in manifest breach of relevant substantive legal requirements should be interpreted as referring to an obvious and substantial breach of relevant substantive legal requirements, and is not intended to include breaches of procedural requirements or minor elements of the authorization.[23]

Common constituent element

The majority of the offenses described by the Directive require that the conduct causes or is likely to cause the death of, or serious injury to, any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, soil or water, or substantial damage to an ecosystem, animals or plants[24]. While the Directive provides for elements that should be taken into account when assessing whether the damage to the quality of air, soil or water, or to an ecosystem or to animals or plants is substantial[25], the recitals stipulate that this qualitative threshold as well as the term ecosystem should be generally understood in a broad sense suggesting a possibly wide scope of application.[26]

Qualified Offenses

The Directive introduces qualified offenses with more severe penalties consisting of (a) the destruction of, or widespread and systematic damage, which is either irreversible or long-lasting to, an ecosystem of considerable size or environmental value or a habitat within a protected site, or (b) widespread and substantial damage which is either irreversible or long lasting to the quality of air, soil, or water.[27] In its recitals, the EU describes such offenses as comparable to Ecocide.[28] The term ecocide was originally coined in the 1970s during the Vietnam war and was eventually recognized as a war crime under the Rome Statute[29].[30] The language of the Directive further resembles the definition of crimes against humanity.[31]

Intentional or Serious Negligence Required

As a general rule, the offenses set out by the Directive require that the conduct is intentional.[32] For 18 modalities, Member States must ensure that the respective conduct constitutes a criminal offense where that conduct is carried out with at least serious negligence.[33]

Complicity and Inchoate Offending

Pursuant to the Directive, Member States must ensure that inciting, and aiding and abetting the commission of an intentionally committed offense are punishable.[34] For 16 modalities of conduct, the Directive instructs that attempts be a crime.[35]

Penalties

Criminal penalties for individuals must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.[36] The Directive stipulates that these must include maximum terms of imprisonment of at least ten, eight, five, or three years depending on the specific offense.[37] Accessory criminal or non-criminal penalties or measures may include the (a) obligation to restore the environment or pay compensation for the damage to the environment; (b) fines; (c) exclusion from access to public funding; (d) disqualification from holding, within a legal person, a leading position of the same type used for committing the offense; (e) withdrawal of permits and authorizations; (f) temporary bans on running for public office; (g) where there is a public interest, following a case-by-case assessment, publication of all or part of the judicial decision that relates to the criminal offense committed and the sanctions or measures imposed.[38]

C. Corporate Liability

The Directive not only addresses individual misconduct, but also criminal offending on behalf of legal persons. In this respect, Member States must ensure that legal persons can be held liable for offenses conducted by any person who has a leading position within the legal person concerned, either based on a power of representation, an authority to take decisions, or an authority to exercise control within the legal person.[39] Liability must also include the lack of supervision or control by a person who has a leading position when it has made possible the commission of an offense for the benefit of the legal person by a person under its authority.[40]

In terms of sanctions, Member States must ensure that liable legal person can be punished by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal or non-criminal[41] penalties or measures.[42] This is supposed to include fines which shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and to the individual, financial and other circumstances of the legal person concerned.[43] Member States are to ensure that the maximum level of fines is, depending on the specific type of offending, not less than

Beyond that, the Directive obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that legal persons held liable for ecocide are punishable by more severe penalties or measures.[47]

Further measures or sanctions with respect to legal persons may include (a) the obligation to restore the environment or pay compensation for the damage to the environment; (b) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid; (c) exclusion from access to public funding, including tender procedures, grants, concessions and licenses; (d) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of business activities; (e) withdrawal of permits and authorizations to pursue activities that resulted in the relevant criminal offense; (f) placing under judicial supervision; (g) judicial winding-up; (h) closure of establishments used for committing the offense; (i) an obligation to establish due diligence schemes for enhancing compliance with environmental standards; and (j) where there is a public interest, publication of all or part of the judicial decision relating to the criminal offense committed and the penalties or measures imposed, without prejudice to rules on privacy and the protection of personal data.[48]

D. Jurisdiction

Member States have jurisdiction over an offense, (a) if the offense was committed either in part or in whole within its territory, (b) on board a ship or an aircraft registered in the Member State concerned or flying its flag, (c) the damage which is one of the constituent elements of the offense occurred on its territory or (d) the offender is one of its nationals.[49]

In particular the establishment of jurisdiction when the damage that is one of the constituent elements of the offense occurred on the territory of a EU Member State, may lead to a wide applicability of the Directive and may even lead to multiple prosecution and in return to a further enhancement of the cooperation between enforcement authorities in different states.[50] By way of example, if a national of a non-EU Member State disposed waste illegally in a river that runs through both a non-EU Member State and one or more EU Member States and the waste killed a substantial part of the fish population, the Member States jurisdiction could be triggered.

