The European Parliament has, by a large majority, adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to take action to withhold funds from member states that fail to respect the rule of law. The document names Hungary and Poland as particular offenders.

The resolution was condemned by Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, which unsuccessfully proposed an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the the pandemic. He also called on the EU to immediately release Covid recovery funds that have been blocked for rule of law reasons.

In the resolution adopted today – with 478 votes in favor and 155 against – the European Parliament welcomed the recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to reject an attempt by Poland and Hungary to prevent that EU funds are conditional on respect for the rule of law.

The parliament said it was now “high time” for the European Commission to “react to the continued breaches of the rule of law in some EU member states, which constitute a danger to the financial interests of the Union European”.

It asks the Commission to initiate the use of the conditionality mechanism by notifying the Member States concerned in writing. The measures should apply to both the EU’s general budget and the EU’s Covid recovery plan, the parliament said.

Among Polish MEPs, those from The Left (Lewica), Poland’s second largest opposition group, voted in favor of the resolution while those from the Civic Platform (PO), the largest, abstained. PiS MPs voted against.

The PiS has long opposed the conditionality mechanism, saying it would be used for political purposes to punish certain member states. The timing is particularly inappropriate to use it, argues the PiS, given the EU’s need for unity amid the war in Ukraine and the resulting refugee crisis.

“The Russians bombed a maternity ward in Mariupol. Meanwhile, Germany is blocking further sanctions against Russia and the European Parliament is voting in favor of sanctions against Poland,” PiS MP Sylwester Tułajew tweeted.

Yesterday, the European Conservatives and Reformists – a group in which the PiS is the dominant force – tabled an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. He also called on the EU to release Covid funds, which have been frozen for Poland due to rule of law concerns.

After the rejection of this amendment, its author, MP PiS Bogdan Rzońca, said that “the left-liberal European Parliament has shown Putin that there is no solidarity within the EU and that it can harass and scare countries bordering Ukraine”, reports TVP Info.

He also accused Polish opposition parties of ‘not wanting the money to go to local authorities [in Poland] who are now helping refugees from Ukraine”.

PO – who voted against the amendment but abstained on the resolution – “agrees that this time of war is not the time for such resolutions”, said MEP Andrzej Halicki, quoted by TVN24. However, he also called on the PiS government to “end the [rule-of-law] dispute as soon as possible” in order to release EU funds.

Robert Biedroń, MEP and one of the leaders of The Left, said his group supported the resolution because “respect for the law, including the right to an independent tribunal that is not influenced by politicians , is a fundamental freedom…[and] the basis of the values ​​for which Ukrainian soldiers are dying today”.

Like Halicki, he also called on the PiS to release the funds by reversing its judicial policies. “In these times, you have to put aside unnecessary political arguments and do the right thing,” Biedroń told PAP. “The interest of 38 million Poles and more than 40 million Ukrainians is greater than the interest of a few politicized judges.”

Main image credit: KPRP (under public domain)

It has been nearly two weeks since Russia launched its assault on Ukraine, killing hundreds and displacing more than 2 million.

Besides generating a humanitarian crisis and sending shockwaves around the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine have also put the countries’ foreign policies in the spotlight.

While some countries, like Germany, have completely reoriented their defense and energy policies to rebuke Russia and secure European borders, others like India continue to maintain a relatively restrictive stance towards the old friend of Russia.

But after the Russian invasion hit India closer to home, killing an Indian student in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv and hundreds of Indian students still awaiting evacuation, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is under pressure to condemn Russia’s actions.

Last week, P Chidambaram, an Indian parliamentarian from the opposition Congress party, tweeted: “The Indian government should stop its verbal balancing act and sternly demand that Russia immediately stop shelling key cities in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Modi held talks with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and called for an immediate end to the violence.

Yet on the world stage, India has so far refrained five times from condemning Russia’s actions at the United Nations and has only reiterated a “commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter , international law and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States”. .

EU-India relations in trouble?

India’s balancing act of placating both Russia and the West in the Ukraine crisis caught the European Union off guard.

