Mediaboss Marketing

The European Unions General Court on Wednesday rejected a Russian state-sponsored broadcasters appeal of a temporary ban from EU airwaves in light of a Russian propaganda campaign seeking to justify the countrys invasion of Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union, one of the legislative bodies of the European Parliament, adopted measures in March, shortly after the invasion began, to prohibit certain media outlets from broadcasting within or to the EU until July 31, according to the ruling.

The council argued that Russia has targeted civil society in the EU and neighboring countries by grievously distorting and manipulating the facts of the conflict through certain media outlets under the direct or indirect control of the Russian government.

RT France, the French version of the state-run Russian channel RT, filed the appeal to remove the ban, but the court rejected its arguments.

The ruling states that the immediate implementation of a ban designed to limit the spread of propaganda in support of military aggression was necessary for the bans effectiveness. It also states that the council met conditions that the law has established for when freedom of expression can be limited.

The court found that the council cited concrete, precise and consistent evidence that RT France actively supported Russian aggression toward Ukraine before the invasion and justified it in the aftermath.

The ruling states that the measures the council has implemented do not infringe on RT Frances freedom to conduct a business because they are temporary and reversible.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the Russian government will take similar measures of pressure against Western news outlets operating in Russia, multiple outlets reported.

He said he hoped the channel could find loopholes to continue broadcasting.

Bloomberg reported that RT said it will appeal the ruling, which it said is an unprecedented and inadmissible attack on the principle of free expression.

See the rest here:
Judge tosses RTs appeal to overturn a European Union ban - The Hill

From Berlin and Paris to Brussels, Denmark and London to tour of Ghent and Bruges in Belgium, top officers of the City Beautiful crisscrossed Europe for a series of visits in 2015-2016. Even though the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines regulating foreign travel state that the size of the delegation and duration of the visit should be kept to the bare minimum, and participation of officials in international fairs/exhibitions/workshops and conferences should be discouraged, the then UT adviser Vijay Dev was given permission to lead at least four delegations to Europe in 2015.

These details emerged following a request filed under the Right to Information Act about foreign tours undertaken by UT officials by the father of this correspondent.

The travels started in February-end, when Vijay Dev led a delegation comprising the then Home Secretary-cum-Secretary Tourism Anurag Agarwal, and director, tourism, Kavita Singh, to take part in ITB Berlin, an annual tourism trade fair, from March 4 to 8. Even though the four-day event was from March 4, the official trip lasted 10 days from February 28 to March 9, 2015.

Expenditure details from the office of Director Tourism show that Vijay Dev and Kavita Singhs Berlin trip cost Rs 9,92,314.

Despite repeated attempts by The Indian Express to reach Vijay Dev by email, WhatsApp and mobile, there was no response from him at the time of filing this report.

Two months later, Vijay Dev, who is at present the State Election Commissioner of Delhi and Chandigarh, led another delegation comprising the then Home Secretary Anurag Agarwal, and Secretary, Personnel, Vikram Dev Dutt to Villa Savoye in Poissy (Paris) to attend a meeting of Le Corbusiers architectural work owners from June 15 to June 17. RTI records show that the three IAS officers spent Rs 25 lakh during their stay in Paris from June 12-18, 2015 almost 40 per cent more than the the amount originally approved.

This meeting was also attended by chief architect Kapil Setia.

In October again, UT Adviser Vijay Dev, then Secretary Tourism, Vikram Dev Dutt, then MC Commissioner Bhawna Garg, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Prince Dhawan, and Indian Forest Service officer Santosh Kumar were given permission to attend one week working meeting visit to Brussels and Denmark from October 25 to 31, 2015 (excluding the journey time).

The permission cited cadre clearance conveyed by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, political clearance, and Ministry of External affairs. In this trip, Vikram Dev Dutts air ticket from Delhi to Brussels to Copenhagen to Helinski Vantaa and back to Delhi cost Rs 2,44,747 while the Chandigarh-Delhi return air fare was pegged at Rs 25,136. The records also mention ticket cancellation charges for Brussels to London for Vijay Dev, local taxi charges in Copenhagen and ticket fare for a city tour of Ghent and Bruges in Belgium for the entire delegation.

