Podcasts about eu member states

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) has chosen the winning consortium that will lead EIT Water, the new Knowledge and Innovation Community in the Water, Marine and Maritime sectors and ecosystems. This marks a major step towards securing the continent's water future, and to deliver innovations that can respond to environmental, economic and social pressures of Europe's water systems. The EIT's tenth Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) will apply an integrated approach across freshwater, marine and maritime sectors and ecosystems to solve water-related challenges. EIT Water will support entrepreneurial education and skills development, innovation projects as well as business creation by connecting innovators, researchers, and educators to Europe's largest innovation network. EIT Water Launched Building on the EIT's proven model of powering innovation, talent, and entrepreneurship, this new KIC will contribute directly to the EU's priorities for a greener, more digital, and more resilient Europe - turning local potential into European impact. With an on-the-ground presence in all EU Member States, the EIT ensures that new technologies and innovative solutions are developed and rapidly deployed where they are needed most. The KIC will focus on the following areas: water scarcity, drought, and floods; marine and freshwater ecosystem degradation; the circular and sustainable blue economy. Meet the Winning Team Behind EIT Water The winning team, Allwaters consists of 50 partners from 24 countries, including leading industry partners, universities, research organisations, ports, non-governmental organisations, SMEs, amongst others. Independent experts reviewed the proposals, and the top teams presented to the EIT Governing Board before the final selection. Jessika Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, said: 'Water connects all parts of our society and economy - from food and energy to industry and biodiversity. With EIT Water, Europe is strengthening its ability to manage and protect this shared resource more sustainably and innovatively. This new community will play an important role in the implementation of the Water Resilience Strategy and the building of a water-smart economy in Europe. A water-smart economy that works for people, nature, and our competitiveness.' Costas Kadis, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Oceans, said: 'A healthy ocean and resilient freshwater systems are two sides of the same coin. EIT Water will help us bridge the gap between blue and green innovation by empowering local communities, businesses, and researchers. Supporting the delivery of the European Ocean Pact, it will contribute to restoring ecosystems, protecting marine life and securing a sustainable future for Europe's water and maritime sectors.' Stefan Dobrev, Chairperson, EIT Governing Board said: 'We are proud to welcome EIT Water to the EIT Community, which will be a platform for collaborative innovation, bringing together business, research, and education with strong industry involvement to deliver real solutions for Europe's water challenges. By combining the EIT's proven innovation model with Europe's leading water experts and industries, we can turn today's pressing water crisis into an opportunity for sustainable growth, resilience, and global leadership.' Michelle Williams, Coordinator, Aarhus University (Allwaters consortium), said: "We are truly honoured to lead EIT Water and to help shape Europe's response to one of its most pressing challenges. Water is life - and safeguarding it requires innovation, collaboration, and commitment. Together with the EIT and our partners across Europe, we look forward to developing solutions that make our water systems more resilient, circular, and sustainable for generations to come." NEXT STEPS To facilitate EIT Water's establishment, the EIT will provide the KIC with a startup grant of up to €5 million ...

N1, one of the largest independent broadcasting news outlets still thriving in democratically backsliding Serbia, is facing strong pressure and murky times ahead as the current government, lead by Aleksandar Vučić, is tightening its grip on independent media and the student movement protesting the state of the affairs in the country.    In this episode of Media Freedom in Focus, we talk with Igor Božić, news director of N1 TV Serbia, about how the Vučić government is treating independent outlets like N1 and how the outlet is affairing in these dire times.    Guest: Igor Božić, News Director at N1 TV Serbia Host and Producer: Jamie Wiseman, Europe Advocacy Officer at International Press Institute (IPI) Editor: Kasperi Kainulainen, Helsingin Sanomat Foundation Fellow at International Press Institute (IPI)   ________________________________________________________________________________   This podcast series is part of the MFRR in Focus project sponsored by Media Freedom Rapid Response, which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. For more in-depth podcast episodes about the state of press freedom in Europe, visit the MFRR website or search MFRR In Focus on your podcasts apps. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission. Other episodes in this series: MFRR in focus: The state of Poland's public service media Press freedom in peril: navigating elections and political turmoil in Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria Independent journalism in Austria faces a far-right threat Media Freedom in Focus: Untangling media capture in Greece MFRR Podcast: The battle over the future of Poland's politicized public media Examining press freedom in Moldova after tense election Media Freedom in Focus: DDoS attacks against Hungarian independent media  

In summer 2025, Hano, the infamous hacker behind the malicious DDoS attacks against multiple Hungarian independent news outlets, International Press Institute and Die Tageszeitung, was caught by the Hungarian authorities.    Now that Hano is facing justice, the Media Freedom in Focus podcast series will review the time of the attacks and the implications that they had for the Hungarian media. With us, the editor-in-chief of Media1, Daniel Szalay, is commenting on the newest developments of the affair and the motive of the attacks.    Guest: Daniel Szalay, Editor-in-Chief, Media1.hu. Producer, Editor and Host: Kasperi Kainulainen, Helsingin Sanomat Foundation Fellow at the International Press Institute (IPI).     This podcast series is part of the MFRR in Focus project sponsored by Media Freedom Rapid Response, which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. For more in-depth podcast episodes about the state of press freedom in Europe, visit the MFRR website or search MFRR In Focus on your podcasts apps. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission. Other episodes in this series: MFRR in focus: The state of Poland's public service media Press freedom in peril: navigating elections and political turmoil in Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria Independent journalism in Austria faces a far-right threat Media Freedom in Focus: Untangling media capture in Greece MFRR Podcast: The battle over the future of Poland's politicized public media Examining press freedom in Moldova after tense election

Returning migrants and refugees to their home countries is a highly complex process. As the EU puts the spotlight on return in its agenda, there has been a focus on streamlining the coordination, processes, and cooperation between host, transit, and countries of origin. But equally important, return is a very personal issue for the returnees themselves. In this episode, ICMPD's Dries Lensen and Peter Neelen explain the complexities and sensitivities of return. They also touch on how ICMPD works with EU Member States and (partner) countries of origin, as well as return counsellors, and digitalisation tools. All of these to ensure the whole process of going back and reintegrating into society is safe, humane, dignified, transparent, effective, and sustainable for the returnees. More information on the Return and Reintegration Facility (RRF) here.

In this episode of Raising the Aviation Bar, Filip Cornelis, Director for Aviation at the European Commission's Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), shares his insights as a key member of the Team Europe delegation to the 42nd ICAO General Assembly, a seminal event for world aviation every three years. Filip walks us through the Assembly's major outcomes for Europe such as the successful election of all European candidates to the ICAO Council, a new resolution on GNSS interference championed by Europe addressing growing safety and security risks, broader attention to cyber security and aviation's role in irregular migration. While safety and technical topics remained core, this Assembly was a notably political one — shaped by global tensions and Europe's proactive stance on many of the key issues on the table. For the first time, ICAO also saw a resolution adopted on conflict zones, calling on countries to enhance their civil-military coordination to prevent military operations from accidentally interfering with civilian traffic.  Asked about the greatest need for cooperation and support collectively as Team Europe, Filip stressed how GNSS interference is one of the key priorities where the Commission works closely with EUROCONTROL and EASA to ensure Europe's communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) infrastructure remains resilient even if GNSS or other navigation methods fail. Filip further reflects on the various bilateral meetings the Commission conducted with non-EU Member States to discuss possible cooperation in the future to improve air traffic, coordination and cooperation. He also discusses the regulatory push to make aviation energy more sustainable, and the ongoing work on STIP, the Commission's Sustainable Transport Investment Plan - a strategic framework for supporting sustainable transport fuel production and distribution.  And on a more personal level, Filip talks about the roles that have shaped him, and his career as a leading EU official working on European integration and international cooperation in aviation.

On September 28, Moldovans voted in closely watched parliamentary elections, amidst widespread accusations of Russian interference. The results were a clear victory for Moldova's largest pro-European party, PAS. The news came as a relief to many of Moldova's independent media, who were worried about a possible takeover by pro-Russian forces. While the worst case scenario was avoided, at least for now, media freedom in the country remains fragile, marked by stark regional differences, and in need of further democratic consolidation. In this episode of Media Freedom in Focus, we discuss the risks that independent media will continue to face in Moldova, together with Anastasia Nani, the Deputy Director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, a leading Moldovan press freedom organisation.     Guest: Anastasia Nani, Deputy Director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, Moldova. Producer and Host: Karol Łuczka, Eastern Europe Advocacy Lead at the International Press Institute (IPI). Editor: Kasperi Kainulainen, Helsingin Sanomat Foundation Fellow at the International Press Institute (IPI).     This podcast series is part of the MFRR in Focus project sponsored by Media Freedom Rapid Response, which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. For more in-depth podcast episodes about the state of press freedom in Europe, visit the MFRR website or search MFRR In Focus on your podcasts apps. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission. Other episodes in this series: MFRR in focus: The state of Poland's public service media Press freedom in peril: navigating elections and political turmoil in Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria Independent journalism in Austria faces a far-right threat Media Freedom in Focus: Untangling media capture in Greece MFRR Podcast: The battle over the future of Poland's politicized public media