According to Indian media last week, the EU envoys together with Ukraine’s envoy to New Delhi met with senior Indian Foreign Ministry officials ahead of a historic vote at the UN General Assembly and urged India to take a tougher stance on the conflict.

French President Emmanuel Macron also held consultations with Modi on the matter. France currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU and a proactive Macron has held regular talks with EU leaders and world leaders to defuse the crisis.

After Macron’s call with Modi, a statement issued by the French Embassy in India said the two leaders agreed to “guarantee unhindered humanitarian access” to Ukraine and coordinate the resolution of the crisis in the country. UN Security Council.

In recent years, India has strengthened its ties with the EU to ward off Chinese threats. At the recent Indo-Pacific Forum, EU Foreign Ministers and Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar agreed to deepen security relations by coordinating maritime presence in the Indian Ocean and enhancing cybersecurity .

Garima Mohan, a fellow in the Asia program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said that while Europe-India relations have come a long way in recent years, India may have to reassess its position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“European officials working with India are disappointed but certainly understand its position. The official line is that everything is business as usual with India. But for European politicians and audiences unfamiliar with Indian foreign policy, it will be a tough sell,” she told Al Jazeera.

“It is important to note that India’s position is changing and as the crisis gathers momentum, India will need to reassess its response,” she said.

Anil Trigunayat, India’s former ambassador to EU member Malta, shared a similar view.

“The EU understands India’s position and its strategic autonomy. India’s position in the Indo-Pacific is critical,” he told Al Jazeera.

“However, the Sino-Russian proximity may have certain implications for India.”

“Special relationship with Russia”

Moscow appreciated New Delhi’s cautious stance on the Ukraine crisis, with India not on a list of ‘hostile countries’ compiled by the Kremlin following a series of sanctions imposed by the EU, US and the UK.

However, India’s position towards Russia on the war in Ukraine is not new. Even in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, India maintained its neutrality at the UN.

Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, says India’s position is a consequence of its special relationship with Russia.

“New Delhi has long viewed Moscow as its most reliable and trustworthy partner, a perception shaped by decades of friendship, dating back to the early years of the Cold War,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Indian leaders often speak of Russia as the closest and most reliable friend of India, a country that has never had a crisis with India. And they see it as a country ever ready to help India on the world stage, including at the UN, where Russia’s voting habits on issues like Kashmir have backed India.

Russia, India’s main strategic partner, exported weapons worth $6.6 billion between 2016 and 2020 to the South Asian nation. However, India-Russia bilateral trade at $8.1 billion between April 2020 and March 2021 is not as high as India-EU trade, which stood at €62.8 billion (€68.5 billion) over the same period.

According to Kugelman, India’s Cold War nostalgia for Russia continues to weigh on their relationship. “It comes down to a simple math: Russia supports us and we will support it as well,” he said.

Vivek Mishra, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi, says India’s diplomatic stance on Ukraine could be beneficial and there has been a ‘gradual maturity’ in strategic autonomy from India.

“India’s foreign policy has moved from non-alignment to embracing strategic autonomy in defense and security policies. This crisis has shown exactly that with India discussing the crisis with the EU and the US, refraining from taking a position on the conflict at the UN and speaking to both Russia and Ukraine. Mishra told Al Jazeera.

The Chinese Question

The question is: if China intervenes in the Ukraine crisis, will India support the West?

So far, China, like its rival India, has also played a balancing act between Russia and the West.

In a statement released last month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told senior European officials that while Beijing respects a country’s sovereignty, including that of Ukraine, Russia’s security demands must also be handled properly.

However, China’s growing proximity to Russia in recent years is something India is watching closely, according to ORF’s Mishra.

“Putin going to the Beijing Olympics and meeting China’s Xi Jinping made India suspicious of Sino-Russian relations,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Even if China weighs more than it already has on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, India would continue to maintain its neutral position. China is an imminent threat to India, so India will not want pleasing Russia in a way that would threaten its national interests,” he added.

