Feed aggregator

Allgemeines : Anstatt ins Reisebüro zu gehen, buchen immer mehr Menschen ihren Urlaub im Internet. Sie kombinieren Angebote verschiedener Anbieter und wählen seltener eine Pauschalreise. Das Parlament hat sich nun mit dem Ministerrat auf neue Regeln geeinigt, um die Rechte der Verbraucher im Zusammenhang mit Reisebuchungen im Internet zu stärken. Wir haben mit der deutschen Berichterstatterin Birgit Collin-Langen (EVP) gesprochen.

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2015 - EP

The SMM monitored the implementation of the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”. The SMM, based on its monitoring – which was restricted by third parties and by security considerations* – observed ongoing fighting in and around Donetsk airport and Shyrokyne.

The SMM noted long periods of calm – followed by intense fighting – in areas in and around the destroyed Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”)-controlled Donetsk airport (8km north-west of Donetsk) and Shyrokyne (20km east of Mariupol).

At the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) observation post at “DPR”-controlled Donetsk railway station (8km north-west of Donetsk), JCCC representatives told the SMM that there had been no shelling in the area on the night of 10-11 May. However, whilst at the observation post from 08:05 to 17:00hrs, the SMM heard a total of 105 explosions, and sporadic small arms and heavy machine gun fire.

The SMM noted a calm situation in areas around government-controlled Berdianske (1.5km west of Shyrokyne) in the morning of 11 May. At a regular SMM observation post on the eastern outskirts of the village, however, it observed numerous fresh craters – one just metres from the actual observation post. The SMM observed an additional eight craters in residential areas in the village – caused by 122mm artillery rounds – and a further two, caused by 152mm artillery rounds. Local people told the SMM that the shelling had occurred the previous night.

In nearby Shyrokyne village, the SMM noted that a calm situation prevailed. It observed, however, a crater, which, after analysis, it concluded had been caused by an 82mm mortar. According to local people, the round had killed a 47-year-old man on 29 April. The SMM assessed that the round had been fired from a position to the west. As the SMM was leaving the village at 16.15hrs, it heard small-arms and mortar fire in the north-west of the village.

The general calm in the Berdianske-Shyrokyne area came to an end at 16:30hrs, when an intensive exchange of tank, mortar and anti-aircraft rounds began, which continued even as the SMM left the area at 19.20hrs.   

In government-controlled Luhanske (62km north-east of Donetsk), the SMM noted no ceasefire violations, little or no military movement and a relaxed posture amongst Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel. Numerous Ukrainian Armed Forces interlocutors told the SMM that the situation had been calm in the area over the past few days.

The situation in the Luhansk region remained relatively calm, with the SMM noting two instances of limited shelling[1].

In government-controlled Pervomaiske (16km north-west of Donetsk), Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers told the SMM that a Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) medical unit in the area had been replaced by a Ukrainian Armed Forces medical unit.

In government-controlled Stanytsia Luhanska (16km north-east of Luhansk), the SMM noted two houses next to a Ukrainian Armed Forces checkpoint, one destroyed and the other damaged. Checkpoint personnel and local residents told the SMM that a barrage of small arms, anti-aircraft, and automatic grenade launcher fire – emanating from across the bridge in “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”)-controlled territory – had been directed towards the checkpoint for four hours in the evening of 10 May. Interlocutors explained that a gas explosion had resulted, causing the damage to the houses. A fire brigade was on the scene.

Despite claims that withdrawal of heavy weapons was complete, the SMM observed the following weapons’ movement/presence in areas that are in violation of the Minsk withdrawal lines: (i) in “LPR”-controlled areas, three artillery pieces (122mm D-30); and, (ii) in government-controlled areas, six tanks (T-64).

The SMM noted approximately 70 men and women – overseen by 110 police officers – demonstrate in Odessa, demanding the release of Nadiya Savchenko. The protest was organised by the Batkivshchyna Party. A similar gathering – organised by a student non-governmental organisation – took place in Kyiv, at which 300 men and women demanded the release of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pilot from custody in the Russian Federation. Overseen by six police officers, the protests passed off peacefully.

