NewzIntel.com

Category: Balkans

  • MIL-OSI Economics: BSTDB and Inecobank Expand Support for Armenian SMEs with New USD 10 Million Credit Line

    Source: Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

    Press Release | 10-Jul-2025

    Agreement signed during BSTDB Business Forum in Yerevan bolsters private sector growth

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) and Inecobank have signed a new USD 10 million credit line to support the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Armenia. The agreement was signed during the BSTDB Business Forum in Yerevan, a flagship event that promotes regional cooperation and sustainable economic growth.

    The new facility responds to the growing demand for medium-term financing among Armenian SMEs and aims to boost the lending capacity of Inecobank, a leading player in the SME sector. Beyond the direct financial support, it is expected to support job creation, income generation, infrastructure development, and increased trade activity, generating broader multiplier effects across the economy.

    The operation is fully aligned with the priorities of the BSEC Economic Agenda, which promotes regional development, financial inclusion, and the growth of competitive private sector enterprises.

    “This new agreement reflects our strong commitment to strengthening the SME ecosystem in Armenia and across the Black Sea region,” said Dr. Serhat Köksal, President of BSTDB. “By working with a trusted and experienced partner like Inecobank, we are not only expanding access to finance but also investing in long-term institutional development that drives inclusive and resilient growth.”

    “At Inecobank, we value financing that contributes to long-term economic development and business growth.” said Hayk Voskanyan, Chief Executive Officer of Inecobank. “This facility supports our ongoing efforts to expand SME lending in areas where access to capital can drive competitiveness and private sector development. Our collaboration with BSTDB contributes meaningfully to this agenda.”

    This is the fourth credit line BSTDB has provided to Inecobank since the partnership began in 2007. To date, BSTDB has extended over USD 21.8 million in financing to more than 100 Armenian enterprises through Inecobank, contributing meaningfully to private sector expansion and economic diversification.

     

    Inecobank CJSC is a leading financial institution in the South Caucasus, offering a full range of banking services to individuals, SMEs, and large enterprises. Established in 1996, the bank serves over 600,000 clients across Armenia and is recognized for its focus on innovation and modern banking solutions. Inecobank maintains strong relationships with top international financial institutions and partners with over 30 global organizations through diverse financing programs.

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.

     

    Contact: Haroula Christodoulou

    : @BSTDB

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: BSTDB Backs Expansion of Leading Armenian Supermarket Chain

    Source: Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

    Press Release | 10-Jul-2025

    €15 Million Loan to SAS Group Will Boost Retail Infrastructure, Jobs, and Local Farming

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is providing a €15 million loan to SAS Group LLC, one of Armenia’s top retail companies, to support its expansion plans and strengthen the country’s retail sector.

    The financing will fund the construction of new retail outlets in Yerevan and help refinance existing obligations, reinforcing the company’s financial sustainability and long-term growth. A trusted partner of BSTDB since 2007, SAS Group has consistently demonstrated strong operational performance and commitment to quality service in Armenia’s retail sector.

    “This investment reflects BSTDB’s continued commitment to fostering private sector growth in Armenia,” said Dr. Serhat Köksal, President of BSTDB. “By supporting a well-established local company like SAS Group, we are helping to modernize retail infrastructure, enhance consumer access, and create tangible economic value—from increased employment to stronger links with domestic producers. I am especially pleased to conclude our Armenia Business Forum with the signing of this agreement, which exemplifies the kind of partnership and progress we aim to promote across the region.”

    “We are pleased to have agreed a new long-term loan from our established partner BSTDB.  This financing will support our investments, leading to improved level of service and bringing benefits to our customers.” said Artak Sargsyan, SAS Founder.

     

    Established in 1998, SAS-Group LLC one of the leading retail trade operators in Armenia. The Company operates in total ten retail outlets: eight supermarkets and two “Home Stores” in Yerevan.

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.

     

    Contact: Haroula Christodoulou

    : @BSTDB

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s message on the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica [scroll down for French version]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    Today marks the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica – the worst atrocity on European soil since the Second World War.

    In July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered. Thousands of women, children, and older persons were forcibly displaced, their lives forever shattered. The intention was the elimination of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.

    We remember the victims and honour the courage of the survivors – including the Mothers of Srebrenica, whose tireless pursuit of justice ensured that the genocide was recognized in both law and history.

