European Union

Zelenskyy said he believes "almost all" EU member states recognise that the blockade is unjustified

This press kit includes a selection of European Parliament press releases outlining MEPs’ key priorities regarding the issues on the summit agenda.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This press kit includes a selection of European Parliament press releases outlining MEPs’ key priorities regarding the issues on the summit agenda.

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Children’s groups, tech firms slam EU as CSAM rules near lapse

Pressure mounts over imports and safeguards for EU producers

Emerging frameworks still rely heavily on corporate disclosure and monitoring systems – like CSR initiatives, which often fail to make fundamental improvements in workers’ lives. 

Seoul’s semiconductor giants face collateral damage as Washington’s tech blockade inadvertently accelerates Beijing’s domestic hardware breakthroughs.

The Israel-U.S. vs Iran war is forcing Indonesia to reassess its Gaza Board of Peace stance, balancing neutrality, public pressure, and support for Palestine.

Insights from Pratik Dattani.

If established brands do not pivot to electric vehicles immediately, they risk losing market share to a new generation of competitors across the region.

MEPs agree on proposals to simplify artificial intelligence rules and propose bans on AI “nudifier” systems and clear application dates for high-risk system requirements.
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEPs agree on proposals to simplify artificial intelligence rules and propose bans on AI “nudifier” systems and clear application dates for high-risk system requirements.
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Better connectivity to emerging destinations, targeted support for electric vehicle leasing, and seamless transport ticketing could contribute to sustainable EU tourism, MEPs say.
Committee on Transport and Tourism

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Better connectivity to emerging destinations, targeted support for electric vehicle leasing, and seamless transport ticketing could contribute to sustainable EU tourism, MEPs say.
Committee on Transport and Tourism

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEPs divided over tighter curbs for highly processed foods, vapes, and alcohol

DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework of measures to facilitate the transport of military equipment, goods and personnel across the Union
Committee on Security and Defence
Committee on Transport and Tourism
Michał Szczerba, Roberts Zīle

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Par Rodrigue Ahégo,

La Voix des Sans Voix 

C’est un véritable séisme qui secoue le football africain. En transformant une victoire acquise à la sueur du front sur le terrain en une défaite administrative sur tapis vert, la Commission d’Appel de la CAF vient de commettre un attentat contre l’éthique sportive.

Le football africain vit l’une de ses heures les plus sombres. Alors que le Sénégal n’a pas fini de célébrer son titre de champion d’Afrique acquis de haute lutte contre une forêt d’obstacles et d’irrégularités, la Commission d’Appel de la CAF décide, d’un trait de plume méprisant, d’inverser le cours de l’histoire en offrant le trophée au Maroc sur tapis vert. Inique. Arbitraire. Scandaleux.

Il s’agit tout simplement de l’assassinat de la souveraineté de l’arbitre.

Depuis quand une commission, calfeutrée dans des bureaux au Caire, peut-elle se substituer à l’homme en noir sur la pelouse ? La Loi 5 de l’IFAB est pourtant claire : «l’arbitre est le seul maître du terrain». S’il a décidé d’une suspension temporaire et non d’un arrêt définitif, si le match a repris, si le penalty a été tiré et si le coup de sifflet final a retenti, le résultat est sacré. En invoquant un « abandon » là où il n’y a eu qu’une interruption de jeu, la CAF piétine la fameuse Field of Play Doctrine chère au Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS).

Il s’agit tout simplement du viol de la sécurité juridique.

Comment peut-on homologuer un résultat, remettre un trophée devant les caméras du monde entier, puis décider, 48 heures plus tard, que tout cela n’était qu’une illusion ? L’usage abusif de l’article 84 du règlement de la CAF est une insulte à l’intelligence des sportifs. Un « abandon » implique une rupture définitive. Or, les Lions sont revenus, ils ont joué, ils ont gagné. Requalifier cet incident a posteriori n’est pas de la justice, c’est de la falsification de palmarès.

Il s’agit tout simplement d’une sanction disproportionnée et délirante.

Retirer un titre continental pour 15 minutes d’arrêt de jeu, alors que l’équité a été préservée par la reprise du match, est une décision ultra-vires. C’est utiliser un marteau-piqueur pour écraser une mouche. C’est surtout créer un précédent dangereux. Désormais, les matchs ne se gagneront plus dans les stades, mais dans les couloirs obscurs des commissions de recours.

« On ne gagne pas une Coupe d’Afrique avec des formulaires administratifs, on la gagne avec ses tripes sur le rectangle vert ».

Le Sénégal a raison de porter l’affaire devant le TAS. Il ne s’agit plus seulement de défendre un trophée, mais de sauver ce qui reste de crédibilité au football africain. Si cette décision n’est pas annulée, c’est l’idée même de « victoire sportive » qui sera enterrée.

Lions de la Teranga, gardez la tête haute. Le monde a vu qui était le champion sur le terrain. La CAF, elle, a choisi son camp et c’est malheureusement celui du chaos.

The post CAN 2026 et sacre du Sénégal volé par les bureaux ? appeared first on Togo Actualite - Premier site d'information du Togo.

Since the man's arrest in June 2025, Sweden has "repeatedly raised the case at various levels with Iranian representatives," Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said

À Lomé, l’Union Musulmane du Togo (UMT) a fixé la date officielle de l’Aïd el-Fitr, fête marquant la fin du Ramadan. Selon un communiqué publié le 17 mars 2026, la célébration aura lieu le vendredi 20 mars 2026 sur l’ensemble du territoire togolais.