Kugelman thinks that if anything were to make India change its position, it would be the course of events, not the decisions of other countries.

“EU pressure is unlikely to influence India’s foreign policy. The essence of India’s cherished principle of strategic autonomy is that it will not bow to great power pressure to take a particular position or to align itself with a particular side,” he said. at Al Jazeera.

Kugelman said India makes foreign policy decisions “on its own terms” and there is little other countries, including its closest partners, can do to change that.

“But if Putin expands his invasion into NATO territory, all bets would be off and by then India would probably have no choice but to come out and condemn what would effectively be a new world war.”

In a phone call on Saturday, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he fully supports the EU line on sanctions, “including those under SWIFT”, according to a statement. from Draghi’s office. Separately, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte said, “From what I hear, there seems to be no strong opposition anymore” to the proposal.

SWIFT, which transmits secure messages to more than 11,000 financial institutions and businesses, is at the heart of the global financial system and failure to access it could cause significant economic damage.

“Nuclear Option”

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told reporters on Friday that France had no reservations about Russia blocking SWIFT, adding that it would be a “financial nuclear option”.

“Now, of course, when you have a financial nuke in your hands, you think long and hard before you use it,” he said.

Although Germany has not ruled out cutting Moscow off from SWIFT, it has previously expressed reservations about the measure and pointed to the serious implications, including the possibility that it could endanger Russian gas supplies. Russian energy giant Gazprom PJSC supplies about a third of all the gas consumed in Europe. There are also fears that Russia will retaliate with harsh countermeasures.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz called a special session of the German parliament on Sunday, where he is to deliver a speech outlining his government’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, accompanied by Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda, will travel to Berlin on Saturday to meet with Scholz and lobby for Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT. Morawiecki’s spokesman, Piotr Muller, told Bloomberg that “the last 24 hours have seen a change of attitude in a number of previously skeptical governments” on the issue.

US plans to block

Hungary also said on Saturday that it would not block any EU sanctions proposals, according to Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

The move comes as the United States seriously considers blocking Russia from SWIFT, with officials discussing the issue with the Federal Reserve, which sits on the messaging system’s watchdog, according to people familiar with the matter. Another person said talks had started with the European Commission, the bloc’s executive authority.

The UK, which was one of the first major Western allies to come out in favor of the measure, has been pushing hard to get others on board, according to people familiar with the matter and documents seen by Bloomberg.

SWIFT – which stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication – is overseen by the National Bank of Belgium and representatives from the central banks of the United States, United Kingdom, EU, Japan, Russia, China and other countries. ‘others. It delivers secure messages to more than 11,000 financial institutions and businesses in more than 200 countries and territories.

“Deep Implications”

The US, several EU member states and the Commission are increasingly trying to allay concerns about the impact a SWIFT bloc would have on the EU’s huge trade ties with Russia and on the energy payments, according to other officials, who asked not to be identified because the interviews are private.

Some of the EU’s top officials also support the measure and believe it must happen quickly because the impact of the sanctions introduced so far will take time to materialize, the people said.

“Given the potentially far-reaching implications of Russia’s separation from SWIFT, this option must of course be presented to the member states as well with an assessment of the exact implications,” the head of economics at SWIFT told reporters in Paris on Friday. EU, Valdis Dombrovskis. “But clearly all options are on the table, including SWIFT.”

---

European Union flags are seen outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium November 14, 2018. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

BRUSSELS, Feb 23 (Reuters) – The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a law requiring big companies operating in the EU to verify that their suppliers around the world meet environmental standards and do not use slaves or child labor .

The Sustainability Due Diligence Act will also require directors of European Union companies to ensure that their business strategy aligns with limiting global warming to 1.5 Celsius, as agreed in the framework of the Paris climate agreement.

“We can no longer turn a blind eye to what is happening along our value chains,” said EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders.

According to the proposal, EU companies will have to assess their supply chains at least once a year and before making major business decisions or starting new activities, for risks such as forced labour, children, inadequate workplace safety and environmental impacts such as pollution and ecosystem degradation.