As per the RTI records, the Chandigarh Administration also approved the official visit of Vijay Dev, Home Secretary Anurag Agarwal (at present Chief Electoral Officer in Haryana) and tourism managing director Kavita Singh to the World Travel Mart in London from November 2 to 5, 2015. In February 2016, Dev was given permission to participate as leader of the Indian delegation in a two-day programme in London from February 18 to 19, 2016, to showcase solar achievements and to attract UK investors.

The department of personnel guidelines clearly state that participation of officials in international fairs/exhibitions/workshops and conferences should be discouraged, and if considered essential, only the officer directly dealing with the subject shall be deputed. But the RTI records show that officers seldom travelled alone.

Vikram Dev Dutt, then secretary, personnel and urban development, who is now chairman and Managing Director of Air India Asset Holding Limited, visited Paris twice in six months from June to November 2015. Dutt, who was part of the June 2015 trip to Paris, made another trip to the French capital in November-December. He was accompanied by chief architect Kapil Setia.

On November 23, 2015, an order by the Chandigarh Administration approved the official visit of Vikram Dev Dutt, Secretary Personnel cum Urban Planning, and Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, for attending the meeting on nominations for the world heritage list 2016 to be held on November 30, 2015 at Paris (excluding the journey time).

It further said, The Administrator is further pleased to allow Vikram Dev Dutt to participate in United Nations Framework Convention on climate change on December 1 and December 2, 2015 at Paris.

Later, on December 14, the administrator sanctioned Rs 3,34,794 for Vikram Dutts Paris trip from November 28 to December 3, 2015. This included New Delhi to Paris return air fare of Rs 1,78,197, which was to be paid to Sector 17-based Grand Travel Planners along with accommodation charges of Rs 1,56,000.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

On December 14, 2015, he was sanctioned an allowance of Rs 35,640 plus an advance of Rs 36,000 already sanctioned.

This expenditure was to be met out of the UT Budget.

In February 2016, Vikram Dutt again went to Paris.

RTI records dated February 3,2016 state, The Administrator is pleased to allow Vikram Dev Dutt, IAS, Secretary Urban Planning, and Baldeo Purushartha IAS, Commissioner MC for attending the meeting of Indo-French Joint Working Group on Sustainable Urban development and technical visit from February 22 to February 25, 2016, excluding journey days, to be held in Paris, subject to cadre clearance and political clearance from MHA and MEA. Later, the clearances were received and an advance of Rs 1,49,959 was sanctioned for booking Vikram Devs air tickets from Chandigarh to Paris and back to Grand Travel Planners. On his return, this sum was revised to Rs 1,81,407 to include daily allowance etc.

Go here to read the rest:
European Union of the high and mighty: How UT officers made a beeline to that continent - The Indian Express

As the transition to a digital society is accelerating in recent years, especially after the coronavirus outbreak, the expectations of the European Citizens for a safer digital environment are growing. There is then an urgent need to combat cybercrime. In a previous article published on Lexology on this topic we had started to discuss of the ransomware attacks. We had thus described the relevant phenomenon and we had pointed out the legislative and policy frameworks in place in the European Union for facing this issue. In this second contribution, reference will now be made (always in an EU perspective) to the main actors in charge of dealing with the ransomware attacks (Chapter 2); we will then look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of EU defence from this invasive form of cyber-criminality (Chapter 3); finally, we will try to make some recommendations for improving the security of the Citizens within the European Union in such area (Chapter 4).

As already highlighted in our previous contribution[1] the first step towards the creation and development of an EU cybersecurity ecosystem was the adoption of a cybersecurity strategy in 2013[2]. This strategy identified the achievement of cyber-resilience and the development of industrial and technological resources for cybersecurity as its key objectives. As part of this strategy, the European Commission proposed the EU Network and Information Security directive2016/1148 (NIS Directive)[3].

We will now look at who are the main actors in charge of implementing the NIS Directive as well as the other initiatives advanced by the European Union to tackle the ransomware attacks.

In the first place, it shall be reminded that the NIS Directive has provided only that the EU countries shall put in place legal measures to boost the overall level of cybersecurity in Europe. This in essence with the intent of protecting the European critical infrastructure[4].