Also in Kyiv, the spokesperson for the Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) told the SMM that the Pravyy Sektor volunteer battalion had not integrated into regular Ukrainian military structures. He said one proposal – placing the battalion under the control of the National Guard – had been rejected because the National Guard is under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which the interlocutor said had still to be “lustrated”. A subsequent proposal – allowing individual Pravyy Sektor members to enlist in the Armed Forces – was also unacceptable, according to the interlocutor, as it would have entailed the dissolution of the battalion.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation in Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk, Kherson, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi and Lviv.

 

* Restrictions on SMM access and freedom of movement:

The SMM is restrained in fulfilling its monitoring functions by restrictions imposed by third parties and security considerations including the lack of information on whereabouts of landmines.

The security situation in Donbas is fluid and unpredictable and the cease-fire does not hold everywhere.

• Near “LPR”-controlled Ohulchansk (26km east of Luhansk), the SMM was prevented from travelling to “LPR”-controlled Parkhomenko (29km east of Luhansk) by “LPR” “border guards”, who said a “letter of access” was required if the SMM wished to visit the border zone.
• The SMM was stopped and held for an hour and a half near “LPR”-controlled Komisarivka (61km south-west of Luhansk) by two “LPR” members, who did not recognize the SMM’s right to unhindered access to all areas. The situation was only resolved upon the arrival of four other “LPR” members, who allowed the SMM to proceed.
• Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel stopped and searched an SMM vehicle at a checkpoint near government-controlled Nyzhnie (56km north-west of Luhansk). The patrol was allowed to proceed after five minutes.

 

1]   For a complete breakdown of the ceasefire violations, please see the annexed table.

 

Related Stories

• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 10 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 8 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 7 May 2015

As many of the Member States of the European Union painstakingly, and in many cases painfully, deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Commission attempts to facilitate and aid their recovery in any way it can.[1] The latest attempt to do so is the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic investment (EFSI). Unfortunately this new creation did not receive the collective round of applause across Europe that one might have expected. Quite the contrary. The reason is rather suspicious accounting. The money, apparently, not only has to come from somewhere, but rather astonishingly, from education. In the wake of last year’s internecine institutional strife in which many, including the Commission, battled valiantly to ring-fence key chunks of the education budget (ironically delaying 2014 Jean Monnet applications until the Parliament had approved the MFF), education and its ancillary R&D and innovations budgets appear to have become a prime target for ambitious, but as-yet ambiguous plans by Commission President Juncker. Is this particularly wise? The result may ultimately transfer €2.7 billion from Horizon2020 (currently 3.5% of the overall 2013-2020 budget), to the new EFSI to take effect between 2015-2020, with the apparently bulletproof intention of creating jobs, and boosting economic growth but at a cost of hundreds of millions of Euros to universities across Europe.

 Sustained growth and new jobs are, indeed, a key precondition for the wellbeing of all Europeans. There’s no argument there.  As Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness pointed out, “we need fresh investments in Europe and for this we need to mobilise extra private finance.[2]” The approach however, seems recklessly short-termist. Achieving investment, monetary fluidity and commercial momentum is a huge part of sustained attention to the education sector. Sustained investment of education is also a first-class method of in-house job creation in an ever-developing sector ultimately gives Europe a hard-won edge over other regions of the world, many of whom still focus on manufacturing rather than innovation and research. Achieving such benefits at the expanse of world-class research, teaching and learning, which itself is a genuine catalyst of EU innovation and competitiveness however makes little sense.

 So, congratulations to Britain. At a time when the UK is convulsing over its national future and international vocation, the danger to education funding, set against the backdrop of European recovery was the prime concern for the single largest UK delegation of university Vice Chancellors who at the end of April travelled without delay to Brussels to voice their concerns. Among them was Sir Ian Diamond, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, who argued that “excellence in research is being challenged in every way by these cuts.” Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, stated that the cuts would hit pure research in UK universities, who would then be unable to borrow money to replace lost funds despite the existence of a loan scheme designed for this purpose. “There are programmes in Horizon2020 focused on pure research that cannot get this money back,” he said, adding that “€2.7 billion is a lot to give up from a programme we know works”[3]. Similarly, Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of the League of European Research Universities, was involved in a similar lobbying effort in Brussels. “I’m not sure it’s going to end well,” he said. While lawmakers in the European Parliament are inserting text into the legal proposal to ensure a greater link between the fund and research and innovation spending, the window for finding a compromise on budget cuts is closing according to Deketelaere.[4] 