    This day is not only a moment of reflection. It is a call to vigilance and action.

    At a time when hate speech, denial and division are gaining ground, we must stand firm for truth and justice. We must detect early warning signs and respond before violence takes hold. We must respect international law, defend human rights, uphold the dignity of every individual, and invest in reconciliation and peace.

    Let the memory of Srebrenica strengthen our resolve, so that “never again” truly means never again.

    ***

    Aujourd’hui marque le trentième anniversaire du génocide commis à Srebrenica, la pire atrocité perpétrée sur le sol européen depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

    En juillet 1995, plus de 8 000 hommes et garçons bosniaques ont fait l’objet d’un massacre systématique. Des milliers de femmes, d’enfants et de personnes âgées ont été déplacés de force, voyant leur vie brisée à jamais. L’intention était d’éliminer les Bosniaques de Srebrenica.

    Nous honorons la mémoire des victimes et le courage des personnes survivantes, notamment les Mères de Srebrenica, dont la quête inlassable de justice a abouti à la reconnaissance juridique et historique de ce génocide.

    Cette journée n’est pas seulement un moment de réflexion, c’est aussi un appel à la vigilance et à l’action.

    À l’heure où les discours de haine, la négation et les dissensions gagnent du terrain, nous devons défendre ardemment la vérité et la justice. Nous devons détecter les signes avant-coureurs et réagir avant que la violence ne s’installe. Nous devons respecter le droit international, protéger les droits humains, préserver la dignité de chaque personne et investir dans la réconciliation et la paix.

    Que la mémoire de Srebrenica nous rende plus déterminés que jamais, et que les mots « plus jamais ça » prennent enfin tout leur sens.

    ***
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI China: China’s high-speed rail tech boon for world, picturing new vision for connectivity

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Guests attend the 12th World Congress on High-Speed Rail in Beijing, capital of China, July 8, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    China’s fast-evolving high-speed rail technology is not only reshaping domestic mobility, but also playing an increasingly significant role in enhancing global connectivity and driving infrastructure development, experts said at the 12th World Congress on High-Speed Rail.

    The event, held from Tuesday to Friday in Beijing and co-hosted by China State Railway Group and the International Union of Railways (UIC), drew more than 2,000 participants from over 60 countries, regions and international organizations.

    “In less than two decades, China has created the largest and most advanced high-speed rail system in the world, reshaping mobility, the economy and regional development,” said Alan Beroud, chairman of the UIC, during his keynote speech at the opening ceremony.

    China’s achievement is more remarkable given that at the beginning of this century, the country had no high-speed railways. Back then, passengers relied on slow and often overcrowded trains, making cross-country journeys time-consuming and exhausting.

    Today, the country operates about 48,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, more than twice the length of all other countries’ networks combined. The system links 97 percent of cities with populations of 500,000 or more.

    Guided by an innovation-driven strategy, China has emerged as a global front-runner in the sector. The country has spearheaded the development of all 13 system-level international standards for high-speed rail set by the UIC. Its flagship models, such as the CR450 electrical multiple unit, the world’s fastest high-speed train with a test speed of 450 kilometers per hour, have redefined new global benchmarks for speed and safety.

    For many countries, especially those still developing their infrastructure, China’s story is more than a feat of modernization — it serves as a practical pathway to achieving broader development.

    “Most countries experience the same starting point like China,” said Ulan Kulov, deputy general manager of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway Co. “We can go this way faster if we learn from China, because we don’t have to reinvent it, and we can use existing technologies and go fast forward.”

    While leading in development at home, China is also exporting its expertise abroad, partnering with more than 40 countries and regions. From Asia to Europe and beyond, its high-speed rail projects are leaving a growing global footprint.

    The Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway in Indonesia, built entirely with Chinese technology and standards, slashed travel time between the two cities from more than three hours to just 46 minutes. In Europe, the China-backed Hungary-Serbia Railway has cut travel time between Budapest and Belgrade from eight hours to three, benefiting more than 11 million passengers since operation.

    The China-Laos Railway stands as a key project promoting regional connectivity and trade. As of May, the railway had transported more than 52.7 million passengers, including over 510,000 cross-border travelers, and carried more than 59.4 million tonnes of cargo, with cross-border shipments exceeding 13.7 million tonnes.