As part of its efforts to increase European competitiveness, the European Commission adopted a simplification package, the Omnibus I, in February 2025. This covers several areas, such as sustainable finance rules, due diligence reporting and the carbon border adjustment mechanism, among others. Decided under the previous Commission term, they are already being reviewed under the guise of competitiveness of European industry.One of the regulations included in the package, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), mandates companies to report on their sustainability impacts, risks and opportunities on a yearly basis, and for that report to be audited by an independent third party.Several companies that have reported this year under the current CSRD argue that the practices of the authorised audit firms have made reporting too extensive and complex, and therefore too expensive and not time-efficient internally, on top of not always focusing on the most material elements of a company's sustainability footprint. In this quest for overall simplification of the Directive, some stakeholders are calling for auditing requirements to also be streamlined.One issue that stakeholders see with the current transposition of CSRD is that less than a quarter of EU Member States authorise Independent Assurance Service Providers (IASPs), which results in a highly concentrated market around a small amount of authorised companies. By opening the market to IASPs, companies in scope will have access to a wider range of assurance providers. This can lead to making specialised expertise more accessible, especially for smaller companies that will be in scope of the CSRD in 2029, thus lowering the cost and burden of compliance, without lowering the ambition and effectiveness of the Directive.Listen to this Euractiv Hybrid Conference to discuss how the simplification of sustainability reporting and assurance can become a reality and an opportunity for EU competitiveness. Questions to be addressed include:- What impact does sustainability reporting have on investment levels?- What makes double materiality reporting essential?- What are the benefits of opening the market to IASPs?- How can the European Commission best review the concentration of the assurance market and ensure diversification?- What could be the ideal guidelines for companies to conduct voluntary reporting and assurance, so that it remains affordable for organisations of all sizes?- What are some concrete examples of the ways in which the revision of CSRD can strengthen Europe's economy? How do these compete on an international level?

How can EU Member States ensure that justice systems are not only efficient, but also trusted by their citizens? In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social) sits down with Dr. Georgios Archontas, political philosopher and economic theorist, to explore the findings of the ELF policy paper Strengthening Justice Effectiveness in the EU Member States Measuring Quality and Perceptions Leading to Better Administration. Together, they discuss how improving the quality of justice and addressing public perceptions can lead to stronger institutions and better governance across Europe. This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.

Co-Funded by the European Union. Dean LaRue, a lecturer at the University of Washington's Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, discusses the origins of the European Union and its development with special attention to the 2004 "Big Bang" accession of new EU Member States at the 2024 EU Policy Forum Educator Workshop. This annual workshop is organized at the University of Washington by the Center for European Studies and the Jean Monnet Center of Excellence. | Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.

Against the backdrop of growing uncertainty in global markets, Ireland faces a number of challenges which could impact its domestic economy. Trade relations are ostensibly deteriorating as tariffs loom, meanwhile EU Member States have grown increasingly concerned about Europe's competitiveness. In his remarks to the IIEA, Feargal O'Rourke, Chairperson of the IDA, discusses what this growing uncertainty may mean for Ireland, and how Ireland can ensure that it remains an attractive place for businesses and industry. About the Speaker: Feargal O'Rourke currently serves as Chairperson of the IDA, the Irish State agency responsible for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). He also serves as Chair of the board of the Institute of International and European Affairs. Previously, Mr O'Rourke was Managing Partner of PwC in Ireland from 2015 until 2023. Over a 37-year career, he specialised in FDI, focusing on assisting US-based companies to set up in Ireland and Europe. While at PwC, he led their tax practice and was heavily involved in the OECD BEPS process. In 2024, he published From Rags to Riches: The Irish Men's Team in the Professional Era, an account of the history of the Irish Men's Rugby team from 1995.

Will you afford to retire? How good (bad?) is the Belgian Pension System, compared to other systems in Europe?This is the second talk of Belgium Money Week 2025, where I interview Sébastien Commain, co-author of the report  “Will You Afford to Retire".Every year, BETTER Finance, The European Federation of Investors and Financial Services Users publishes the report "Will You Afford to Retire".It's  a detailed analysis of private retirement savings plans in the various EU Member States including Belgium. The report highlights the charges, taxation, returns and other key parameters of pension savings to determine whether (or not) they are really helping to achieve pension adequacy for individual, citizen contributors. The report stands out as the sole publication that calculates real net returns, and tackles the question of purchasing power for retirees.In this talk you will learn about the challenges faced by our system, with a special focus on pension products of Pillars 2 and 3. You will learn about their net returns and why they are so low.You will also learn about one striking example of a pension product in Europe that delivers very high returns and completely dwarfs the performance of all other examples in Europe.And finally, you will learn about what you as an individual saver and investor can do to invest better and better prepare for your pension.---►► Free Workshop on Index Investing for Beginners in Belgium: create passive income from the stock market, without paying high fees to banks or advisors, taking unnecessary risks or spending all day analyzing the markets. Free Workshop → https://firebelgium.com/investingworkshop---Download the FIRE Belgium Beginner's Guide to Index Investing: https://bit.ly/FIREBGuideLearn about Financial Independence in Belgium: https://firebelgium.comSubscribe to the newsletter: https://firebelgium.com/#SubscribeJoin the community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FIREBelgium

Irene Horejs in conversation with João CravinhoAFTER THE VIOLENT DIVORCE: WHAT APPROACH TO EU-SAHEL RELATIONS?The relations of the EU with Central Sahelian States took a dramatic turn in recent years. After a decade of conflict against insurgencies and jihadist groups and amidst an ever deepening security, economic and humanitarian crisis, the armies of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger seized power by a series of coup d'états in 2021, 2022 and 2023 prompting harsh reactions by the West and the organization of West African States ECOWAS. The Sahelian military juntas reacted by ousting French troupes – until then their main supporters in the fight against Jihadists – forced the withdrawal of the UN peace keeping mission MINUSMA and the EU civil military missions and engaged with Russia for military support. They also withdrew from ECOWAS and created a new regional body “the Alliance of Sahelian States (AES)”. France in turn suspended all its cooperation, other EU Member states did likewise and the EU stopped budget support operations which had made up as much as 80% of the national budget in the case of Niger.Many predicted the collapse of the new regimes after the withdrawal of Western military and financial support. Yet, despite a worsening security and economic situation and increasingly authoritarian rule, the military juntas and their narrative of sovereignty seem to continue enjoying popular trust, especially among the urban youth.Given the multiple strategic interests in the region, EU Member States largely agree on the need to remain engaged with the 3 countries in Central Sahel and tighten relations with the other states in the wider Sahel. The discussion turns about how to approach relations, how to materialize this engagement and how to contain expansion of Russian and Turkish influence in this region, which is so close to the EU´s southern neighborhood.João Gomes Cravinho was appointed European Union Special Representative for the Sahel on 1st of December, 2024 and is responsible to support the definition and implementation of such new approach. He was Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs (2022 – 2024), Minister of Defense of Portugal (2018 – 2022) and had previously served as EU Ambassador to India and to Brazil and as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Portuguese government. Welcome:Georg Lennkh, member of the Board, former Austrian Special Envoy for Africa (2005-2010)Moderation:Irene Horejs, former EU Ambassador to Niger and Mali

Ireland continues to participate in the #PlantHealth4Life campaign, a European campaign to raise awareness of the critical role plant health plays in protecting food, biodiversity, and the environment. Now in its third year, the #PlantHealth4Life campaign returns with renewed focus on citizen empowerment, encouraging people across Europe including gardeners, travellers, and families - to become active plant health ambassadors. Led by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission (EC), the 2025 campaign is supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine in Ireland, and will empower citizens to become plant health ambassadors, spotlighting how everyday actions can have powerful impacts on biodiversity, agriculture, and the environment. Plant Health, Biodiversity, and Economy in the EU Speaking on the campaign, garden designer and UN FAO Goodwill Ambassador for Ireland, Diarmuid Gavin, said: "Along with being places of beauty, our gardens are frontline defences in the fight for biodiversity and climate resilience. Every seed we sow responsibly and every pest we spot early is a step toward protecting Ireland's natural environment. This campaign reminds us that plant health begins at home, and we all have a role to play." Ms Louise Byrne, Chief Plant Health Officer for Ireland, added: "Protecting plant health is something every person in Ireland can contribute to. People should travel wisely and avoid bringing plants and seeds home from abroad. Practice responsible sourcing of plants with plant passports from reputable operators. Monitor plants in your garden and in the wider environment for pests and diseases and if you've concerns email PlantAndPests@agriculture.gov.ie. Empower the next generation by teaching children about the importance of plant health." Emphasising practical action and community involvement, the campaign encourages informed citizens not only to reflect but also to share their knowledge and inspire others to join in the collective effort to safeguard our ecosystems and economies. The campaign urges travellers not to bring back any plants, flowers, seeds, fruits, or vegetables from outside the EU, as these items may harbour plant pests or diseases detrimental to native flora. Additionally, consumers are advised to buy plants and seeds online only if accompanied by a valid phytosanitary or plant health certificate. Embracing good plant hygiene practices and promptly addressing signs of plant pests or diseases in home gardens and communal outdoor spaces will also prevent their spread to neighbouring plants and natural habitats. Sylvain Giraud, Head of Plant Health Unit in the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) said: "When citizens understand the vital role of plant health in their lives - from the food on their tables to the air they breathe - they become powerful agents of change. The #PlantHealth4Life campaign is a reminder that each of us can make a meaningful difference by staying informed and making thoughtful choices that help protect what sustains us all." Giuseppe Stancanelli, Team Leader for Plant Health Risk Assessment at EFSA added: "A plant isn't just a plant - it can carry other living organisms too. In our interconnected world, plants move more than ever. That's why the EU relies on science-based risk assessment to understand and manage potential threats to plant health - helping to protect our environment, agriculture, and biodiversity. Through the #PlantHealth4Life campaign, we're raising awareness across Europe." The 2025 #PlantHealth4Life campaign is running across 26 EU Member States, five EU pre-accession countries, and Switzerland. Visit www.efsa.europa.eu/en/plh4l and discover how to safeguard plant health. About the campaign #PlantHealth4Life is a multi-year and multinational campaign developed at the request of the European Commission and based on an in-depth analysis of citizen perceptions and behaviour with respect to plant h...