On the other hand, the NIS Directive has left basically to the free initiative of the Members States the regulation of aspects such as the sanctions to be imposed to the offenders in case of ransomware attacks. In addition, the NIS Directive did not impose on the EU Countries any obligation to share the information systematically with one another in case of cross-border ransomware attacks.

The above means that nowadays the single States of the European Union are the most important actors in the fight of the ransomware attacks. They indeed decide singularly on crucial aspects such as: (i) how the ransomware attacks shall be punished within their single jurisdiction; (ii) whether there must be any cooperation with the other Member States in case of ransomware attacks involving more countries.

It is then worthy to mention another important player which comes into consideration in the field of the cybersecurity in Europe, i.e. the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). ENISA contributes to the EU cyber policy, enhances the trustworthiness of ICT products, services and processes with cybersecurity certification schemes, cooperates with Member States and EU bodies, and helps Europe prepare for the cyber challenges of tomorrow [5].

ENISA was not entrusted with specific competences in the tackle of the ransomware episodes in the NIS Directive, but it is playing an important role de facto moving down the following directions:

Finally, it must be stressed that on 23 June 2021 the European Commission laid out a vision to build a newJoint Cyber Unit[8]. The Joint Cyber Unit will be a new body (with its own resources and offices) intended to provide full support to ENISA in ensuring an EU coordinated response to large-scale cyber incidents and crises such as the ransomware attacks. This new initiative is an important step which will allow ENISA (together with the Joint Cyber Unit) to further achieve a higher common level of cybersecurity within the European Union[9].

Finally, it is worth to be mentioned also the role played by the Council in tackling the cyber-crimes (and thus the ransomware attacks).

In this regard, in our previous contribution on this topic[10] we had reminded that the EU tried to reinforce its global response to the cyber-attacks (including ransomware) by establishing a Framework for a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities (the so called Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox)[11]. This framework basically allows the EU and its Member States (by way of an initiative to be taken by the Council) to use all necessary measures ... to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to malicious cyber activities [and thus also to the ransomware attacks] targeting the integrity and security of the EU and its member states .... In particular, the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox gives the possibility to the Council to impose ... sanctions on persons or entities that areresponsible for cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, who provide financial, technical or materialsupportfor such attacks or who areinvolvedin other ways ... [12].

It is noticeable that, based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, the Council has been able to imposerestrictive measures againstcertain individualsand entitiesresponsible for or involved in theransomware-attacks publicly known asWannaCry andOperation Cloud Hoppe[13]. The sanctions imposed to the entities involved included severe measures such as thetravelban and theassets freeze.

Of course, it must not be forgotten that it is not particularly simple for the Council to take collective actions (such as the ones indicated above) based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox. And indeed, the European Unions decision-making process to be activated in these cases is the same one to be applied for the foreign policy matters, requiring thus the unanimous decision of all EU governments. This is certainly a very high threshold not easy to be reached[14]. It follows that it is rather complicated for the Council to issue sanctions based on the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox.

Being understood all the above, we will now try to summarize the main strengths and weaknesses of the European Union framework put in place for fighting the phenomenon discussed.

In the first place, it must be noted that the implementation of the NIS Directive and of the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox has been very important at least in raising awareness in the European States regarding the cyber-criminal activities such as the ransomware attacks.

The NIS Directive has indeed given an incentive to the Member States to increase their cybersecurity capabilities for protecting themselves from these forms of criminality.

The Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox has, in turn, granted the possibility to sanction directly certain entities and individuals which have committed, inter alia, ransomware crimes.

On the other hand, both the legal frameworks mentioned above have their downsides.

The NIS Directive resulted in fragmentation at different levels across the internal market (given that for example such directive did not provide for a system of harmonized sanctions to be applied in the European Countries). In addition, the ENISA has not been given enough powers to help the EU Member States to tackle issues such as the ransomware attacks.

Further, the Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox requires a too burdensome process for dealing with the cyber-crimes. Indeed, as we have seen above, the Council can focus just on the major events and, in any case, the unanimity of the EU Countries is required to take actions against offenders committing for example ransomware attacks.

As it may be appreciated the phenomenon of the ransomware attacks is quite a complicated one. In the EU the battle is open and efforts are indeed spent by the different stakeholders involved to combat this issue effectively.

On the other hand, there is certainly room for improvement.