    Daochinda Siharath, managing director of Lao National Railway Authority, said the China-Laos Railway was the first railway built to modern technical standards that Laos had operated. “The railway has directly and indirectly supported the socioeconomic development in Laos, and also boosted the income of people living along the route,” the official said.

    Beyond advancing infrastructure in developing nations, China’s high-speed rail is also creating new opportunities for traditional railway players.

    When attending a parallel exhibition on modern railway technology, Hitachi NICO Transmission Co., Ltd., a Japanese company that entered the Chinese market in 1980, highlighted the importance of joint innovation.

    “In the past 40-plus years, it was through our development in China that we seized unprecedented opportunities,” said Matsui Shiro, president of the company. He noted that Japanese and Chinese companies are highly complementary in areas such as specialized components, co-development, and integrated solutions.

    “The Belt and Road Initiative has opened new doors for China-Japan joint ventures in third-party markets,” Matsui said. “We see great prospects for effective partnerships in many areas.”

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Human Rights Committee Holds Emergency Meeting with States Parties as the United Nations’ Financial Crisis Threatens its Survival

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Human Rights Committee today held an emergency meeting with States parties to discuss the financial challenges of the United Nations and the Committee’s future.

    Committee Chairperson Changrok Soh, in opening remarks, said the Committee’s ability to fulfil its mandate was under serious threat. Austerity measures had been imposed on it that jeopardised not just its current work, but the very future of the Committee itself.

    The Committee’s most pressing concern was the cancellation of its third session this year, Mr. Soh said. This was the first time in its 50-year history that such a cancellation had occurred. Losing a session meant serious delays in reviewing State party reports and in deciding on individual complaints of Covenant violations. Many victims had already waited years for justice. Now, they would wait even longer, he said.

    Mr. Soh appealed to States parties to help the Committee find a solution. The Committee needed States’ political will, financial commitment, and concrete support — not only to help it find a way to hold its third session this year, but also to strengthen the system for the future.

    In the ensuing discussion, States parties expressed support for the Committee and the treaty body system, and concern regarding the financial crisis and the cancellation of the third session. They called on the Committee to come up with new, sustainable, cost-effective solutions to address the structural issues underpinning the situation, while maintaining its work and integrity.

    Concluding the meeting, Mr. Soh said that treaty bodies were not receiving enough funding for their core work. They were doing their best in terms of rationalisation and increasing efficiency, but as allocated resources declined, support for the treaty bodies’ work diminished, creating a vicious cycle.

    To address this situation, special measures were needed, such as utilising voluntary contributions transparently, he said. Without a properly functioning treaty body system, human rights protections would weaken around the world. Decisive and urgent action was needed to protect the treaty body system and human rights around the world, he concluded.

    Speaking in the meeting were representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as Japan, Spain, Serbia, Egypt, Croatia, Colombia, Russian Federation, Costa Rica, Islamic Republic of Iran and France.

    The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-fourth session is being held from 23 June to 17 July 2025. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage . Meeting summary releases can be found here . The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Tuesday 15 July to hear the progress report of the Special Rapporteur on follow-up to the Committee’s concluding observations.

    Opening Statements by Committee Experts

    CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said the Committee had convened the emergency meeting to discuss a single, urgent issue: “The financial challenges of the United Nations and the future of the Human Rights Committee.” The Committee came before States today with a profound sense of urgency.

    All members of the Human Rights Committee were deeply honoured to take enormous responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Covenant. They took this duty very seriously. But today, its ability to fulfil this mandate was under serious threat. The austerity measures imposed on the Committee jeopardised not just its current work, but the very future of the Committee itself.

    These were truly unprecedented times — for the Committee and for the entire treaty body system. The Committee’s most pressing concern was the cancellation of its third session this year, scheduled for October and November, as announced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was the first time in the Committee’s 50-year history that such a cancellation had occurred. 

    The cancellation put the Committee in a very difficult position. Its rules of procedure required it to meet three times a year. This was a fundamental obligation under the Committee’s mandate and indispensable to the effectiveness of its work. If it lost a session, nearly eight months would pass without a single meeting in Geneva. This meant serious delays in reviewing State party reports and in deciding on individual complaints of Covenant violations. Many victims had already waited years for justice. Now, they would wait even longer. Every delay weakened the Committee’s recommendations, diminished their impact, and undermined their ability to prevent further violations.