The British backlash is not, in this sense, an isolated one. A variety of other institutions lent their voices to the Commission’s proposal. A joint statement was released by Science Europe, the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), the European University Association (EUA), the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAR), stating that while they supported the Commission’s actions to boost economic growth and job creation through R&I investment, Horizon2020 remained “the only strategic European-level instrument supporting R&I activities” and actors. As the joint statement made clear: “Horizon2020, much like national R&I funds, is based on granting funds recognising that R&I actors such as universities, research performing organisations (RPOs) and research and technology organisations (RTOs) have specific business models requiring strong public support (that cannot primarily come from loans).[5] 

What informs the Commission’s perspective on this latest funding fracas? According to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “if Europe invests more, Europe will be more prosperous and create more jobs – it’s as simple as that.“[6] Thus, by re-allocating funds from Horizon2020 to the EFSI, Europe will “attract much more important sums that will then be reinvested in innovation,” thereby “delivering higher returns” utilising the same amount of money. Moreover, the Commission argues that “the overall amount of investment on innovation mobilised by the EU budget in the next years will be higher than with Horizon2020 only”. More importantly,  funding initially foreseen for Horizon2020 will allegedly not be lost, that is “not lost for innovation.”[7]  The arcane mysteries of bookkeeping aside, one can argue that ESFI-branded funding, according to the Juncker proposal will now be dispersed amongst different projects, which in real terms dilutes the funding designed to underwrite Horizon2020 projects.

ESFI and Horizon2020 simply do different things, and neither they, nor their funding structures can realistically reinforce each other. EFSI primarily aims at attracting private investors, while Horizon2020 funds mostly research undertaken by universities and research institutes and centres, many of which are publicly funded and work on a different “business model” than private companies. Even the briefest of glances at how universities do, or indeed ought to operate, makes this much clear. Therefore, regardless of the Commission’s enterprise-led discourse, projects undertaken by higher education institutions across Europe are likely to be negatively affected. Ironically, more astute research could have enlightened the commission on this point: a decent assessment regarding the impact of funds diverted from Horizon2020 would indicate which projects could potentially benefit from EFSI funding, and which (arguably the lion share) of projects must be ring-fenced within the original structures of Horizon2020.

Retrospective accounting is never popular. And infrequently effective.  The creation of new jobs may yield higher employment in the short-term, but it does not ensure that these new jobs will not be subsequently reduced or re-located elsewhere, or indeed that the commercial boost of the ESFI will not fall onto the presently fallow commercial ground of the Eurozone. Research is project-specific, dedicated, rarely fungible given its capital-intensive nature and largely conditioned exclusively to the institutional dynamic from which it first emerges, i.e. the presence of faculty-based facilities and higher-education expertise. Its purpose is not to underwrite a faltering Eurozone in raw funding from the bottom up but to boost the top-down ideas, projects, dynamics and outputs that are themselves the catalyst to enhanced productivity, jobs and competition.

What now? The usual standoff between ardent voices from a key sector attempting to persuade the Commission and key Member State governments to block the re-allocation of funds? Our hope lies, for now, in the European Parliament, where a considerable number of MEP currently oppose the idea of hollowing out Horizon2020 funding. We should remember that MEPs backed amendments safeguarding research funding for programmes like Horizon2020 being used for EFSI-supported projects. As MEP Van Brempt argued, “our researchers, our universities around the EU, need this money if we want to keep our future-oriented vision and to enhance the EU’s competitiveness and global strength.”[8] Last ditch hopes rest also with a motivated educational sector, and key voices being heard. Unfortunately, apart from the charge of last week, and some immediate media coverage, there has been virtually no public discussion or sustained media attention regarding the proposed changes.

Funding reallocations are hardly glamorous, admittedly. But a full-frontal assault on the funding structures underwriting innovation (much of it connected to sustaining Eurozone industry and commerce) is worthy of attention. Insights beget illumination, illumination sustains innovation. And innovation keeps things efficient and effective. Not tinkering with the most important hands-off budget in Europe. Universities have survived the storm necessitating corporate benchmarking and impact and knowledge exchange in bidding for funding; but hollowing out Horizon2020 and any related educational budgets risks substituting instrumental forms of performance for genuine progress.