European Union member states have voted in favour of imposing tariffs on some US imported goods, a statement from the European Commission confirms. Oliver O'Connor, Chief Executive of the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association and Bryan Reilly, Director of the National Taxpayers Union Free Trade Initiative.

Full presentation Title: Constitutional Change and the Rise of Fiscal Discipline in Europe: Ripple Effects on Fundamental Social Rights In March 2025, the ReArm Europe plan brought EU fiscal discipline and rules back into the spotlight of EU policymaking. In her address to the IIEA, Dr Kotsoni explores how, following the eurozone crisis, several EU Member States adopted constitutional fiscal rules – both formally and, as she will argue, informally. In her presentation, Dr Kotsoni examines how the constitutionalisation of fiscal rules has had lasting effects beyond the eurozone crisis and reflects upon its ongoing limiting impact on fundamental social rights in Europe. About the Speaker: Dr Maria Kotsoni is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Princeton University. Her research focuses on the protection of social rights at constitutional, European, and international levels. Maria obtained her PhD from the European University Institute and is a consultant to the Council of Europe's Department of Social Rights.

In episode 2 of our new Sustainably Speaking podcast, ICIS' Senior Executive, Business Solutions Group John Richardson is joined by Mark Victory, Senior Editor for Recycling, Europe, and Helen McGeough, Global Analyst Team Lead for Plastic Recycling at ICIS to talk about the importance of investment in Europe's recycling industry. Topics covered in this episode include:  Need for improvement in collection and sorting capacity Importance of high quality waste to allow chemical recycling scale up Investment needed to address Europe's structural shortages of recycled material  Imbalance between EU Member States for infrastructure investment The financial and economic cost of not investing in, and dealing with EU waste

In late 2024, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3,000, has faced antisemitism in the streets. AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, joins us to discuss his recent meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, examples of antisemitic activity in Ireland, including Holocaust inversion and the chilling impact of widespread anti-Israel sentiment on Irish Jews. He also shares insights on Ireland's adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the future of Holocaust remembrance in the country. ___ Resources: AJC Directly Addresses Antisemitism and Vilification of Israel in Ireland with the Prime Minister Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Gaza Reconstruction, Israeli Security, and the Future of Middle East Diplomacy Why Germany's Antisemitic Far-Right Party is Thriving Instead of Disappearing Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Andrew Baker: Manya Brachear Pashman:   In December, Israel closed its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of extreme anti-Israel policies, antisemitic rhetoric, and double standards. Meanwhile, the small Jewish community in Ireland, numbering nearly 3000 has faced antisemitism in the streets. With us now to discuss the situation in Ireland, and his meeting with the Irish Prime Minister last week, is AJC's Director of International Jewish Affairs, Rabbi Andrew Baker, who also serves as the personal representative on combating antisemitism in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Andy, welcome to People of the Pod.  Andrew Baker:   Great to be here, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   This situation did not develop overnight. Can you take our listeners back to the first clues that the relationship between Israel and Ireland was deteriorating? Andrew Baker:   Ireland has a small Jewish community, perhaps about 3000 people. And a significant number of them, maybe upwards toward 1000, also people with Israeli citizenship who moved to Ireland to work there with a number of the social media tech companies based in Ireland. Over the years, and certainly even predating October 7, in Ireland there's been a fairly high degree of anti-Israel animus. It's not dissimilar to what we may find in a number of other northern European countries. They view the political scene in the Middle East through a certain prism that creates and maybe amplifies this form of animus.  But that said, there have also been, I think, issues between this community and government policy, even as it's reflected in ceremonies marking Holocaust remembrance in Ireland. In many cases, the particular focus in that history of what happened to the Jewish people in Europe during World War II, the genocide of the Holocaust. While there may be commemoration events, in principle to market, they've really, in many ways, washed out the Jewish nature of that.  In 2016 I was an invited speaker to the official Holocaust Commemoration Day in Ireland. Almost the entire focus was on the refugees, at the time coming in from North Africa and the Middle East. I was actually the only person who spoke the word antisemitism at that event. You also had an effort through legislation to really separate out Israel, the occupied territories, as they understood it, and the name of this bill that was passed by the legislature was called the Occupied Territories Bill. Which sought to separate Israel, at least the territories commercially from Ireland, but it would have a very onerous impact, frankly, on any anyone, certainly members of the Jewish community, who would choose to visit Israel. If they purchased a kippa in The Old City of Jerusalem, brought it back with them to Ireland, under this law, if it were enacted, they could literally be arrested for that action.  So I think also at the time I made a visit there in 2019 in my OSC role, Israel was preparing to host the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, and there was a very public campaign in Ireland to boycott the Eurovision contest. Advertisements calling for this on the side of buses, people in the state media already indicating that they were going to refuse to attend. So you had this sort of environment in Ireland, again, a good number of years before what happened on October 7, which really changed everything throughout Europe. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And now there has been a more moderate government recently elected in Ireland. Prime Minister Micheál Martin was in the United States last week in Washington, DC, and you actually met with him when he was here, correct?  Andrew Baker:   That's correct.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Did you share some of these concerns? Did you address, for example, the Occupied Territories Bill with him? Andrew Baker:   Yes, we spent a bit over an hour together. I was joined also by Marina Rosenberg from the ADL. Our two organizations met. There were some initial plans that other organizations would also participate, but in the end, it was the two of us. One of the most significant issues that has arisen, it's partly why Israel closed its embassy, was the fact that Ireland has joined with South Africa in the charges brought before the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide. So our goal at this meeting was to raise a number of these issues, including that, including the status of the Occupied Territories bill.  But also, really to impress on him that the community itself was feeling, sieged, if you will, by these developments. And so we wanted him to understand that the anti-Israel animus, which at times, crosses over to a form of antisemitism, has had a direct impact on the Jews in Ireland.  It also was brought to the fore only this past January at this year's International Holocaust Remembrance event, Michael Higgins, the Irish president, spoke, even though the Jewish community had actually urged that he not be given a platform. He used the opportunity to focus on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. And again, by that, drawing an analogy between Israel, between the Jewish experience during the Holocaust and somehow Israel's treatment of Palestinians today. So this, too, was an issue we brought up with the Prime Minister. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But this prime minister has made some overtures to address antisemitism, right? I mean, his administration, for example, just announced it was adopting the working definition. Andrew Baker:   Yes, in fact, several weeks before coming to Washington, the prime minister did announce that Ireland would accept the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. And we also have a set of global guidelines that some, I think, over over 30 countries now have adopted, that lay out measures that government should take. So we did, of course, discuss this with the prime minister. He indicated to us that he was in the process of appointing a national coordinator, someone who could sort of oversee the development of national strategy to combat anti semitism. This is a very important step, by the way, it's one that almost all, with only a couple of exceptions, EU Member States, have already done. So. It is good that Ireland is doing this. Of course, it comes quite late to the game in this the IHRA definition is very important, because it offers old and new examples of antisemitism, and to digress only for a moment, this IHRA definition began as the definition endorsed presented by the European monitoring center on racism and xenophobia, already 20 years ago. And in my AJC role at that time, I worked closely with the EUMC in the drafting and the adoption of that definition. And notably, it speaks about antisemitism related to Israel. Frankly, if one had that definition in front of him or her, you would be able to look at some of the actions, even by members of government, and certainly the President's own remarks in January, and say, well, this could constitute a form of antisemitism itself. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And did he address the bill legislation that is so troublesome? Andrew Baker:   Yes, he did. He indicated to us that the Occupied Territories Bill as drafted is probably unconstitutional, since it really concerns international trade and economics. This is the purview of Brussels for all EU member states. So in that regard, they're really not expected or permitted to have their own economic international policy. He also said it was probably unenforceable.  Now I asked him to simply dispel with this bill altogether. That was not something that he could agree to, but he did inform me that it would be, at least for now, off the legislative calendar. So we know there are others in Ireland who are pushing for that law to be redrafted and enacted. So this was somewhat reassuring to be told that no, at least this will not happen this year. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Though he adopted the IRA working definition, I know that he also received some pressure from activists to dispense of that, to not adopt it and to reject it. And he assured them that it was not legally binding.  Was that discouraging to hear? Or did he seem to be willing to implement it in training of law enforcement and education of students?  Andrew Baker:   Look, these are the very elements that we speak of when we speak about employing the IHRA definition. And as you said, it's identified as a non legally binding definition, but it ought to be used to advise, to inform law enforcement, the judiciary, if and when they address incidents of antisemitism. Again, he made the decision to adopt the definition, to accept the global guidelines only, only a few weeks ago, really. So how it will be used to what extent remains to be seen. I have to say we, and my ADL colleague indicated we're certainly prepared to work with the government to offer advice on how these things can be employed. We hope that they'll consider and take up our offer, but at this point, we have to see what happens. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You mentioned that the small Jewish community there is largely Israeli expats doing business. And they were certainly uncomfortable at Holocaust Remembrance event. Are there other examples of harassment or antisemitic behavior, assaults, protests. What are they seeing on a day to day basis? Andrew Baker:   Yes, first, I mean, the majority of the community are not Israelis, but there's a significant number who are. And I think what they're finding is, it's not unique, but it's intensive for them, that in schools, in the workplace, there's a high level of discomfort. And a result of this, where people may have the choice they will try not to identify publicly in some way that would signal to others that they're Jewish. There are incidents. There haven't really been violent attacks but clearly kids in school have been harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. Because they're Jewish because of this sort of strong anti-Israel animus.  There was, only shortly after we had our meeting, an incident in one of the resort towns in Ireland where Israeli tourists in a restaurant were harassed by other patrons. They were cursed. They were spit at. It was the sort of thing, and the local council did issue a kind of apology. But I think it illustrates that when you have such a high level of anti-Israel animus, which at times can be just a harshly critical view of Israel or Israel's government, but it can spill over and create a sense that there is, as we've termed it, a kind of ambient antisemitism. It is sort of in the atmosphere, and so it does have an impact on this small Jewish community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Last year, Israel recalled its ambassador to Dublin. It closed its embassy in December, but in May, it actually recalled its ambassador, after Ireland announced, along with other countries, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, that it would recognize a Palestinian state. And I'm curious if there's something about Ireland's history that informs this approach? Andrew Baker:   I think that's partly true. Look, first of all, Ireland had a somewhat checkered role, even during the Holocaust. You know, the Irish Ambassador government signed a condolence book when Adolf Hitler died. And it accepted German refugees after the war, but it was really quite reluctant to accept even some small number of Jewish refugees. And I think over time, Ireland in its own fight for independence with Great Britain, maybe drew the same analogy to Palestinians. This notion of being a colonialist subject. Perhaps there are those connections that people make as well.  But in the case with the Israeli ambassador first being withdrawn, and then the embassy closed, unfortunately, much of the normal diplomatic relations that an ambassador wants to do, is expected to do, were really precluded from Israeli Ambassador Erlich. Gatherings of political parties where diplomats as a kind of standard rule, invited to attend, she was not invited. Other events the same was true. So there was also a frustration to be ambassador in what ought to be a friendly country, a fellow democracy, a member of the European Union, and yet to be made a kind of de facto persona non grata was a quite troubling experience. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So whether there was an ambassador or an embassy there didn't seem to matter. They were still being excluded from diplomatic events already. Andrew Baker:   The Israeli government made the decision that they needed to do something dramatic to express the state of affairs and this discomfort, and that was first through recalling the ambassador, but ultimately, As you pointed out, essentially closing the embassy, that's a dramatic step, and some might disagree, particularly if you have Israeli citizens that would otherwise want the services of an embassy in that country, but they believe this was one way of sending a message, and I think it was a message that was received.  I would point out that following our meeting with the Prime Minister, it drew significant attention in the Irish press. Perhaps one of the most prominent read newspapers in Ireland, The Independent, this past Sunday, had an editorial that spoke about our meeting with the Prime Minister and really called on the government to reassess its relationship with Israel. In other words, to try and repair that relationship. So if it leads to that, then I think we will feel it was well worth it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Going back to the Holocaust Remembrance events that seem to be a continuing issue. Did you speak with the Prime Minister about the Jewish community perhaps having a role in organizing those commemorations from now on? Andrew Baker:   We did. The fact is, there has been a Holocaust Educational Trust organization that had some government support, but it's separate from the Jewish community that has been responsible for organizing these events. As I noted when I was invited in 2016, this was the organization that organized it, but it has sort of fallen out of favor with the Jewish community. There have been internal tensions, and again, as a result of this last event in January, the Jewish community has asked the government to really be given the authority to to organize these events.  I have to point out that it does have, typically, the participation of senior figures in the government. When I was there, the prime minister at the time spoke, and members of the High Court participated, the Mayor of Dublin. So I think that level of participation is important and should continue. But I think the problem we're seeing is that even that history is being instrumentalized, so we need to be certain that doesn't continue. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Andy, a number of Jewish leaders declined to meet with Prime Minister Martin, given the tension and animosity Jews in Ireland have been facing. Why did you meet with him?  Andrew Baker:   AJC values, sees itself as playing an important diplomatic role, not simply with Ireland, but with various countries. And while some other organizations felt in the end, they should not participate, because by not talking to the Irish Prime Minister that was sending a message, our approach is rather quite the opposite. It's important to talk. I'm not sure that it's always the easiest conversations, and the results may not always be all that we would hope them to be, but I want to say we're in this for the long haul. We've been back and forth to Ireland, with other countries, of course, as well over the years. We hope that those visits and these meetings will continue. Frankly, it's only by this kind of ongoing engagement, I believe that we can really make a difference, and that's what we're all about. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well Andy, thank you so much for joining us.  Andrew Baker:  You're welcome, Manya.