If a company identifies such problems, it must take appropriate measures to prevent or stop them, for example by developing a corrective action plan that the supplier must agree to follow.

The Commission’s proposal will only become EU law after lengthy negotiations with the European Parliament and EU governments that will likely take more than a year.

It would apply to around 13,000 businesses in the EU, including the biggest businesses in the EU – those that employ more than 500 people and have a net turnover of more than €150 million.

Companies in high-impact sectors such as apparel, animals, forestry, food and beverage, and fossil fuel and metal mining are also covered if they have more than 250 employees and €40 million of net turnover.

Yet this means that 99% of European companies would be exempt.

EU lawmaker Lara Wolters, who led a parliament report last year calling for the law, welcomed the proposal but said small businesses in high-risk sectors could still contribute to abuse and should be covered. Read more

The law would also apply to around 4,000 companies outside the EU, but whose operations within the EU meet the turnover thresholds.

Compliance would be monitored by the governments of the 27 EU member states. Companies that ignore the law face fines.

EU companies could also be held liable for damages if their suppliers commit an infringement that could have been avoided or stopped through due diligence measures taken by the EU company.

Reporting by Kate Abnett; Editing by Andrea Ricci

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Five energy groups are suing four European governments for nearly 4 billion euros for blocking coal, oil and gas projects amid growing concerns about climate change, using a secret process based on an international climate change treaty. ‘energy.

Energy and exploration companies, including RWE and Uniper in Germany and Rockhopper in the UK, have sued the Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Slovenia under the Charter Treaty energy (TCE).

Active cases revolve around the decisions of the governments concerned to order the closure of coal-fired power plants, to prevent the development of specific projects or to require an environmental impact assessment.

RWE said it endorsed “the importance of the energy transition” but “does not consider it fair” that the Dutch coal phase-out “does not include compensation for the disruption of corporate ownership”.

Uniper said its “first concern” was to “achieve legal clarity” over the early shutdown of its coal plant without adequate compensation. Rockhopper declined to comment.

The ECT, developed after the Cold War and signed by more than 50 countries, was intended to protect international energy investments by foreign companies or individuals. That protection extends to fossil fuel projects, and climate change experts say it discourages governments from developing policies to curb industries that cause global warming because of the risk of lawsuits.

The various companies are seeking compensation estimated at 3.7 billion euros in the five cases, according to documents reviewed by the Financial Times. A sixth case, for an unknown amount, was brought against Romania by the Austrian company Petrochemical Holding concerning an oil development contract.

Petrochemical Holding legal counsel Andrew Savage, a partner at global law firm McDermott Will & Emery, warned of Romania’s “stated desire to move away from fossil fuels. . . may give rise to further claims.

Climate experts sounded the alarm that the treaty was becoming an obstacle to tackling projects that lead to global warming in an open letter more than two years ago.

Dmitry Evseev, a partner at law firm Arnold & Porter, agreed that the lawsuit “could have a chilling effect, no doubt, on all sorts of policy changes”. “Investor-state arbitration is the biggest stick investors have,” he said.

Germany’s finance ministry warned the chancellor’s office in 2019 that using the regulations to phase out coal would create an “increased risk of litigation, especially international ECT-based litigation”, according to an email. seen by the FT.

When the Dutch Minister and State Secretary for Economic Affairs and Climate were asked last year about accelerating the dismantling of coal and gas-fired power plants, they said “a new intervention in the coal sector entails major legal risks in the context of pending claims”.

One of the lawyers representing Italy in the case brought by Rockhopper – after the state refused to allow development of the Ombrina Mare oil field in the Adriatic Sea – said a defeat would be “extremely serious”, because it would give other companies “the desire to imitate Rockhopper”.

The active cases add to the increase in global climate litigation involving both the public and private sectors. But ECT cases are often shrouded in secrecy, with documents rarely made public. The secretariat’s website notes that “certain awards (and even the existence of certain procedures) remain confidential”.