 Sources

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/v-cs-go-to-brussels-to-lobby-against-cuts/2019654.article

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/eit-and-erc-expected-to-lose-millions-in-juncker-investment-plan/

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2014/14_124_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32257724

[1] With profound thanks to CCCU Politics/IR Graduate Michal Gloznek. Having gradauted with distinction from Politics/IR here at CCCU in 2014, Michal is completing the first year of his MPhil in Latin American Studies at the Latin American Centre, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford.

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[3] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

[4] http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

[5] http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

[6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[7] http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

 [8] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

 

The post Horizon 2020: EU investment offensive or offensive investment? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Pakistan
White House denies journalist’s assertions on bin Laden raid

On Monday, the White House responded to a controversial report by journalist Seymour Hersh, dismissing it as “baseless” (CNN, RFE/RL). Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books on Sunday that the U.S. government secretly cooperated with Pakistani intelligence officials to kill bin Laden, and that top Pakistani Army intelligence officials knew about the raid. Ned Price, the White House National Security spokesman, said on Monday that “the notion that the operation that killed Osama Bin Ladin was anything but a unilateral U.S. mission is patently false.” He added: “As we said at the time, knowledge of this operation was confined to a very small circle of senior U.S. officials. The president decided early on not to inform any other government, including the Pakistani government, which was not notified until after the raid had occurred.” During the daily press briefing on Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest again dismissed the report, citing CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen’s comment that “what’s true in this story isn’t new, and what’s new in the story isn’t true” (CNN).

Pakistani PM, Officials Arrive in Kabul

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif arrived in Kabul today for key talks on increasing cooperation between the neighboring countries in fighting militant groups (AP, Pajhwok, VOA). Army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif and the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Gen. Gizwan Akhtar are also part of the visiting delegation. This is the first time Sharif is visiting Kabul after the installation of the National UnitY Government, and the delegation is holding separate meetings with both Ghani and Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah.

Nepal

Another earthquake in Nepal, India prepares aid

A second major earthquake hit Nepal on Tuesday, with dozens of deaths reported and thousands more injured. The U.S. Geological Survey assigned the new earthquake a preliminary magnitude of 7.3, compared to 7.8 assigned to the April 25 earthquake. (New York Times). Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with top Indian officials to monitor the situation. Modi’s office tweeted that he has “directed all concerned authorities to be on alert for carrying out rescue and relief operations, as required” (NDTV). Per initial reports, at least two people were killed by the earthquake in the Indian state of Bihar, which borders Nepal (Times of India). Tremors from the earthquake were felt as far away as Delhi, where Metro services were briefly suspended (India Today).

Bangladesh

Atheist blogger killed in machete attack

Ananta Bijoy Das, a Bangladeshi atheist blogger, was murdered in the city of Sylhet in northeastern Bangladesh (The Guardian, CNN). Das was hacked to death by four masked attackers with machetes, according to the police. This is the third such murder in Bangladesh this year. Das wrote blogs for the Mukto-Muno website, which used to be moderated by Avijit Roy, who was himself stabbed to death in February in Dhaka, the capital. While Kamrul Hasan, the commissioner of Sylhet police, declined to offer a motive for the attack, the previous two attacks have been attributed to Islamic militants opposed to the victims’ secular views.

India

Chinese smartphone makers eye Indian market

The New York Times reported on Monday that Chinese smartphone manufacturing companies are increasingly shifting their focus towards India (New York Times). The Chinese smartphone market has become more and more saturated, with 800 million smartphone users in the country. Fewer new buyers, coupled with a slowing economy, has diminished growth prospects within China. Instead, Chinese smartphone makers are targeting the Indian market, which is sized at $14.5 billion and rapidly growing. Indians are expected to buy 111 million smartphones in 2015 and 149 million in 2016. Chinese companies like Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Gionee are planning to set up research and development facilities in India.

Modi set to be first Indian PM to visit Mongolia

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit East Asia this week, and his meeting with President Xi Jinping of China in Beijing will be a highly anticipated event. Following his visit to China, Modi will also visit Mongolia on May 17, the first such visit by an Indian Prime Minister (Times of India). Noted South Asia scholar C. Raja Mohan argues that there is a strategic element to Modi’s Mongolia trip, as India and China compete for influence within each other’s neighborhoods (Indian Express).