This week, we bring you a replay of one of our most impactful podcasts from last year, featuring Alex Cotoia and Daniela Melendez. Listen in as we discuss the EU Whistleblower Directive of October 2019. We'll return next week with one of our regular updates.Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and Council dated 23 October 2019 on the “protection of persons who report breaches of Union law” (the “Directive”) is currently being implemented by EU Member States. The directive has broad applicability to organizations operating in the EU internal market and applies to both public and private sector organizations alike. Whistleblowers are guaranteed legal protection to the extent: (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information reported was true at the time of the report; and (2) the whistleblower reported either internally to the organization, externally to a competent authority, or publicly. Private sector organizations with 50 or more workers are legally required to establish channels and procedures for internal reporting of EU law breaches and conduct appropriate follow-up. In this episode, Mike Volkov is joined by Daniela Melendez and Alex Cotoia from the Volkov Law Group, who bring their expertise to the table as they delve into the EU Directive and its implementation by several member states. Listen to this discussion to understand and navigate the complexities of the EU Whistleblowing Directive.The EU Whistleblower Directive shifts the burden of proof on retaliatory actions to the person taking the detrimental action, requiring them to demonstrate it was not linked to reporting concerns.Global companies are taking a proactive stance by increasingly focusing on robust ethics and compliance programs. This strategic move is aimed at mitigating risks and promoting positive corporate citizenship in today's economy, where adherence to legal and ethical standards is paramount.France signed the EU Directive into law on March 21, 2022, outlining protocols for gathering and handling whistleblower reports, including a two-month deadline for imposing disciplinary sanctions.Germany enacted the EU Directive on May 12, 2023, allowing anonymous reports and setting a three-month investigation deadline after receiving the report.Spain addressed the EU Directive on February 2023 by covering additional topics like occupational health and safety breaches. The directive established a three-month deadline for investigations and allowed anonymous reports.Italy transposed the EU Directive on August 4, 2022, including administrative, financial, civil, and criminal offenses not covered by the Directive, with a 30-day deadline to conduct investigations upon receipt of reports.Companies are advised to make resources available to conduct investigations quickly due to the short timeframes set by various countries' whistleblower protection laws.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law GroupAlex Cotoia on LinkedIn Email: acotoia@volkovlaw.comDaniela Melendez on LinkedInEmail: dmelendez@volkovlaw.com

This episode explores the growing threat of avian influenza, which has led to massive outbreaks in bird populations and an increasing number of cases in mammals.With nearly 70 human cases and one death confirmed in the US recently linked to the H5N1 subtype, concerns are rising about its potential to spread among humans in Europe and cause a pandemic.Experts from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) discuss the risks to humans, the impact on animals, and the preventive measures that EU Member States can take.Listen in to Alessandro Broglia (EFSA) and Katriina Willgert (ECDC) and learn more.Read more on the highly pathogenic avian flu on ECDC portal and on EFSA's pages.

Connecting with and providing counselling to irregular migrants, especially those living on the streets or in transit, is crucial for addressing irregular migration. Yet it remains a challenging and underexplored area, due in part to the difficulty engaging with a population often living in precarity and avoiding contact with authorities due to fear of deportation or past negative experiences. A pervasive lack of trust coupled with a concealed lifestyle often prevents irregular migrants in Europe from accessing critical information about existing services, pathways to regularization, and voluntary return options. As a result, many remain unaware of the support available to help them exit irregularity. In recent years, various stakeholders have sought to strengthen outreach and counselling for irregular migrants, whether to encourage voluntary return, provide information on regularization, or raise awareness about access to services. However, the fragmented nature of these initiatives, combined with a lack of evidence on their effectiveness, highlights the need for greater collaboration and dialogue. This webinar brings together policymakers, practitioners, and other experts to explore the value of outreach and counselling to irregular populations and the policy goals and approaches used. The conversation includes key findings from an MPI Europe brief, offering valuable insights into challenges for those involved in outreach and counselling activities aimed at irregular migrants. The brief offers some recommendations as well as a proposed framework to advance the knowledge base in the field. The conversation also discusses the first steps towards a more solid evidence base made under the Reaching Undocumented Migrants (RUM) project carried out by the Return and Reintegration Facility (RRF), an EU-funded entity that supports EU Member States and other Schengen countries as they seek to increase the effectiveness of their return and reintegration programming. The RUM project aims to develop and promote evidence-based tools, datasets, and processes that can be used by a wide European community of practice to improve outreach to irregular migrants within the European Union. Speakers include: Jan Braat, Senior Policy Advisor, Migration, Diversity, and Integration, Municipality of Utrecht, the Netherlands Giulia Bruschi, Data and Research Project Manager Europe, Mixed Migration Centre Christina Jespersen, Senior Project Manager, Return and Reintegration Facility Jeroen Vandekerckhove, Head of International Relations, Fedasil, Belgium Moderator: María Belén Zanzuchi, Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Institute Europe

An anniversary can be a good occasion for reflection. 20 years ago, in 2004, eight central and eastern European countries joined the European Union. Followed by the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and Croatia in 2013, these successive enlargements nearly doubled the number of EU Member States. And they came with many hopes for economic and social cohesion, as well as for strengthened industrial relations in the region. So to what extent have these hopes been met?   Discussion with Vera Scépanović, lecturer in International Relations and European Studies at Leiden University and co-editor of Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, the ETUI's quarterly journal published by Sage Publishing.   This conversation is based on the issue of Transfer, ‘20 years after: perspectives on industrial relations in Central and Eastern Europe 20 years after the EU enlargement'.