    The Committee recognised that the United Nations’ financial crisis was serious, and that the Secretariat was doing its best under the current constraints. But it was clear that the rules and structures of the system were too rigid to cope with situations like this. For example, in early June, during the Treaty Body Chairs’ meeting, several Chairs explored the possibility of mobilising emergency funding to hold autumn sessions. However, they were told that this was not possible, as treaty bodies were required to rely exclusively on the regular budget to carry out their mandated activities. This rule was intended to safeguard the Committee’s independence. But it made little sense if, in practice, it prevented it from functioning at all when the regular budget fell short. The Covenant clearly obliged the Secretary-General to ensure that the Committee could carry out its work. If the current approach blocked the fulfilment of that obligation, then it needed to change.

    The Committee therefore appealed to States parties to help it find a solution. Open and frank communication with the States parties was crucial because, ultimately, it was in States’ interest to ensure that the treaty bodies could continue their vital work, even in difficult times. The Committee needed States’ political will, financial commitment, and concrete support — not only to help it find a way to hold its third session this year, but also to strengthen the system for the future. 

    The Committee monitored the fundamental rights of individuals in 174 States parties — as part of the approximately 1,400 treaty obligations regularly reviewed by the treaty bodies. This was a remarkable early warning and accountability system — one that States parties created. The Committee urged States to ensure that this system could continue to function effectively. If not, what alternative was available?

    This should not be treated as a one-time problem. If this unprecedented cancellation were allowed to be “normalised”, it would set a dangerous precedent. Each time the United Nations faced a funding shortfall, the credibility and effectiveness of the treaty body system, a core pillar of the United Nations’ human rights architecture, would erode further.

    There was growing global pushback against human rights, especially the very rights the Committee was mandated to protect. This was not the moment to weaken United Nations human rights mechanisms. On the contrary, the world needed this remarkable early warning and accountability system now more than ever. 

    The Committee called on States to do three things. First, support the Committee — even at this late stage — in finding a solution to hold its third session this year, and commit to holding all three regular sessions in 2026. Second, allow voluntary contributions from States to be used transparently and responsibly to support the Committee’s work, while fully preserving the independence and impartiality of the treaty bodies. Third, help the Committee function effectively by fulfilling reporting obligations, engaging with the Committee in dialogue, and supporting its work financially and politically, both now and in the long term.

    Statements and Questions by States Parties 

    In the ensuing dialogue, many States expressed appreciation for the ongoing efforts of the Committee and the treaty bodies and their firm commitment to the treaty bodies, which were a cornerstone of the international human rights system. The Committee, they said, made significant contributions to upholding civil and political rights around the world.

    Several speakers expressed deep concern about the financial crisis, which was affecting the mandates of all treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures, among other mechanisms in the United Nations system. This situation had serious implications for these bodies’ important work.

    One speaker said that their country had increased contributions to the treaty body system and was paying its dues on time, and had also increased unearmarked financial contributions to the Office of the High Commissioner. The speaker said that the country would work to strengthen the capacity of the Secretariat through its contributions.

    Some speakers said treaty bodies needed to work to harmonise their working methods. Cooperation between treaty bodies could lead to solutions to backlogs in individual communications. The Committee had a backlog of over 1,000 individual communications. One speaker asked if the Committee had assessed additional measures to address its backlog.

    Many speakers expressed dismay that the Committee’s third session for the year was to be cancelled, and called for an urgent, mitigating solution to be found to hold the Committee’s third session in November. Without this session, the Committee’s backlog of cases would only increase. Was this issue related to the ordinary budget or to liquidity? One speaker suggested using new technologies and virtual meetings to hold the third session. The Committee needed to come up with new, sustainable, cost-effective solutions to address the structural issues underpinning the situation, while maintaining its work and integrity. 

    Some speakers commended the UN80 initiative and the United Nations’ efforts to address evolving global challenges. However, some speakers said that austerity measures implemented through the UN80 initiative should not affect the work of the treaty bodies and the international human rights system.

    One speaker said it was worth exploring the Chair’s proposal regarding the use of voluntary contributions to facilitate the Committee’s third session, provided that there were no legal barriers to this solution and that the independence and impartiality of the Committee were not affected. The speaker commended the Committee’s efforts to find a solution.