Afghanistan

Roadside bomb kills 5 civilians

A roadside bomb killed five civilians and wounded three others in Kandahar province on Tuesday (RFE/RL, TOLO). Samim Akhplwak, the spokesman for the provincial governor, said that two women and one child were wounded in the blast and that an investigation is underway to determine if it was an old mine or a bomb planted by the Taliban (AP). The Taliban have not yet claimed responsibility for the bomb, but Kandahar province is the staging ground for their insurgency.

Taliban, security forces battle in Herat

Skirmishes between Taliban militants and Afghan security forces in Herat province continued on Tuesday, as dozens of insurgents attacked a number of security checkpoints in the Shindand district (Pajhwok, TOLO). Abdul Rauf, a police spokesperson, said that 20 rebels were killed during the fighting, but other officials declined to give a count of casualties. On Saturday, Taliban insurgents attacked and gained control of Jawand district in western Badghis province. The recent uptick in fighting is attributed to the beginning of the Taliban’s spring offensive last month.

— Udit Banerjea and Emily Schneider

Edited by Peter Bergen

Un an après son arrivée au pouvoir, en mai 2014, le premier ministre indien Narendra Modi continue d'ériger en modèle économique les recettes expérimentées dans l'Etat du Gujarat, qu'il a dirigé de 2001 à 2014 . Si son étoile commence à pâlir, le dirigeant du parti hindouiste Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a (...) / Inde, Agriculture, Économie, Industrie, Libéralisme, Mouvement de contestation, Parti politique, Travail, Répression, Privatisation - 2015/05

Ce saisissant roman prolétarien n'est pas une nouveauté , mais il est bon de saisir l'occasion d'une nouvelle publication pour revenir sur ce chef-d'œuvre d'un genre peu fréquenté, et parfois plus attachant par la thématique que par la grandeur littéraire. Avec Le Bateau-Usine, écrit en 1929, (...) / Asie, Japon, Russie, Communisme, Culture, Histoire, Idéologie, Littérature, Mer, Mouvement de contestation, Travail, Fiction, Pêche - 2015/05

Celui-là n'avait pas des verrières fragiles ! Un petit bijou de beau livre pas cher (14,90 EUR pour 180
Plus d'infos »

It was Wednesday, April 15th when the European Commission announced to have sent a statement of objections to Google for allegedly abusing its market position, cheating on consumers and competitors by distorting Web search results to favour its own shopping service. Moreover, the European Commission has also formally started another antitrust investigation, concerning the mobile operating system Android, “investigating on whether Google has breached the EU antitrust rules by hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems, applications and services to the detriment of consumers and developers of innovative services and products”.

 “No competition without transparency”, can be reassumed as the essence of the Messerschmidt Report on EU Competition Policy, adopted by the European Parliament, Tuesday March 10th that led the EU’s investigation into Google to a turning point. Indeed when approved, the European Parliament expressed regret that after four years of investigation the Commission has not shown any demonstrable results in the case itself or the allegations of the preferential treatment of its own services in displaying results of search queries, stating that “in order to be credible in the digital agenda, the Google case urges to be solved”.

“I’m not pointing the finger against Google itself but against the fact that negotiations are lasting too long. It’s four years since the Commission has taken initiative after initiative but nothing’s relay going on. I’m not seeking to put Google in the dock, but we have seen several initiatives and four years passed and we have to resolve this case. The credibility of the Commission’s digital agenda is on the line, if it fails to ensure that competition infringements in fast-moving and dynamic digital markets are tackled swiftly” so Mr. Messerschmidt about his report.

 Margrethe Vestager EU Commissioner in charge of competition policy who took over this politically charged case in November, following nearly five years of investigation by former Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, outlined the situation in the following way: “In the case of Google I am concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service in breach of EU antitrust rules.” Given the outlined situation, the Mountain View, California based company will have ten weeks of time in order to advocate their case, having “the opportunity to convince the Commission to the contrary. However, if the investigation confirms our concerns, Google would have to face the legal consequences and change the way it does business in Europe”.  