The cost of bringing or defending a treaty-related case can run into the millions, with some claims being funded by specialist litigation funders in exchange for a share of damages. The compensation sought by investors may include an estimate of future loss of profit.

A 2021 report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that “the majority of known fossil fuels [investor-state dispute] cases are decided in favor of the investors”.

Talks to “modernize” the treaty are ongoing. The European Commission has submitted a proposal that would see the phasing out of protections for fossil fuel investments, which so far has been rejected by other signatory countries.

EU member states that remain dependent on fossil fuels, including Poland, are pushing the Commission to leave the treaty if the debate is not resolved. “The EU must have a well-prepared set of options for a possible EU exit from the ECT,” Poland’s Climate and Environment Minister Michał Kurtyka wrote in a letter seen by the FT. and sent to EU climate policy chief Frans. Timmermans last year.

However, countries that withdraw from the treaty remain bound by it for 20 years under the agreement’s ‘sunset clause’.

In short

In the not too distant past, many believed that artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) would not significantly change the practice of law. The legal profession was considered – by its very nature – to require specialized skills and nuanced judgment that only humans could provide and would therefore be immune to the disruptive changes brought about by digital transformation. However, the application of ML technology in the legal industry is now increasingly mainstream, particularly as a tool to save lawyers time and provide richer analysis of ever-growing datasets. voluminous to facilitate legal decision-making in court systems around the world.

---

More in detail

One of the main areas of application of ML in justice systems is “predictive justice”. It involves the use of ML algorithms that perform a probabilistic analysis of a particular legal dispute using case law precedents. To function properly, these systems must rely on huge databases of previous court decisions which must be translated into a standardized language which, in turn, is capable of creating predetermined patterns. These will ultimately help the machine learning software generate the prediction.

Does this technology mean that trials are completed at the speed of light, that lawyers can know in advance whether or not to take legal action, that the courts decide a case immediately? Well, there is still a long way to go and we also have to balance the inherent risks of using these technological tools. For example, the data used to train the ML system could lead to biases and consolidate stereotypes and inequalities that would be validated simply because they were produced multiple times by the AI. So beware of possible additional complexity in creating new precedents and case law against the odds!

To assess the opportunities and challenges brought by predictive justice systems using ML tools, it is instructive to examine examples of case law, as often history is an indicator for understanding the future.

Machine Learning in Justice Systems

The first time “predictive justice” began to emerge was in the United States in 2013 in State v. Loomis where it was used by the court in sentencing. In that case, Mr. Loomis, a US citizen, was charged with driving a car during a drive-by shooting, receiving stolen property and resisting arrest. During the trial, the circuit court was assisted in its sentencing decision by a predictive machine learning tool and the end result was that the judge imposed a custodial sentence. Apparently, the judge was convinced by the fact that the machine learning software tool had suggested that there was a high probability that the defendant would reoffend in the same way.

On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the software because the judge would have reached the same result with or without the machine learning software. The decision included the conclusion that the risk assessment provided by the AI ​​software, while not determinative in itself, can be used as a tool to improve a judge’s assessment, taking into account the application of other evidence of conviction when deciding on the appropriate sentence for an accused.

In essence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recognized the importance of the role of the judge, stating that this type of machine learning software would not replace their role, but could be used to assist them. As one can imagine, this case opened the door to a new way of dispensing justice.

Indeed, fast forward to today and we read news from Shanghai telling us the story of the first robot ever created to analyze case files and indict defendants based on a verbal description of the case. AI scientists have perfected the robot using a huge amount of cases so that the machine is able to identify various types of crimes (i.e. fraud, theft, gambling) with precision claimed by 97%.

AI-based predictions used to aid courts are becoming more prevalent and can raise significant concerns (including bias and transparency). Several regulatory authorities are cooperating to advance a set of rules, principles and guidance to regulate AI platforms in justice systems and more generally.