Based on the above findings (and on what has been discussed in the other article published on Lexology on this topic[15]), we will then try to suggest some recommendations aimed at tackling the ransomware phenomenon in a more efficient way within the European Union. In this regard it is noted the following:

Finally, apart from the above actions and recommendations (which are indeed directed at bolstering the fight of the specific kind of cybercrime at subject matter) one final consideration is worthy to be made.

It shall indeed not to be forgotten that issues such as the ransomware attacks in many cases can be avoided at the very beginning explaining to the users how to avoid them.

It is thus of the utmost importance that are continued to be promoted specific initiatives and dialogues with the EU Citizens regarding the common ransomware attack scenarios with the effect of aiming to raise awareness and share good practices and practical recommendations [18]. This with the final goal to eliminate the issue even before the crime is perpetrated counting on the fact that the EU Citizens (if properly trained) should be able not to fall into the traps posed on their way by the cybercriminals.

Read the original:
The European Union's efforts to tackle the phenomenon of ransomware attacks (Part II) - Lexology

Dili: Hivos, Forum Komunikasaun Ba Feto Timor Leste (Fokupers), and Asosiasaun Chega! Ba Ita (ACbit) held a national workshop and seminar at the Salo de So Jos Catedral on 28 July 2022 to increase public awareness of the needs and challenges faced by women survivors of violence. Titled Building Connection for the Social Inclusion and Economic Empowerment of Women Survivors of Violence, this event was coordinated by Hivos with the financial support from the European Union (EU) as part of the Reforsa Hamutuk project, implemented in seven districts: Ainaro, Baucau, Dili, Ermera, Liquica, Manufahi, and Oecusse.

Opening the event, Ms. Karla Leitzke, the Programme Officer for Civil Society, Democracy & Human Rights, and Gender of the European Union Delegation in Timor-Leste, stated that, For the European Union the connection between economic empowerment and the inclusion of women survivors of violence is crucial. This combination contributes to women having a livelihood to raise their family, have a decent life, and empower themselves financially. That is why we are so proud to support these amazing Timorese women, and celebrate their stories today.

This event provided an opportunity for two women survivors to share their stories, followed by presentations from Ms. Manuela Leong Pereira, the Executive Director of ACbit, on the initiatives done by civil society organisations to support women survivors, Mr. Rui Pacheco, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce Timor-Leste (CCI-TL), on CCI-TL programmes accessible by women, and Ms. Natalina Maria Amaral da Costa, the National Director of Internal Commerce of the Ministry of Tourism, Commerce, and Industry, on MTCI programmes to support women.

Ms. Luciana Martins dos Santos, one of the women survivors present, stated that she hopes, We, women survivors, have experienced various forms of violence in the past, and have not received the support that we need. The government must support us.

Ms. Manuela Leong Pereira from ACbit described the challenges faced by CSOs supporting women survivors social inclusion and economic empowerment as, The lack of family support for women, so that they can access opportunities to participate in trainings. It includes the domestic workload always considered the exclusive responsibility of women in the family, and limited access to capital due to lack of trust in women managing loaned funds.

Speaking about how people can support women survivors social inclusion and economic empowerment, Ms. Maria Fatima Pereira Guterres, the Executive Director of Fokupers, stated that, Every person, every institution has the responsibility to stop violence against women. Among the strategies are trainings for economic empowerment. We are hoping that all our CSO and development partners, as well as key ministries, would continue to collaborate in a long term, and put women survivors and victims needs at the center of action planning, and allocate adequate budget for the programmes.

The event was followed by a round table discussion in the afternoon, and closed with the awarding of an Accelerator Grant for three microbusinesses owned and managed by women micro entrepreneurs.

Reforsa Hamutuk Stronger Together is a 30-month project financed through a European Union contribution of 550,000 USD (500,000 EUR), and implemented by Hivos in collaboration with Fokupers and ACbit, to promote social inclusion and economic development of women survivors and victims of violence in Timor-Leste.