 Replying to the critics, accusing the EU of taking a protectionist stance against the US tech industry: “In all of our cases (concerning competition policy), the nationality of the enterprises involved is, and will remain, indifferent to us. Our mission is to make sure that every company operating within the EU, does it respecting our policies”. The fact that many of the firms that have complained to Brussels in order to challenge Google’s business practices in Europe are themselves US companies, should also be seen as an important signal.

On the newly opened Android investigation instead: “I have also launched a formal antirust investigation of Goggle’s conduct concerning mobile operating systems, apps and services. Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company,” so Ms. Vestager.

 Sanctions:

Concerning issues of European Competition Policy, it’s the European Commission who has the major say with the power to apply sanctions up to 10% of the company’s annual sales. In this case, concerning the Google issue, if the American tech giant will be judged guilty, the European Commission will have the power to apply a fine up to 6.2 billion euros.

Moreover if the Commission finds that companies are abusing a dominant market position, the EU regulator can also demand wide-ranging changes in the way a Company does its business in Europe

 When asked if really ready to fine a tech giant such as Google, Ms. Vestager explained that “it is very important that every road is open- first when it comes to commitments but also when it comes to the other road, at the end of which is a fine.”

 Reactions:

In its first reaction, the American tech giant stated that it strongly disagreed with the EU’s statement of objections, emphasizing the fact that, on their opinion, during the last years its products have fostered competition, benefitting consumers as well. “While Google may be the most used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways—and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark”.
“Our free operating system for mobile devices has been a key player in spurring competition and choice, lowering prices and increasing choice for everyone (there are over 18,000 different devices available today)” so the Mountain View, California based company concerning the Android issue.

 Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), very active on this dossier since the beginning stressed the fact that during the last years many European S&M enterprises went bankrupt causing damage to European consumers. From a Single Digital Market perspective, the aim of Competition Policy should be to “establish an open market that contains and warrants the same opportunities for everyone”. “The Google issue is not a question of taxation, we need to assure a level playing field in the European market, assuring companies to equally compete in the market, and avoid Google to monopolize the market in the next years.”

 Morten Messerschmidt MEP, author of the European Parliament’s recent annual Competition report, said: “Finally we are seeing some life in the Commission’s Competition directorate. Despite four years of investigations we have seen few clear results or actions by the Commission to allow all digital businesses to operate on a level playing field. The Commission has now showed its teeth, and it must now work swiftly with Google to resolve this case and create an open and fair Internet search marketplace.”

 Monique Goyens, general manager of BEUC, an associate member of the International Consumers Organisation aiming at representing and defending the interests of all Europe’s consumers at the European level, stressed the importance of Google treating all the online services, including their own and not just Google Shopping, following the same standards and practices, without discrimination to put it simple.

 “Even Uncle Google must play fair”, German lawmaker Manfred Weber, floor leader of the largest conservative group, said: « Internet is not the Wild West – there are rules on the web that must also be respected. »

 

Patrick Zingerle

To know more:

      -. EU-LOGOS, “COMPETITION POLICY: ‘IN ORDER TO BE CREDIBLE IN THE DIGITAL AGENDA, THE GOOGLE CASE NEEDS TO BE SOLVED’.”http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2015/03/17/competition-policy-in-order-to-be-credible-in-the-digital-agenda-the-google-case-needs-to-be-solved/

      -. Dossier GOOGLE des articles de Nea Say http://www.eu-logos.org/eu-logos_nea-say.php?idr=4&idnl=3500&nea=156&lang=fra&arch=0&term=0

 

 

 

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection des données personnelles

La Rochelle n'a pas oublié son matelot du 1er BFMC. Plus de 70 ans après sa mort, sa ville d'origine
Plus d'infos »