In our new podcast, Roland Freudenstein, Director of the Free Russia Foundation Brussels, and Founder and Executive Officer of the Brussels Freedom Hub discusses Russia's geopolitical ambitions, how the war in Ukraine may end, and the potentials for a regime change in Moscow; reflects on democratic backsliding in EU Member States; and shares his thoughts about autocrats and how societies can be more resilient against authoritarianism.

This week on EMBARGOED!, host Tim O'Toole is joined by BLOMSTEIN's Dr. Florian Wolf and Hanna Sophie Kurtz to discuss the 14th EU sanctions package against Russia and other sanctions topics. Roadmap: Introduction Background to the 14th EU sanctions package against Russia: Why was it necessary? Why was it delayed? What is its purpose, scope, and applicability? What are details of its legal framework and implementation in EU Member States? Content of the 14th sanctions package (best-effort obligation (Article 8a), prohibition to circumvent restrictive measures (12), No-Russia clause and No-Belarus clause (12g and 12ga), due diligence for export of common high-priority items and impact on companies (12gb), broadened listed goods (3k) and prohibition to provide services (5n) Parallel U.S. sanctions and an update on U.S. sanctions against Russia ******* Thanks to our guests for joining us: Dr. Florian Wolf: https://www.blomstein.com/en/team/dr-florian-wolf  Hanna Sophie Kurtz: https://www.blomstein.com/en/team/hanna-sophie-kurtz    Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new episodes so you don't miss out!

I am an EU pharma/device lawyer and problem solver. My practice focuses on European Union (EU) and national regulatory matters involving medical devices and pharmaceutical laws and guidelines. I am following very closely the new regulations on medical devices (MDR and IVDR), the GDPR and regularly advise clients in relation to the requirements applicable to their digital health technologies. I focus particularly on the different stages of the medical device CE marking process and advise on a wide variety of topics which include the following: - determination of the appropriate classification of individual products; - clinical investigation procedure (e.g. authorisation from the EU Member States competent authorities, opinion from Ethics Committee, amendment to the Protocol, informed consent, serious adverse event qualification and notification, handling of personal data); - drafting of clinical investigation and clinical trial agreements, distribution agreements and contract manufacturing agreements; -clinical data requirements and clinical evaluation; - conformity assessment procedure; - review of Instruction For Use, products' labelling and promotional material including websites; - post-marketing surveillance activities including the notification of adverse event, product recall or product withdrawal; - preparation and review of technical documentation; - reimbursement. I also advise on questions regarding marketing authorisation procedures, variation procedures, and clinical trials, promotional and marketing activities in the pharmaceutical sector. Specialties: Regulation of medical devices and medicinal products in the EU  Who is Monir El Azzouzi? Monir El Azzouzi is a Medical Device Expert specializing in Quality and Regulatory Affairs. After working for many years with big Healthcare companies, particularly Johnson and Johnson, he decided to create EasyMedicalDevice.com to help people better understand Medical Device Regulations worldwide. He has now created the consulting firm Easy Medical Device GmbH and developed many ways to deliver knowledge through videos, podcasts, online courses… His company also acts as Authorized Representative for the EU, UK, and Switzerland. Easy Medical Device becomes a one-stop shop for medical device manufacturers that need support on Quality and Regulatory Affairs.  Links from the Video Fabien Roy Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fabien-roy-83b55021/ Company Website:    Ai Act text:   Social Media to follow  Monir El Azzouzi Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/in/melazzouzi  Twitter: https://twitter.com/elazzouzim  Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/easymedicaldevice  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/easymedicaldevice  

EU Member States have passed a nature restoration law as the Australian Minister defies coalition partners but what does this law mean, and what impact will it have in Ireland?To discuss, Kieran is joined by Micheal Fitzmaurice, Independent TD for Roscommon-Galway and Pippa Hacket, Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and Council dated 23 October 2019 on the “protection of persons who report breaches of Union law” (the “Directive”) is currently being implemented by EU Member States. The directive has broad applicability to organizations operating in the EU internal market and applies to both public and private sector organizations alike. Whistleblowers are guaranteed legal protection to the extent: (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that the information reported was true at the time of the report; and (2) the whistleblower reported either internally to the organization, externally to a competent authority, or publicly. Private sector organizations with 50 or more workers are legally required to establish channels and procedures for internal reporting of EU law breaches and conduct appropriate follow-up. In this episode, Mike Volkov is joined by Daniela Melendez and Alex Cotoia from the Volkov Law Group, who bring their expertise to the table as they delve into the EU Directive and its implementation by several member states. Listen to this discussion to understand and navigate the complexities of the EU Whistleblowing Directive.The EU Whistleblower Directive shifts the burden of proof on retaliatory actions to the person taking the detrimental action, requiring them to demonstrate it was not linked to reporting concerns.Global companies are taking a proactive stance by increasingly focusing on robust ethics and compliance programs. This strategic move is aimed at mitigating risks and promoting positive corporate citizenship in today's economy, where adherence to legal and ethical standards is paramount.France signed the EU Directive into law on March 21, 2022, outlining protocols for gathering and handling whistleblower reports, including a two-month deadline for imposing disciplinary sanctions.Germany enacted the EU Directive on May 12, 2023, allowing anonymous reports and setting a three-month investigation deadline after receiving the report.Spain addressed the EU Directive on February 2023 by covering additional topics like occupational health and safety breaches. The directive established a three-month deadline for investigations and allowed anonymous reports.Italy transposed the EU Directive on August 4, 2022, including administrative, financial, civil, and criminal offenses not covered by the Directive, with a 30-day deadline to conduct investigations upon receipt of reports.Companies are advised to make resources available to conduct investigations quickly due to the short timeframes set by various countries' whistleblower protection laws.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law GroupAlex Cotoia on LinkedIn Email: acotoia@volkovlaw.comDaniela Melendez on LinkedInEmail: dmelendez@volkovlaw.com

Malcolm Noonan, Minister for Nature and Heritage, discusses the moves by Ireland to get member states onboard to adopt the Nature Restoration Law

As our planet grapples with the devastating effects of climate change, the indispensable role of environmental journalism becomes increasingly apparent. Yet, the right to cover environmental issues remains under siege, not least in Italy: In the last months of 2023, articles dedicated to the climate crisis in the main Italian newspapers decreased compared to the previous months.  At the same time, advertisements from polluting companies reached record levels, increasing the print media's dependency on them at a moment of historical low sales.  Meanwhile, in the evening TV news, “influenced by the Meloni government's impact on Rai” according to Greenpeace Italy, space for those opposing the ecological transition has doubled. How can journalists inform the public effectively when the fossil fuel industry has a growing influence on the media platforms? On Earth Day, we confront this question head-on. Guests: Barbara Trionfi, former Executive Director at IPI and current Fellow, is the author of the report Climate and Environmental journalism under fire.  Marta Frigerio is the Editor-in-Chief of RADAR Magazine, a media focusing on environmental issues that is a part of Greenpeace Italy's new initiative Free Press for Climate. Producer and Host: Beatrice Chioccioli, Europe Advocacy Officer at the International Press Institute (IPI) Editor: Javier Luque, Head of Digital Communications at IPI Other episodes in this series: Media Freedom in Focus: Untangling media capture in Greece Navigating Hungary's Sovereignty Protection Act – Media Freedom In Focus Related links: New IPI report reveals safety crisis faced by climate and environmental journalists Voices for Climate - The first network of voices against greenwashing Environmental journalism: pursuing quality coverage of a global crisis This podcast series is part of the Media Freedom in Focus project, sponsored by Media Freedom Rapid Response(MFRR), which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The MFRR is organized by a consortium led by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) including ARTICLE 19 Europe, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), the International Press Institute (IPI) and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT).