Le président de l’UMT, El Hadj Inoussa Bouraïma, précise que les prières de l’Aïd se dérouleront dans les lieux de culte habituels à partir de 08h00.

À travers ce communiqué, le Bureau exécutif de l’Union Musulmane souhaite à l’ensemble de la population togolaise une bonne fête de fin de Ramadan, dans un esprit de paix et de partage.

L’Aïd el-Fitr est un moment de grande ferveur religieuse et de rassemblement pour les fidèles musulmans, marqué par la prière collective, les visites familiales et les actes de solidarité envers les plus démunis.

Togoactualité

The post Togo : l’UMT dévoile la date de la célébration de l’Aïd el-Fitr appeared first on Togo Actualite - Premier site d'information du Togo.

Written by Tristan Marcelin.

AI rules and governance

The AI Act was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2024 to improve the functioning of the internal market, promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy AI, ensure a high level of protection against the harmful effects of AI systems and support innovation.

Rules for AI systems and GPAI models

The AI Act regulates AI systems, which are machine-based systems designed to operate with a certain degree of autonomy and generate outputs from the inputs they receive. The regulation applies a risk-based approach to AI systems, differentiating between ‘unacceptable risks’, ‘high risks’, ‘transparency risks’ and ‘minimal risks’. While prohibited AI systems are not allowed in the internal market, providers, deployers, importers and distributors of high-risk AI (HRAI) systems are under certain obligations, including ensuring that systems are compliant and meet particular standards.

The AI Act also regulates general-purpose AI (GPAI) models, which are capable of performing a wide range of tasks and being integrated into a variety of systems or applications. The GPAI definition includes generative AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT‑5, Google’s Gemini 3 and Mistral Large 3. The AI Act considers that some GPAI models pose systemic risks (such as negative effects on democratic processes or on public and economic security) if they reach a defined level of capability or are designated as such by the European Commission. GPAI models with systemic risks are subject to extra requirements, such as model evaluation and risk assessment.

Governance framework

The AI Act establishes a hybrid enforcement model with a centralised and a decentralised part. The risk-based approach for AI systems is enforced at national level with support and advice from centralised entities, including the European Commission. Conversely, GPAI rules are exclusively supervised and enforced by the Commission. However, researchers note that the decentralised pattern remains dominant in the AI Act, potentially leading to challenges around uneven enforcement in the EU.

This model differs from purely decentralised or other hybrid models. For instance, under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the data protection rules are in principle subject to decentralised enforcement, but data protection authorities must cooperate in accordance with the ‘one-stop shop mechanism‘ and the new GDPR procedural rules in cross-border cases. Moreover, the European Data Protection Board can issue general guidance and opinions.

Enforcement at national level

The AI Act obliges Member States to designate two types of authority – at least one notifying authority and a market surveillance authority. Both authorities have distinct roles within the enforcement process and its timeline. The national market surveillance authority also functions as the single point of contact at national level. Member States were required to designate their competent authorities and single points of contact by 2 August 2025.

The European Commission maintains a list of single points of contact for all Member States. As of March 2026, the list comprised eight single contact points, out of 27.

Notifying authority, conformity assessment body and notified body

The notifying authority is responsible for setting up and carrying out the necessary ex‑ante procedures for assessing HRAI systems before they enter the EU market. However, the notifying authority does not conduct the assessment itself but instead designates conformity assessment bodies to carry out the task. Notifying authorities must inform the Commission and other Member States once the conformity assessment body has been designated, which then becomes a ‘notified body’. Notified bodies must be independent of the provider and operator of the HRAI system they assess.

Market surveillance authority

The market surveillance authority performs ex‑post checks once AI systems have been placed on the internal market. Its powers include requesting documents, evaluating systems and imposing fines, if needed. However, a separate authority may be in charge of ex‑post checking in certain situations, such as controlling HRAI systems for financial institutions or law enforcement.

Enforcement at EU level

The AI Act has created a number of EU‑level entities to assist, support and advise Member States and the Commission (which runs the AI Office) in their enforcement tasks.

AI Office

The AI Office is defined by the AI Act as the ‘Commission’s function of contributing to the implementation, monitoring and supervision of AI systems and general-purpose AI models, and AI governance’. It has the sole authority to enforce the AI Act provisions on GPAI models. It is also responsible for soft instruments, such as codes of practice, guidelines and communications that shape the regulation’s implementation

Digital omnibus on AI proposal – further centralisation
The digital omnibus on AI, put forward in November 2025 by the Commission, is a set of amendments to the AI Act to further centralise its enforcement. If European co-legislators adopt the proposal in its current state, the AI Office would supervise the compliance of AI systems integrated into very large online platforms (VLOPs) or very large search engines (VLOSEs), as defined under the Digital Services Act, as well as AI systems based on GPAI models where the system and model come from the same provider.

European AI board

The European AI board is composed of one representative per Member State, with the European Data Protection Supervisor and the AI Office as observers. According to researchers, the board’s tasks are limited to advisory and coordinating functions, including ‘facilitating cooperation among national competent authorities, aggregating and disseminating technical and regulatory expertise among Member States, and offering guidance on the AI Act’s implementation’.

Scientific panel of independent experts

The AI Act defines the scientific panel as a panel of experts selected by the Commission on the basis of up-to-date scientific and technical expertise in the field of AI. The panel is aimed at centralising expertise to advise and support the AI Office, as well as national market surveillance authorities at their request.

AI advisory forum

The AI advisory forum comprises stakeholders from industry, start-ups, SMEs, civil society and academia. The AI Act tasks the forum with providing technical expertise, advising the board and the Commission and contributing to their tasks under the regulation.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Enforcement of the AI Act‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.