Défiant tous les sondages, David Cameron a été réélu en obtenant la majorité absolue à la Chambre des communes, avec 331 sièges. Comment comprendre cette victoire ?
C’est en effet un scénario que personne n’attendait. David Cameron semble avoir gagné cette élection essentiellement sur le terrain de l’économie, qu’il a réussi à faire repartir et qui a finalement pesé plus lourd que l’effet de l’austérité sur le pays. Au-delà de la personnalité de David Cameron elle-même, qui ne suscite pas toujours une adhésion débordante, les Britanniques ont vu un dirigeant fort, crédible économiquement, et qui n’a pas hésité à prendre les décisions qui s’imposaient. Cependant, l’analyse des résultats de cette élection ne fait que commencer, notamment pour les travaillistes qui vont devoir engager une vraie réflexion, eux qui n’ont pas gagné d’élections sans Tony Blair depuis 1974. Peuvent-ils gagner une élection sans mordre sur le centre, dans un pays modéré, qui penche au centre droit ? Des interrogations se posent aussi pour les instituts de sondages, qui ont du mal à lire le vote conservateur. Ce cas de figure s’est déjà produit plusieurs fois par le passé, notamment en 1992 où l’écart entre les estimations et le vote conservateur avait été de presque 10%. Jusqu’à la veille de l’élection, un gouvernement de coalition mené par les travaillistes semblait encore le scenario le plus probable.

David Cameron, pendant sa campagne, a promis à ses électeurs la tenue d’un référendum sur le maintien ou non du Royaume Uni au sein de l’Union européenne (UE). Il souhaite négocier avec Bruxelles une réforme du fonctionnement de l’Union. Quelle est-elle ? Selon vous, y a-t-il un risque sérieux de voir le Royaume-Uni quitter l’UE ?
La sortie du Royaume-Uni au sein de l’Union européenne aurait paru entièrement inconcevable il y a de cela quatre ans, rappelons-le tout de même. Le 23 janvier 2013, David Cameron a promis un referendum sur le maintien ou non du Royaume-Uni au sein de l’Union européenne, décision qu’il a prise essentiellement pour des raisons de politique intérieure. Elle était destinée à tenter d’endiguer la montée du UKIP, qui se nourrit essentiellement de l’euroscepticisme et de l’aile droite de son parti. Le résultat de ces élections peut justifier cette décision « tactique », puisqu’en dépit d’avoir dicté un certain nombre des thèmes de la campagne, le UKIP se retrouve marginalisé et n’a remporté qu’un seul siège à la Chambre des Communes. Cameron a retrouvé une marge de manœuvre et pourra user de la légitimité que lui donnent ces résultats. Reste que sa majorité demeure très limitée, à l’instar de celle de John Major en 1992, qui lui avait éprouvé de grandes difficultés à sortir de l’ornière de l’euroscepticisme de son parti. Les libéraux démocrates, qui se sont effondrés, n’auront plus l’influence positive qu’ils avaient dans la coalition depuis 2010 sur les relations du Royaume-Uni avec l’UE, et Cameron éprouvera paradoxalement plus de difficultés dans ses relations avec l’aile droite de son parti.
De ce point de vue, il doit naviguer un paradoxe dans les négociations à venir : il devra donner suffisamment de gages de bonne volonté tant à l’aile droite de son parti qu’à ses partenaires européens. C’est un exercice des plus délicats. S’il veut arriver à quelque chose en Europe, il devra faire preuve de plus de doigté que ce dont il a fait preuve jusqu’à présent : être constructif, ne pas braquer, écouter et dialoguer sans trop en demander dès l’abord. Mais cela sera-t-il suffisant pour l’aile droite de son parti ? On serait tenté d’utiliser la formule récente de Yanis Varoufakis : “Red lines are inflexible but our red lines and their lines are such that there is common ground”…
Il n’obtiendra pas de concessions majeures, comme la restriction de la liberté de mouvement ou une modification significative des traités. Il n’y a aucun appétit pour ce faire en Europe, des élections se tenant en France et en Allemagne en 2017, sans parler du budget européen fixé jusqu’en 2019. Il pourra par contre obtenir des réformes plus limitées, sur les prestations sociales des nouveaux arrivants, par exemple, ou des garanties sur le marché unique. Jean-Claude Juncker s’est dit prêt à travailler avec le Royaume-Uni. Bien menées par les deux parties, ces négociations pourraient même se révéler pour l’Europe une chance et une occasion de réfléchir à son fonctionnement qu’elle doit rendre plus cohérent et moins bureaucratique.