In addition, a Member State may exercise jurisdiction if (a) the offender is a habitual resident in its territory, (b) the offense is committed for the benefit of a legal person established in its territory, (c) the offense is committed against one of its nationals or its habitual residents or (d) the offense has created a severe risk for the environment on its territory.[51]

Where an offense falls in the jurisdiction of more than one Member State, those Member States are required to cooperate to determine which Member State shall conduct the criminal proceedings.[52]

E. Preventive and Other Measures

The Directive stipulates a variety of measures that Member States must take in order to either prevent or effectively prosecute offenses.

[1] See EU Official Journal April 30, 2024 and the legislative text.

[2] See Press Release of the Parliament (February 27, 2024).

[3] See Press Release of the Council (March 26, 2024).

[4] Pursuant to Article 29 the Directive will come into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

[5] Recitals 69, 70.

[6] Article 28 of the Directive.

[7] Art. 3 (3) of the Treaty on European Union and Art. 191 TFEU.

[8] See the European Commissions Proposal for the Directive (COM (2021) 851 final), p. 1.

[9] See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5817.

[10] See Communication from the Commission on the European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final.

[11] See European Unions Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive What Non-EU Companies with Operations in the EU Need to Know and European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): Key Takeaways from Adoption of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards.

[12] See the Letter of the Chair of the JURI Committee of the European Parliament of March 15, 2024..

[13] Article 3(2) of the Directive.

[14] Recital 15.

[15] Article 3(2)(a) of the Directive.

[16] Article 3(2)(b) of the Directive.

[17] Article 3(2)(c) of the Directive.

[18] Article 3(2)(f) of the Directive.

[19] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115.

[20] Article 3(2)(p) of the Directive.

[21] Article 3(1) of the Directive.

[22] Article 3(1) of the Directive.

[23] Recital 10.

[24] See e.g. Article 3(2)(a) of the Directive.

[25] Article 3(6) of the Directive.

[26] Recital 13.

[27] Article 3(3) of the Directive.

[28] Recital 21.

[29] Rome Statute, article 8(2)(b)(iv);

[30] European Law Institute Ecocide.

[31] Rome Statute, article 7(1).

[32] Article 3(2) of the Directive.

[33] Article 3(4) of the Directive.

[34] Article 4(1) of the Directive.

[35] Article 4(2) of the Directive.

[36] Article 5(1) of the Directive.

[37] Article 5(2) of the Directive.

[38] Article 5(3) of the Directive.

[39] Article 6(1) of the Directive.

[40] Article 6(2) of the Directive.

[41] Depending on whether the Member States national law provides for the criminal liability of legal persons; see recital 33.

[42] Article 7(1) of the Directive.

[43] Article 7(2), (3) of the Directive.

[44] Either in the business year preceding that in which the offense was committed, or in the business year preceding that of the decision to impose the fine.

[45] Article 7(3)(a) of the Directive.

[46] Article 7(3)(b) of the Directive.

[47] Article 7(4) of the Directive.

[48] Article 7(2) of the Directive.

[49] Article 12(1) of the Directive.

[50] Regarding the application of the double jeopardy-/ne bis in idem-principle between multiple jurisdictions, see also Extraterritorial Impact of New UK Corporate Criminal Liability Laws.

[51] Article 12(2) of the Directive.

[52] Article 12(2) of the Directive.

[53] Article 10 of the Directive.

[54] Article 13 of the Directive.

[55] Article 16 of the Directive.

[56] Article 17 of the Directive.

[57] Article 18 of the Directive.

[58] Articles 19, 20 of the Directive.

[59] The intervals should be no longer than 5 years.

[60] Article 21 of the Directive.

[61] Article 22 of the Directive.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this client alert: Benno Schwarz, Katharina Humphrey, Andreas Drr, and Julian Reichert.

Gibson Dunns lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. If you wish to discuss any of the matters set out above, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of Gibson Dunns White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group, or the following authors in Munich.

Read the rest here:
EU Enhances Protection of the Environment Through Criminal Law - Gibson Dunn