About the Reforsa Hamutuk Project implementing organisations:

Hivos is an international development organisation that seeks new solutions to persistent global issues. Founded in 1968 and inspired by humanist values, Hivos works in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East at a local, regional and global level, together with local civil society organisations in developing countries to contribute to a free, fair and sustainable world. Through smart projects in the right places, Hivos opposes discrimination, inequality, abuse of power and the unsustainable use of resources. For more information, visit: https://sea.hivos.org/

Forum Komunikasaun ba Feto Timor-Leste (Fokupers) is a non-governmental organisation in Dili, Timor-Leste focusing on womens right. It was established in 1997 to address GBV and human rights violations against women and children, particularly those committed at the time of the Indonesian occupation. Their current works include victim services; non-gender based early childhood education, advocacy, and women empowermentboth in the community and in Timor-Leste as a nation. For more information, visit: https://fokupers.org/

Asosiasaun Chega! Ba Ita (ACbit) is a non-governmental organisation that aims to promote the values and principles underpinning the work of the CAVRhuman rights, justice and reconciliation. Established in 2010 in Dili, Timor-Leste, ACbit focuses on advocacy for victims rights. ACbit provides training, technical assistance, support groups, and trauma healing for women victims of past conflict and their families, and creating networks of past and current victims of GBV to break the chains of impunity. For more information, visit: https://chegabaita.org/

Link:
Hivos, Fokupers, and ACbit are building connections to support women survivors of violence through the European Union's Reforsa Hamutuk project | EEAS...

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in itsruling of 7 July 2022given on case C-24/21, confirmed that Member States (and their territorial entities with legislative powers) may restrict or prohibit by law the cultivation of approved crops of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), but recalled that specific conditions must be met, as set forth inDirective 2001/18/EC(on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms) andRegulation (EC) No. 1829/2003(on genetically modified food and feed). The Courts ruling is based on the text of Directive 2001/18/EC in force prior to the amendments introduced byDirective (EU) 2015/412, which added a new Article 26b (Transitional Measures), establishing a procedure through which Member States may request that the geographical scope of a GMO notification/application be submitted, or an authorization granted be adjusted to exclude all or part of their territory from cultivation.

The dispute arose from the action of a farmer, Mr. PH, who deliberately violated the lawNo. 5/2011of Friuli Venezia Giulia (an Italian autonomous region), prohibiting the cultivation of the authorized crop of MON810 GMO maize and was therefore fined by local authorities. The purpose of the regional law was to prevent and avoid cross-contamination between different types of crops: GMO, conventional, and organic.

PH filed an opposition against the sanction with the Territorial Court, which halted the proceedings to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the correct interpretation of the EU regulatory framework on GMOs.

The Court recalled Article 26-bis(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, which states,Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products.

Therefore, Member States may only adopt preventive measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products, thus ensuring that farmers and consumers have a choice between organic, conventional, and GMO production, as pointed out in theCommission Recommendation of 13 July 2010. On the other hand, these measures cannot be justified by the need to protect human health or the environment, since their protection is already achieved by the risk assessment carried out according to Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation No 1829/2003 (see paragraph 47 of the ruling).

Such measures must be proportionate insofar as they must minimize their restrictive effects to what is necessary to achieve their purpose.

It is therefore up to the national court of Friuli Venezia Giulia to determine whether the regional law complies with the above principles and to analyze the specific conditions of the area affected by such preventive measures, to assess whether they are necessary and proportionate to avoid cross-contamination between GMOs and conventional/biological crops. The local court should base its decision on the actual degree of contamination and the likelihood of further contamination, considering specific geographic factors and the economic consequences (in terms of losses) for producers if a higher degree of contamination occurs. The decision is expected in the coming months, but the tracks are laid and there is no room for prejudices about GMO cultivation: everything must have a reasonable and proven justification.

As already mentioned, Directive (EU) 2015/412 amended Directive 2001/18/EC by introducing a provision [Article 26(b)] facilitating how Member States may exclude all or part of their territory from the cultivation of GMOs, either by requiring such exclusion prior to the granting of authorization or by adopting measures after that moment and, in the latter case, only when special needs are demonstrated (e.g., environmental policy objectives, socio-economic impacts, etc.), provided that the measures are proportionate and reasonable. Thus, whereas the provision cited in the Court ruling under review, which is still in force, only concerns the need to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs, the new article offers a broader range of justifications.

Read the rest here:
European Union Court of Justice Weighs In on GMO Crop Ban - The National Law Review