Le Parti national écossais (SNP, indépendantiste) est le véritable outsider de ces élections obtenant un total de 56 sièges sur 59, alors qu’il n’en possédait que 6. Comment interpréter ce succès fulgurant du SNP ? Quelles conséquences peut avoir cette large victoire pour l’Écosse et son souhait d’indépendance ?
En effet, et Cameron se trouve face à un dilemme. Le SNP a tiré profit de sa campagne lors du référendum écossais de l’année passée, qui a enclenché une véritable lame de fond, que le parti a su organiser autour d’un débat de fond et d’un vrai projet de société. L’une des caractéristiques fortes de ce projet est un engagement plus profond et plus positif avec l’Union européenne. L’Ecosse est beaucoup plus progressiste et pro-européenne que le reste du Royaume-Uni. Si le Royaume-Uni sort de l’Union européenne, quid de l’Ecosse ? L’on pourrait se retrouver dans une situation où si Cameron veut défendre l’unité du Royaume-Uni, comme il professe de le faire, il devra faire campagne pour le maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l’Union. Mais le pourra-t-il ? S’il ne le peut pas, il est un scénario qui le verrait rester dans l’histoire comme le Premier ministre qui a démembré le Royaume, quitté l’Union et isolé l’Angleterre.

TIRANA, 12 May 2015 – Ending a two-day visit to Tirana, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović today stressed the need to use the current momentum for public service broadcaster reform in Albania. During the visit she also addressed media pluralism and media concentration, especially during the process of digitalization, independence of the broadcast regulator, journalists’ labour rights and Internet freedom.

“Like many other OSCE participating States, Albania would benefit from a higher degree of media independence,” Mijatović said. “Politicians and business owners should stop manipulating media and institutions such as AMA, and let journalists and professionals do their job professionally and independently for the benefit of the Albanian public.”

Mijatović emphasized the importance of strengthening the public service broadcaster and its independence.

“The newly established steering board should now use the positive developments by appointing a director and moving ahead with much needed structural reforms to strengthen the functioning and independence of the public service broadcaster,” Mijatović said.

In her meetings with senior government officials, the Representative also raised her concern about the proposal to delete the article 62 in the Law on Audio-visual media services regulating media concentration, and amendments to the civil code that would make website owners legally responsible for online comments.

“The proposal to amend the Audiovisual law could have a very long-term and negative effect on media pluralism, especially in the context of the forthcoming digital licensing process,” Mijatović said.

In her meetings with journalists and members of civil society, Mijatović discussed the implementation of the Law on Access to Information, and labour rights of journalists. She also noted the Union of Albanian Journalists’ recent report on social and economic issues faced by the journalists.

”Access to official information and ensuring their labour rights allow journalists to perform their duty as public watchdogs to ensure that authorities at all levels are accountable,” Mijatović said.

During her visit, Mijatović met with Foreign Minister Ditmir Bushati, Minister for Innovation and Public Administration, Milena Harito, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Media Committee, Genc Pollo and Alfred Peza, Chair and Deputy Chair of the broadcast media regulator AMA, Gentian Sala and Sami Neza, Chair of the board of public service broadcaster RTSH, Kristaq Traja, journalists and members of civil society.

Following an invitation by the Foreign Minister Bushati, Mijatović also spoke at a media freedom conference on 11 May in Tirana commemorating 20 years of Albania's membership in the Council of Europe.

The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media observes media developments in all 57 OSCE participating States. She provides early warning on violations of freedom of expression and media freedom and promotes full compliance with OSCE media freedom commitments. Learn more at www.osce.org/fom, Twitter: @OSCE_RFoM and on www.facebook.com/osce.rfom.

Related Stories

• Criminal prosecution of journalists in Slovenia show need for legal reform, says OSCE Representative
• Special rapporteurs, including OSCE Representative, issue joint declaration on free expression and responses to conflict situations
• Worrying attack on journalist in Bradford, UK, says OSCE representative

Le 7 mai 2015, l’armée de l’air a reçu un troisième drone de type Reaper. Il a été directement projeté à Niamey, au Niger, auprès de la force Barkhane.

Fin avril, les élèves du collège Saint-Louis de Saumur (49) ont profité d’une visite scolaire célébrant les 70 ans de la 2nde guerre Mondiale pour découvrir le cimetière militaire américain de Normandie, où le major Christian, sous-officier des Écoles militaires de Saumur, faisait office de guide.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Russia to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. The unexpected meeting shows that Americans need cooperation with Russia and that the latter cannot just be isolated from ‘big politics’, DWN reported.