This week we ask: how should the European Union handle the political, social, and economic diversity amongst its member states – and what can it do about democratic backsliding? Date of episode recording: 2024-02-15T00:00:00Z Duration: 39:08 Language of episode: English Presenter: Dr Emily McTernan Guests: Richard Bellamy Producer: Eleanor Kingwell-Banham

EU member states are meeting to discuss how they can bolster their defence capabilities. Leaders from the 27 member bloc are gathering in Brussels, and they'll also discuss military assistance for Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East. A proposal to take profits from frozen Russian assets to buy weapons for Ukraine is also expected to be on the agenda. Brussels correspondent Ishan Garg spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

The FTC fines Avast over privacy violations. ConnectWise's ScreenConnect is under active exploitation. AT&T restores services nationwide. An Australian telecom provider suffers a data breach. EU Member States publish a cybersecurity and resilience report. Microsoft unleashes a PyRIT. A new infostealer targets the oil and gas sector. A cyberattack cripples a major US healthcare provider. Our guest is Kevin Magee from Microsoft Canada with insights on why cybersecurity startups in Ireland are having so much success building new companies there. And  a USB device is buzzing with malware. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Guest Kevin Magee from Microsoft Canada talks about recently meeting 15 cybersecurity startups in Ireland and finding out why they are having so much success building new companies there.  Selected Reading FTC Order Will Ban Avast from Selling Browsing Data for Advertising Purposes, Require It to Pay $16.5 Million Over Charges the Firm Sold Browsing Data After Claiming Its Products Would Block Online Tracking (FTC) Cybercriminal groups actively exploiting ‘catastrophic' ScreenConnect bug (The Record) AT&T services resume, company blames "incorrect process" (Data Center Dynamics) 230k Individuals Impacted by Data Breach at Australian Telco Tangerine (SecurityWeek) EU releases comprehensive risk assessment report on cybersecurity, resilience of communication networks (Industrial Cyber) Microsoft Releases Red Teaming Tool for Generative AI (SecurityWeek) New Infostealer Malware Attacking Oil and Gas Industry (GB Hackers on Security) UnitedHealth says Change Healthcare hacked by nation state, as US pharmacy outages drag on (TechCrunch) Vibrator virus steals your personal information (Malwarebytes) Share your feedback. We want to ensure that you are getting the most out of the podcast. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey as we continually work to improve the show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © 2023 N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For around a decade, the EU – which was founded by the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law – has been struggling to contain anti-democratic developments in some member states. More broadly, the European Union faces a challenge of how to create unity, and yet accommodate the significant political, social, and economic diversity of its member states. Can it accommodate this diversity? And can it do so without risking being unfair or undermining its own legitimacy? Addressing these big questions is Professor Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science here at in the Department of Political Science and a Senior Fellow at the Hertie School in Berlin. He has recently co-authored a book on the subject, called Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy.Mentioned in this episode:Richard Bellamy. Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy.  UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Migration & Diaspora Podcast, a show about all things migration hosted by yours truly, Loksan Harley from Homelands Advisory.  Today, we've got a fascinating episode featuring my friend Salvatore Petronella from Labor Mobility Partnerships (LaMP). About Salvatore  Salvatore Petronella is a migration governance specialist focusing on the EU external dimension, with a special focus on labour mobility and the smuggling of migrants. He is currently the Knowledge and Influence Lead at LaMP, developing proof-of-concepts for EU Member States and engaging with industry representatives and international institutions.  Salvatore previously coordinated the launch and implementation of the Migration Partnership Facility (MPF) at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD). He also worked at ICF International, leading various evaluation and impact assessments as well as serving as a senior expert to the European Migration Network (EMN). He previously worked at the European Commission (DG HOME) as a seconded national expert on integration policies.  What we talk about I was keen to get Salvatore on the show to talk about his work at LaMP, as I'd been seeing and hearing a lot about this relatively new organisation and was curious to learn more. And because I was curious, well, I thought some of you might be curious about LaMP as well.  So listen closely as Salvatore and I talk all about: LaMP and their work to develop new labour mobility schemes and partnerships.  The broader demographic trends that are creating a need for labour mobility partnerships.  How labour mobility is currently regulated.  How labour mobility partnerships have the potential to match growing labour demands and shortages around the world.  As always, I'd like to thank you very much for tuning in and hope you enjoy the show.  Connect with Salvatore: https://www.linkedin.com/in/salvatore-petronella/  Labor Mobility Partnerships (LaMP): https://lampforum.org/  All the MDPcast episodes: https://homelandsadvisory.com/podcast

Families in the European Union (EU) are increasingly likely to move and travel between the EU Member States. Yet, given the differences in Member States' laws, parents can face difficulties in having their parenthood recognised when crossing borders within the EU. Non recognition in one Member State of parenthood established in another Member State can have significant adverse consequences for children and their parents who are moving to another Member State or returning to their Member State of origin. - Original publication on the EP Think Tank website - Subscription to our RSS feed in case your have your own RSS reader - Podcast available on Deezer, iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, YouTube Source: © European Union - EP

In this episode of War & Peace, Olga and Elissa talk with Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East and North Africa Program Director at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), to assess Europe's response to the Gaza war. They unpack different EU Member States' positions on the war and why it has been difficult for European leaders to find common ground on policies toward Israel-Palestine. They ask how much leverage Europe has over the conflict actors and what its role might be in Gaza once the war is over. Their conversation also covers the fallout of the fighting on domestic politics across the EU and how it might influence the debate around migration policy. Finally, they weigh the implications of Europe's lacklustre response for the EU's global standing and whether a fundamental change in its policy in the Middle East is in the cards in the foreseeable future.For more of Crisis Group's analysis on the topics discussed in this episode, check out our Israel/Palestine page. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science Simon Harris TD has today secured Government approval to submit Ireland's formal application to join the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) as an Associate Member. CERN is one of the world's largest and most respected centres for scientific research. Ireland to join CERN Speaking at Government Buildings today, Minister Harris said: "This is a development that has been, for decades, eagerly awaited by our academic community and I would like to thank them for their assistance in bringing us to this milestone in Irish science and in preparing Ireland's formal application. "I am so pleased we have reached this milestone moment. CERN will consider the application in mid-December. I really want to thank my Department officials for all of their work. We are on the cusp of something significant." Membership of CERN can be expected to bring benefits to Ireland across research, industry, skills, science outreach, and international relations. It will open doors for Ireland's researchers to participate in CERN's scientific programmes and will make Irish citizens eligible for staff positions and fellowships at CERN. With CERN membership, Irish citizens will gain access to CERN's formal training schemes. These include masters and PhD programmes, apprenticeships, a graduate engineering training scheme, internships for computer scientists and engineers, and technical training experience. These skills will be developed far beyond what is possible in Ireland and are in industry-relevant areas such as electronics, photonics, materials, energy systems and software. Membership will also allow Ireland's enterprises to compete in CERN procurement programmes. Much of CERN's instrumentation and equipment requires the development or exploitation of novel technologies, which spurs enterprise innovation. Many of these technologies have applications in other spheres such as medicine, space, energy and ICT. Minister Harris added: "My Department will continue to work closely with CERN, in order to expedite the application process and we hope that Ireland's membership can commence in late 2024. We will continue to work with the academic community to make the necessary preparations for the Irish researchers to participate effectively at CERN from day one of Irish membership." It is hoped that CERN Council may be in a position to agree this December to send a fact-finding Task Force to Ireland in March 2024 to carry out their formal assessment. The Department will then formally establish the National Advisory Committee on CERN to prepare for membership and to coordinate with CERN's fact-finding Task Force. The Task Force will submit a report on Ireland's suitability for Associate Membership to the Director-General and the President of the CERN Council. In June 2024, the CERN Council may take a final vote on whether to admit Ireland as an Associate Member. Notes to editors CERN is an intergovernmental organisation that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. CERN is the leading global collaboration investigating the fundamental composition of matter. It was established in 1954 and straddles the Franco-Swiss border, just outside Geneva. CERN currently has 23 Member States (including most of the EU Member States) and has co-operation agreements with over 40 other states. The main focus of activity in CERN is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is an underground ring which is 27km in circumference in which protons, one of the constituent particles of an atom, are accelerated to 99.9999991% of the speed of light and collided into one another. The Large Hadron Collider was used to discover the Higgs boson in 2012. CERN also plays a leading role in promoting and organising international cooperation in scientific research The CERN Convention specifically stipulates that CERN "shall have no concern with work for military requirements and the results of...

Each Member State independently decides on its own energy mix and use of nuclear energy. However, there are common rules and standards on nuclear energy, the basis for which is the Treaty on the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom Treaty) signed in 1957. All current EU Member States are party to it and it has remained largely unchanged throughout the years. - Original publication on the EP Think Tank website - Subscription to our RSS feed in case your have your own RSS reader - Podcast available on Deezer, iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, YouTube Source: © European Union - EP

EU member states have come to an agreement on overhauling their rules on responding to big increases in irregular migration. The deal comes after lengthy negotiations and a steep rise in arrivals. Europe Correspondent for the Irish Times, Naomi O' Leary spoke to Pat.

Recent events have multiplied concerns about potential fragmentation of the internet into a multitude of non-interoperable and disconnected 'splinternets'. Composed of thousands of compatible autonomous systems, the internet is by definition technically divided. Yet, the internet was also designed to be an open and global technical infrastructure. The unity and openness of the internet appear to be under great pressure from political, commercial and technological developments. This report explores the implications of the EU's recent policies in this field as well as the opportunities and challenges for EU Member States and institutions in addressing internet fragmentation. It underlines how recent EU legislative proposals – on the digital services act, digital markets act, artificial intelligence act, and NIS 2 Directive – could help to address patterns of fragmentation, but also have limitations and potentially unintended consequences. Four possible strategies emerge: stay with the status quo, embrace fragmentation, resist patterns of divergence, or frame discussions as a matter of fundamental rights. - Original publication on the EP Think Tank website - Subscription to our RSS feed in case your have your own RSS reader - Podcast available on Deezer, iTunes, TuneIn, Stitcher, YouTube Source: © European Union - EP

In this week's episode, we delve into the subject of foreign direct investment (FDI) screening in Europe and explore the reasons behind its current prominence as a hot topic. Joining us for this insightful conversation are Jacob Parry, chief regulatory correspondent for PaRR and DealReporter, and Paris-based Arezki Yaïche, head of French coverage for Mergermarket. Dealcast is presented by Mergermarket and SS&C Intralinks. Dealmakers, download the Q2 2023 Deal Flow Predictor here.