For example, in Europe, a significant step towards digital innovation in judicial systems has been taken with the creation of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) which published the “European Ethical Charter on the artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment”, one of the first regulatory documents on AI (“charterThe Charter provides a set of principles to be applied by legislators, legal professionals and policy makers when working with AI/ML tools aimed at ensuring that the use of AI in justice systems is compatible with fundamental rights, including those of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

Recently, the CEPEJ defined its Action Plan 2022 to 2025 for “Digitalization for better justice” identifying a three-step path to ensure fair use of AI in courts according to the visual representation below:

Source: EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) – Revised roadmap to ensure appropriate follow-up to the CEPEJ Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment.

The CEPEJ’s commitment does not stop there. Indeed, the table below gives an overview of the development of IT tools in the judicial systems of EU Member States (civil and criminal) and the acceleration of the use of information technologies in EU courts.

Source: Dynamic database of European judicial systems.

More generally, the European Commission is currently focusing on developing a set of provisions to regulate AI systems, which are outlined in a draft AI regulation (“Regulation“) published in 2021. The regulation proposes harmonized rules for applications of AI systems. It follows a proportionate risk-based approach that differentiates prohibited, high-risk, restricted and minimal-risk uses of AI systems. Regulatory intervention therefore increases with the increase in the potential of algorithmic systems to cause harm. To learn more, read our alert New draft rules on the use of artificial intelligence.

AI systems used for law enforcement or in the administration of justice are defined as high-risk AI systems under the regulations. Note that the use of real-time biometric identification systems in public places by law enforcement is (subject to certain exceptions) prohibited. High-risk AI systems are subject to requirements, including ensuring the quality of datasets used to train AI systems, applying human oversight, creating records to enable compliance checks, and providing relevant information to users. Various stakeholders, including suppliers, importers, distributors and users of AI systems, are subject to individual requirements, particularly with regard to the compliance of AI systems with the requirements of the regulation and CE marking. of these systems to indicate compliance with the regulations.

The regulation still has a long way to go before it is finally approved and becomes binding on member states, but it’s already a step forward in AI regulation — not just because it can be used in the administration of justice, but also because it can have a profound impact on the way we work, communicate, play, live in the digital age.

Camille Ambrosino contributed to the preparation of this editorial.

This article originally appeared in the January 2022 edition of LegalBytes.

EU and Member State legislators should find common ground in order to reach an agreement. According to this agreement, a common charger pin is considered for different electronic gadgets such as mobile phones, tablets, tabs and even headphones. The European Union looks forward to finalizing this deal by the end of 2022. However, tech giant Apple, which is also the maker of the iPhone, strongly opposes this deal.

This is not the first time that the European Commission has had to raise this issue. The last time the common charger was discussed was over a decade ago. But this time, the commission decided to push this issue forward after smartphone makers and other electronic gadget companies couldn’t wrap things up on the same platform.

Android and iPhone users have complained about the issues they face for having different pins for charging. iPhone is charged with lightning cord while for Android users they are divided into USB C charger as well as micro B charger.

According to Alex Agius Saliba, a European Union lawmaker and the figurehead of the whole deal in the European Parliament, expressed hope, believing that the assembly will vote against the proposal. This will allow Alex to initiate this discussion with the countries of the European Union so that they can finalize the agreement.

In an interview with Reuters, an international news agency, Alex agreed that it was possible to confirm the deal by the end of the current year. Alex further added that focusing only on smartphones is like giving up on an opportunity, and so his goal is to bring other gadgets such as e-readers, low-power laptops, earbuds and smart watches to have the same charger as well.

By 2025, Alex wants the European Commission to also balance the wireless charging system. However, the European Union has been informed by Apple that following the agreement for a common charger will lead to electronic waste after users will have no choice but to adapt to the new chargers.

Read next: Study shows global average download speeds increased almost everywhere thanks to 5G

introduction
European drone regulations
Swiss parliamentary motion
Go forward

introduction

Switzerland is home to an advanced ecosystem for drones. According to a recent report by the Drone Industry Association Switzerland, Swiss drone companies are expected to increase their revenues from 521 million Swiss francs in 2021 to 879 million Swiss francs in 2026. The industry, which is mainly clustered around the two ETH universities Zurich and EPFL Lausanne, created approximately 3,000 jobs. The report highlights that Switzerland ranks first in the world in terms of market size per capita.

The Swiss drone industry needs a modern legal framework to stay at the forefront of this key technology of the future.

European drone regulations

At European level, a uniform regulatory framework for civilian drones entered into force on December 31, 2020. The framework mainly consists of two related regulations:

• Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems and third country operators of unmanned aircraft systems; and
• Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the operation of unmanned aircraft.

Although Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, since 2002 it has adopted most of the European Union’s aviation laws through the EU-Switzerland Air Transport Agreement. The Swiss government had planned to adopt the two EU drone regulations on this basis. However, this process has stalled at the moment.

Swiss parliamentary motion

EU drone regulations would have introduced new rules and procedures for drone manufacturers and operators in a number of areas. The regulations would also have affected flights of traditional model aircraft. The Swiss model aircraft community has been highly critical that the regulations pose a threat to their decades-old hobby.

A parliamentary motion was therefore tabled, asking to exclude the issue of model aircraft from the adoption of EU Regulation 2019/947 and to leave it within the framework of national law. While the Federal Council advised against the motion, both chambers of the Swiss Parliament approved it.

Therefore, EU drone regulations did not enter into force in Switzerland on December 31, 2020, as it did in EU member states. For the time being, national law continues to apply to drones and model civil aircraft flying in Switzerland.

Parliament did not attach much importance to the fact that Switzerland cannot decide unilaterally under the bilateral agreement which provisions of an EU regulation it wishes to adopt and which it does not. The partial adoption of an EU regulation requires the consent of both parties. The Federal Council has been tasked with persuading the European Commission to obtain the exclusion of model aircraft from the scope of the regulations if Switzerland adopts them, but this is unrealistic and will likely end in a stalemate.

At the same time, the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) consulted the players in the Swiss drone ecosystem. The result was a mix of opinions on the effects of not temporarily adopting the European drone regulations in Switzerland.

Go forward

The Swiss Parliament will likely have to deliberate and decide again whether to fully adopt the EU drone regulation, including its provisions on model aircraft. The parliamentary majority will hopefully vote in favor of their adoption. The following arguments, some of which were put forward during the stakeholder consultation, support this position.

Firstly, EU drone regulations introduce only minor and manageable constraints for model aircraft enthusiasts. In fact, the regulations provide a far-reaching exemption for members of model aircraft clubs or associations. At the request of a club or association, OFAC may issue an authorization for all members to fly model aircraft in accordance with conditions and limitations appropriate to the specific situation of the club or association. Based on this, OFAC may authorize flights in excess of normal weight and height limits. Electronic registration is compulsory, regardless of club or association membership, but it is done quickly and easily.

Secondly, as a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Switzerland can play an effective role in shaping aviation law at European level. FOCA has actively participated in the process of drafting European regulations on drones. The risk-based approach to licensing complex drone operations (c. OFAC was also able to ease the requirements for model aircraft in the original draft EASA regulations. On the other hand, pursuing an isolated path would reduce Switzerland’s impact and influence on future EU aviation and drone laws Failure to adopt EU drone regulations would also reduce the influence of Swiss drone manufacturers and operators on future regulations and standards that will govern their industry.

Third, the EU drone regulations form the basis of a modern legal framework, which will provide the Swiss drone industry with full access to the EU market. Current Swiss laws do not allow this. Although European harmonization of rules may bring more complexity for individual businesses in some areas, this is offset by the ability to seamlessly expand businesses and activities across Europe. On the other hand, failure to adopt European drone regulations would lead to the parallel application of two different (and potentially contradictory) legal frameworks. Companies would face additional workloads and cumbersome authorization procedures for cross-border drone use.

Fourth, EU drone regulations lay the initial groundwork for the unmanned traffic management system, or “U-Space”, which aims to develop highly automated drone operations, including urban air mobility. In April 2021, the European Commission published a U-Space regulatory package. Switzerland is clearly committed to advancing the research, development and implementation of U-Space, but it is hard to see how this will play out without subscribing to the European drone framework.