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: Novel Follow us on social media!• Central European University: @CEU• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentreSubscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks!  DiQ S6 EP9Daniela Schwarzer on Europe's Strategic Conundrums (Part 1)GlossaryWhat is the Visegrád Group?(20:22 or p.5 in the transcript)The Visegrád Group, Visegrád Four, or V4, is a cultural and political alliance of four Central European countries – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, that are members of the European Union (EU) and NATO – for the purposes of advancing military, cultural, economic and energy cooperation with one another along with furthering their integration in the EU. The Group traces its origins to the summit meetings of leaders from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland held in the Hungarian castle-town of Visegrád on 15 February 1991. Visegrád was chosen as the location for the 1991 meeting as an intentional allusion to the medieval Congress of Visegrád in 1335 between John I of Bohemia, Charles I of Hungary and Casimir III of Poland. After the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent members of the group, thus increasing the number of members from three to four. All four members of the Visegrád Group joined the European Union on 1 May 2004. sourceWhat is the NextGenerationEU?(25:44 or p.6 in the transcript)NextGenerationEU is the EU's €800 billion temporary recovery instrument to support the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and build a greener, more digital and more resilient future. The centrepiece of NextGenerationEU is the Recovery and Resilience Facility- an instrument that offers grants and loans to support reforms and investments in the EU Member States for a total of €723.8 billion in current prices. Part of the funds – up to €338 billion – are being provided to Member States in the form of grants. Another part – up to €385.8 billion– funds loans to individual Member States. These loans will be repaid by those Member States. Should Member States not request the full envelope of loans available under the facility, the remaining amount of loans will be used to finance REPowerEU, a programme to accelerate the EU's green transition and reduce its reliance on Russian gas. Funds under the Recovery and Resilience funds are being provided to Member States in line with their national Recovery and Resilience plans – the roadmaps to reforms and investments aimed to make EU economies greener, digital and more resilient. Part of the NextGenerationEU funds are being used to reinforce several existing EU programmes. source

The first action plan on geographical balance was signed by the Director General of the European Commission (EC) for Human Resources and Security, Gertrud Ingestad, together with the State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, Andrej Stančík. Slovakia, along with 14 other EU Member States, is considered geographically under-represented. On the occasion of the World Water Day, the Slovak State Nature Conservancy launched two floating bird islands on the surface of the Sĺňava reservoir near Piešt'any. The unique project will replace the original nesting sites of endangered bird species.

With Nina Müller, Ethical Commerce Alliance Director and host of the Ethical Allies podcast. __ This was a pretty active season in terms of regulatory updates and decisions or guidelines coming out of supervisory bodies:  Spain's AEPD issued a decision on the use of Google Analytics by the Royal Academy of Spanish Language (“RAE”), becoming the first EU Data Protection Agency to see the glass half full in the use of the widespread digital data collection service (having been considered high-risk in Denmark, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Austria). It must however be noted that the RAE was only using the most basic version of the tool, without any AdTech integrations or individual user profiling - and in this regard aligned with the CNIL's long-standing guidelines for the valid use of the tool. At EU level, the Artificial Intelligence Act (which we have covered this quarter in a couple of Masters of Privacy interviews) made fast progress with the Council adopting its final position. At the same time, new common rules on cybersecurity became a reality with the approval of the NS2 Directive (or v2 of the Network and Information Security Directive) on November 28th. The updated framework covers incident response, supply chain security and encryption among other things, leaving less wiggle room for Member States to get creative when it comes to “essential sectors” (such as energy, banking, health, or digital infrastructure). Across the Channel, the UK's Data Protection Agency (ICO) issued brand new guidelines on international data transfers, providing a practical tool for businesses to properly carry out Transfer Risk Assessments and making it clear that either such tool or the guidelines provided by the European Data Protection Board will be considered valid.  Already into the new year, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued two important reports, on valid consent in the context of cookie banners (in the hope to agree on a common approach in the face of multiple NOYB complaints across the EU) and the use of cloud-based services by the public sector. The former concluded that the vast majority of DPAs (Supervisory Authorities) did not accept hiding the “Reject All” button in a second layer - which most notably leaves Spain's AEPD as the odd one out. They did all agree on the non-conformity of: a) pre-ticked consent checkboxes on second layer; b) a reliance on legitimate interest; c) the use of dark patterns in link design or deceptive button colors/contrast; and d) the inaccurate classification of essential cookies. The latter concluded that public bodies across the EU may find it hard to provide supplementary measures when sending personal data to a US-based cloud (as per Schrems II requirements) in the context of some Software as a Service (SaaS) implementations, suggesting that switching to an EEA-sovereign Cloud Service Provider (CSP) would solve the problem and getting many to wonder whether it also refers to US-owned CSPs, which would leave few options on the table and none able to compete at many levels in terms of features or scale.  All of which can easily lead us to the latest update on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework: The EDPB released its non-binding opinion on the status of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (voicing concerns about proportionality, the data protection review court and bulk data collection by national security agencies). The EU Commission will now proceed to ask EU Member States to approve it with the hope of issuing an adequacy decision by July 2023. This would do away with all the headaches derived from the Schrems II ECJ decision (including growing pressure to store personal data in EU-based data centers), were it not for the general impression that a Schrems III challenge looms in the horizon. In the United States, long-awaited new privacy rules in California (CPRA) and Virginia (CDPA) entered into force on January 1st. Although both provide a set of rights in terms of ensuring individual control over personal data being collected across the Internet (opt-out, access, deletion, correction, portability…), California's creates a private right of action that could pave the way for a new avalanche of privacy-related lawsuits.In any case, only companies meeting a minimum threshold in terms of revenue or the amount of consumers affected by their data collection practices (both of them varying across the two states) will have to comply with the new rules. Lastly, Privacy by Design will become ISO standard 31700 on February 8th, finally introducing an auditable process to conform to the seven principles originally laid out by Anne Cavoukian as Ontario(Canada)'s former Data Protection Commissioner.    Enforcement updates It's been interesting to see how continental Data Protection Agencies (“DPAs”) keep milking the cow of the ePrivacy Directive's lack of a one-stop-shop for US or China-based Big Tech giants. The long-awaited ePrivacy Regulation never arrived to keep this framework in sync with the GDPR (which does have a one-stop-shop), and this leaves an opening for any DPA to avoid referring large enforcement cases involving such players to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) whenever cookie consent is involved. This criterion has been further strengthened by the recent conclusions of EPDB cookie banner task force. Microsoft was the last major victim of this particular gap (following Meta and Google), receiving a 60-million euro fine from France's DPA (CNIL), which shortly after honored TikTok with a 5m euro fine (once again, due to the absence of a “Reject All” button on its first layer - or “not being as easy to reject cookies as it is to accept them”) and, not having had enough, went on to give Apple an 8m euro fine for collecting unique device identifiers of visitors to its App Store without prior consent or notice, in order to serve its own ads (which is akin to a cookie or local storage system when it comes to article 5.3 of the ePrivacy Directive).  The CNIL ePrivacy-related enforcement spree did not stop short at Big Tech. Voodoo, a leader in hyper-casual mobile games, was also a target, receiving a 3 million euro fine for lack of proper consent when serving an IDFV (unique identifier “for vendors”, which Apples does allow app publishers to set when IDFA or cross-app identifiers have been declined via the App Tracking Transparency prompt).  Putting the ePrivacy Directive aside, and well into pure GDPR domain, Discord received a 800k euro fine (again, at the hands of CNIL) on the basis of: a) a failure to properly determine and enforce a concrete data retention period; b) a failure to consider Privacy by Design requirements in the development of its products; c) accepting very low security levels for user-created passwords; and d) failing to carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (given the volume of data it processed and the fact that the tool has become popular among minors).  And yet, one particular piece of news outshined mostly everything else in this category: Ireland's DPC imposed a 390 euro fine on Meta following considerable pressure from the EDPB for relying on the contractual legal basis in order to serve personalized advertising - itself the core business model of both social networks. We had a debate on the matter with Tim Walters (English) and Alonso Hurtado (Spanish) on Masters of Privacy, and published an opinion piece on our blog.  This last affair is a good segue into Twitter's latest troubles. Its new owner, Elon Musk, not content with having fired key senior executives in charge of EU privacy compliance (including its Chief Privacy Officer and DPO), has suggested that he will oblige its non-paying users to consent to personalized advertising. The Irish DPC (once again, in charge of its supervision under the one-stop-shop rule) asked Twitter for a meeting in the hope to draw a few red lines.  Meanwhile, the Spanish AEPD, still breaking all records in terms of monthly fines, sanctioned UPS (70,000 euros) for handing out a MediaMarkt (consumer electronics) delivery to a neighbor, thus breaching confidentiality duties. This will have a serious impact on the regular practices of courier services in the country.  Back in the United States, Epic Games and the FTC agreed to a $520m fine for directly targeting children under the age of 13 with its Fortnite game (a default setting that allows them to engage in voice and text communications with strangers has made it worse), as well for using for “dark patterns” in in-game purchases. Separately, in what we believe it is a first case of its kind, even in the EU (with the ECJ FashionID case possibly being the closest we have been to it). Betterhelp has received an FTC $7,8m fine for using the Facebook Lookalike Audiences feature (and alternative offerings in the programmatic advertising space, including those of Criteo, Snapchat or Pinterest) to find potential customers on the basis of their similarity with the online mental health service's current user base. This involved sensitive data and follows repetitive disclaimers by Betterhelp that data would in no case be shared with third parties.   On the private lawsuits front (especially important in the US), Meta agreed to pay $725m after a class action was brought in California against Facebook on the back of the ever-present Cambridge Analytica scandal. Also, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) kept putting money into the pockets of claimants and class action lawyers, in this case forcing Whole Foods (an upscale organic food supermarket chain owned by Amazon) to settle for $300.000 - we have previously previous cases against TikTok, Facebook or Snapchat, albeit it was the monitoring, via “voiceprints”, of its own employees (rather than its customers) that triggered this particular lawsuit. Legitimate Interest strikes back  To finish with this section, very recent developments justify turning our eyes back to the UK and the EU as there is growing momentum for the acceptance of the legitimate interest as a legal basis for purely commercial or direct marketing purposes:  While the CJEU decides on a question posed by a Dutch court in January, in which the DPA issued a fine to a tennis association for relying on legitimate interest to share member details with its sponsors (who then sent commercial offers to them), a UK court (First-Tier Tribunal) has ruled against the ICO (UK DPA) and in favor of Experian (a well-known data broker) for collecting data about 5.3m people from publicly available sources, including the electorate register, to build customer profiles and subsequently selling them to advertisers. Experian has relied on legitimate interest and found it too burdensome to properly inform every single individual (this being the ICO's main point of contention). The decision does appear to indicate that using legitimate interest would not be possible if the original data collection had been based on consent, but even this is not entirely clear. So, just to make it even more clear and simple, the UK Government presented a new draft of a new UK Data Protection Bill on March 8th that includes a pre-built shortcut to using legitimate interest without need for the so-called three part test (purpose, necessity, balancing). Data controllers can now go ahead with this legal basis if they find their purpose in a non-exhaustive list provided - which includes direct marketing.  Competition and Digital Markets Google was sued by the Department of Justice for anti-competitive behavior in its dominance of the AdTech stack across the open market (or the ads that are shown across the web and beyond its own “walled gardens”), using its dominance of the publisher ad server market (supply side) to further strengthen its stranglehold of the demand side (advertisers, many of them already glued to its Google Ads or DV360 platforms in order to invest in search keywords or YouTube inventory) and, worse, artificially manipulating its own ad exchange to favor publishers at the expense of advertisers - thereby reinforcing the flywheel, as digital media publishers found themselves with even less incentives to work with competing ad servers.  Zero-Party Data and Future of Media (The piece of news below obliges us to combine both categories this season) The BBC has rolled out its own version of SOLID pods to allow its own customers to leverage their own data (exported from Netflix, Spotify, and the BBC) in order to obtain relevant recommendations while staying in full control of such data. Perhaps a little step towards individual agency, but a giant one for a digital media ecosystem mostly butchered by the untenable notice-and-consent approach derived from the current legal framework - which takes us back full circle to Elizabeth Renieris' new book.  

The European Union's new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing?For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm's global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Main paths to impact in EU AI Policy, published by JOMG Monnet on December 8, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Epistemic status This is a tentative overview of the current main paths to impact in EU AI Policy. There is significant uncertainty regarding the relative impact of the different paths below The paths mentioned below were cross-checked with four experts working in the field, but the list is probably not exhaustive Additionally, this post may also be of interest to those interested in working in EU AI Policy. In particular, consider the arguments against impact here This article doesn't compare the potential value of US AI policy careers with those in the EU for people with EU-citizenship. A comparison between the two options is beyond the scope of this post Summary People seeking to have a positive impact on the direction of AI policy in the EU may consider the following paths to impact: Working on (enforcement of) the AI Act, related AI technical standards and adjacent regulation Working on the current AI Act draft (possibility to have impact immediately) Working on technical standards and auditing services of the AI Act (possibility to have impact immediately) Making sure the EU AI Act is enforced effectively (possibility to have impact now and >1/2 years from now) Working on a revision of the AI Act (possibility to have impact >5 years from now), or on (potential) new AI-related regulation (e.g. possibility to have impact now through the AI Liability Directive) Working on export controls and using the EU's soft power (possibility to have immediate + longer term impact) Using career capital gained from a career in EU AI Policy to work on different policy topics or in the private sector While the majority of impact for some paths above is expected to be realised in the medium/long term, building up career capital is probably a prerequisite for making impact in these paths later on. It is advisable to create your own personal “theory of change” for working in the field. The list of paths to impact below is not exhaustive and individuals should do their own research into different paths and speak to multiple experts. Paths to impact Working on (enforcement of) the AI Act, related AI technical standards and adjacent regulation Since the EU generally lacks cutting edge developers of AI systems, the largest expected impact from the EU AI Act is expected to follow from a Brussels effect of sorts. For the AI act to have a positive effect on the likelihood of safe, advanced AI systems being developed within organisations outside of the EU, the following assumptions need to be true: Advanced AI systems are (also) being developed within private AI labs that (plan to) export products to EU citizens. The AI-developing activities within private AI labs need to be influenced by the EU AI Act through a Brussels Effect of some sort (de facto or de jure). This depends on whether advanced AI is developed within a product development process in which AI-companies take EU AI Act regulation into account. Requirements on these companies either have a (1) slowing effect on advanced AI development, buying more time for technical safety research or better regulation within the countries where AI is developed (2) direct effect, e.g. through risk management requirements that increase the odds of safe AI development Working on the final draft of the AI Act Current status of AI Act The AI Act is a proposed European law on artificial intelligence (AI) – the first law on AI by a major regulator anywhere. On April 21, 2021 the Commission published a proposal to regulate artificial intelligence in the European Union. The proposal of the EU AI Act will become law once both the Council (representing the 27 EU Member States) and the European Parliament agree on a common version of the te...

While the African Medicines Agency (AMA) plans and plants its inaugural headquarters in Rwanda, the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), several EU Member States, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continue to mobilize more than €100 million in support. “The idea is to use the AMA as a platform that will further advance the capacities of the African continent to regulate medical products as a collective. It's a network approach to regulation of medical products on the continent,” explains David Mukanga (Deputy Director, Africa Regulatory Systems, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) in this conversation with EMA Head of International Affairs Martin Harvey Allchurch.

For this week's session, we were thrilled to welcome back  Rob West. Rob is the lead analyst at his own firm, Thunder Said Energy. Rob had a career in research at Redburn and Sanford C. Bernstein before leaving to start Thunder Said in 2019 and first joined us for COBT on January 4, 2022. He has immersed himself in the technology details of the energy transition and brings a unique "how are we going to accomplish all of this" perspective to all of his analysis. Even though there are immense challenges, and we have dug ourselves in a hole in many ways, hang in there as you will hear Rob's optimism in particular towards the end of the discussion. Rob joined us today from his home in Tallinn, Estonia. In our conversation, we pull from Rob some thoughts on the Russia-Ukraine war and delve into the sentiment in Eastern Europe and the Baltics about Russia's aggression. Rob recently wrote a research piece entitled "Energy Shortage: Fear in a Handful of Dust?" At the heart of the paper is that the road to a better world, including a successful transformation of our energy system, goes through having energy "surplus" and not through energy "shortage." Quite the contrary, he points out the dangers of energy shortage in a number of areas including higher food prices, the negative climate effects of more wood use, diminished economic prosperity, reduced security, and the instability of democracies during periods like the one we are in. Rob reminds us of the serious bottlenecks to be solved, the second law of thermodynamics (and the implications for energy loss), that we need energy to build new energy systems, and the importance of innovation. In total, Rob points to ten key reasons why the world needs energy surplus, and why such surplus not only helps us achieve our environmental goals, but also helps us avoid a world that would ultimately be more dangerous and also more painful, especially for those who have less. To kick us off, Mike Bradley took a look back at what oil and gas prices looked like in January of 2022 when Rob last joined us and shared current bond, commodity, and equity performance. He noted that the last few days of energy equity volatility was predominately related to the direction OPEC might pursue at its December meeting and wrapped up his discussion by laying out both the failure and success coming out of COP 27. Colin Fenton noted the European Union has put a number on its proposed price cap for natural gas: €275 per MWh, as measured by the TTF month-ahead price in the Netherlands. The proposed cap would begin on January 1, 2023, last for one year, and activate only in the event of emergency conditions locally, as determined by the spread between spot prices in Europe and a basket of spot LNG prices from around the world. EU Member States would need to approve the proposal before it could take effect. Veriten's head of nuclear research and strategy, Brett Rampal, also joined the team today. As we pause and reflect about Thanksgiving, we want to wish you all the best and reiterate how grateful we are for your friendship. Be on the lookout for a special message on Thanksgiving Day!  Thank you again to Rob for joining and thanks to you all! 

EU Commissioner for the Economy and former Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni recently joined the Europe Desk to discuss the state of the economy and the proposed recovery strategies. We asked him about potential fragmentation amongst EU Member States and what this means for solidarity. We also asked him about the additional economic challenges some countries face in the form of high debt levels and increasing borrowing costs.  The Europe Desk is a podcast from the BMW Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. It brings together leading experts working on the most pertinent issues facing Europe and transatlantic relations today. Music by Sam Kyzivat and Breakmaster Cylinder Design by Sarah Diebboll Leadership: Flora Adamian, Jakob Winkler Production by Hailey Ordal and Josephine Sylvestre Communications by Shelby Emami, Ryan Conner, Mason Kane, Sophie al-Mutawaly, and Flora Adamian https://cges.georgetown.edu/podcast Twitter and Instagram: @theeuropedesk If you need more information about the Center's events, or have any questions or feedback, please email: theeuropedesk@georgetown.edu.

EU prepares sanctions package aimed at banning Russian travel to EU member states Duran: Episode 1354