For more information on this subject, please contact Andreas Fankhauser at bellpark legal ag by telephone (+41 43 204 0090) or by e-mail ([email protected]). The bellpark legal ag website can be accessed at bellparklegal.com.

A cross-party coalition of MEPs has co-signed a letter to the European Commission demanding EU-funded research into the potential risks and analytical detection of genetically modified organisms, stressing that this is necessary to create informed policies on the matter.

the letter sent on 8 February, stresses that the EU executive cannot just invest in European research to advance genetically modified (GM) technology and its applications, but should also “urgently invest in European research to deepen our knowledge of potential risks and enable the detection and traceability of GM products throughout the food chain”.

‘Only a comprehensive research program on genetic engineering will allow the EU to develop well-informed policies in this regard,’ MEPs said.

The appeal follows an intense debate over whether the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling – which found that genetically modified organisms fall under the EU’s stricter Genetically Modified Organisms Directive ( GMO) – can be confirmed without any means of distinguishing these crops from conventionally bred varieties.

In the absence of a robust test, EU countries have been unable to test their imports for the presence of GM crops, despite calls for stricter monitoring processes.

This issue must be addressed in the interests of public and environmental safety, letter states, emphasizing that organisms developed with genome-editing technology pose “new and different” risks compared to conventional breeding and currently commercialized genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Gene editing is a growing issue in the EU.

Following the results of a 2021 Commission study, which concluded that the current legal framework governing GE is insufficient, the EU executive is currently reviewing EU rules on technology. The presentation of a legislative proposal is expected in the second quarter of 2023.

The signatories argue that just as it is possible to develop innovative new GM products based on breakthrough genome-editing technology, it is also “possible to develop state-of-the-art risk assessment and detection methods for them.” of technology”.

However, opinions are divided on this point.

Following the development of what activists hailed as the first open source detection method for a genetically modified cropthe industry was still not convinced of its validity.

The EU seed sector told EURACTIV at the time that there had never been any scientific doubt that these genetic changes could be detected, but rather that detection could prove whether the change was of natural origin or a consequence of genetic editing.

Challenging this position, MPs criticized the fact that, so far, there has been no concerted effort to back it up.

“We are convinced that the EU can and must overcome these challenges to maintain a high level of protection for our public health and the environment. However, this will not be possible without dedicated European research,” they say.

According to the European Commission, the EU has spent €685.5 million on research focusing on the bioeconomy related to NGT, including €271 million on plant biotechnology research, between 2007 and 2020. EU member states reported spending €356 million on NGT research over five years. year.

The EU executive explained that most of the funding has been dedicated to the development of these technologies and their applications in agriculture, health and industry.

However, only 1.6% of the 356 million euros spent by EU member states went on research on detection, risk assessment and monitoring methods. At the same time, the EU has not invested in specialized research into the specific risks posed by new GMOs or into ways to detect such GMOs, MEPs point out.

Green MEP Martin Häusling, one of the signatories of the letter, accused the Commission to pluck claims about the safety and untraceable nature of GM crops “from scratch”.

“Neither EU bodies nor national governments have invested money to actually investigate these issues. It is time for the Commission to recognize this and invest European funds in specific research on the potential risks and detection strategies of new GM crops,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, another signatory to the letter, MEP Eleonora Evi, warned that the current inadequacy of monitoring strategies could lead to a “real danger of these new GMOs ending up on our plates unchecked”.

She added that the release of genetically modified crops into the environment poses a serious risk to the EU organic sector, warning that it would “irreparably undermine the credibility of our agricultural production and our national agri-food chain”, which, according to her, has built its strength on “non-GMO” insurance.

“The Commission has a duty to ensure the correct application of European rules, which establish the same authorization, control and traceability process for new GMOs as for traditional GMOs, in order to protect public health and the environment. , as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Judgment of justice,” she added.

[Edited by Alice Taylor]