    Another speaker said that their country had attempted to fund one of the treaty bodies’ mandates directly but had been told that funding could only come from the regular budget. If a voluntary funding scheme for the Committee was established, it needed to be established for all the treaty bodies and other mechanisms receiving funds from the regular budget. The speaker said that their country would support solutions proposed by States, while working within the norms of the United Nations’ system.

    A speaker said that one State had traditionally contributed significantly to the funding of the human rights system; the reasons for its sudden cessation of funding needed to be examined. States were the owners of the treaty body system.

    One speaker said multilingualism needed to be an essential value of the treaty bodies; it should not be sacrificed to achieve budgetary austerity.

    Responses by Committee Experts and Others

    A Committee Expert said States were authors of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol on individual communications. The harmonisation of working methods related to individual communications began around three years ago, both formally and informally. There was no resistance from the Committee in this regard. The Human Rights Committee received the largest number of individual communications, given the broad scope of the Covenant. It was proud of its record in dealing with these communications. Delays in issuing decisions on communications affected the relevance and legitimacy of the decisions that the Committee adopted. The Committee had had only three days this session to assess individual communications, while it had had a full week previously.

    The Secretariat had exerted efforts to maintain its staff in the financial crisis. The Committee had a human resources issue; there was a lack of staff to assess individual complaints, prepare draft decisions, and assess follow-up to the Committee’s decisions. The issue of resources needed to be addressed; simply freeing up time in sessions to assess individual communications would not fix the backlog.

    Digitisation was a long-standing structural issue for the Committee. The system that the Committee worked with was not sufficiently digitised.

    Another Committee Expert said the Committee welcomed States’ support and was encouraged by their presence in the dialogue. The Committee received over half of all the individual communications received by the treaty body system. If the Secretariat could not prepare individual cases for assessment, the Committee could not assess them. Without sufficient pre-sessional working time, the Committee’s backlog would only increase. Diplomats in Geneva understood the complexities of the treaty body system. They needed to mobilise with colleagues in New York to support treaty bodies’ efficiency.

    This was the first time that the Committee had organised a special, focused meeting, and it had been very successful. It would be helpful to have annual meetings with States, as well as emergency meetings to discuss urgent issues.

    One Committee Expert proposed that the Committee use digital technologies to hold the third session remotely. A decision on this issue needed to be taken rapidly. However, this was not a solution to the structural problems the Committee faced. The Committee needed to take slow steps forward in this situation.

    Another Committee Expert said that the young generation was questioning the capacity of the human rights system to protect human rights, in the context of the recent increase in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. The Committee was witnessing the emergence of new challenges, including in relation to climate change and artificial intelligence. It was considering how to address these challenges while preserving human rights. The Committee’s objective was not to level accusations at States; it was to accompany them on their journey toward achieving the best implementation of their commitments. Member States needed to support the Committee now, in the same manner as they had supported it for decades.

    A Committee Expert thanked States parties for their support to the international human rights system. States had created the Committee, recognising the need to monitor and protect civil and political rights. The Committee had an enormous workload and required appropriate financial resources, so that the Secretariat could hire necessary human resources to facilitate its work. The Expert called on States to take initiatives to address the crisis. Solutions needed to address the overall structural crisis over the long term.

    CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said the Committee would present a proposal to States regarding the use of voluntary contributions for holding the third session, but only States could approve this. Mr. Soh expressed support for the idea of holding annual meetings with States parties.

    The Committee met online during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that these meetings were not effective for various reasons, including time difference and limitations on dialogue and interpretation. The treaty body Chairs had discussed this issue, but had decided that online meetings were not an effective option. However, the Committee would continue to use digital technology, including artificial intelligence, to increase the efficiency of its work.

    WAN-HEA LEE, Chief, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Section, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , said that, in the past, the Office of the High Commissioner had reduced the working time of pre-sessional working groups to manage the financial crisis. The working group for the third session had been cancelled.

    In the past, the treaty bodies had been facing a liquidity crisis. Dues were being paid, but did not reach the treaty bodies in a timely manner. However, it was not an issue of liquidity anymore. The budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for this year had been cut, and the situation had moved from a liquidity to a financial crisis. The financial outlook for next year was also not bright.

    DINA ROSSBACHER, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , said that there was a structural problem in terms of the processing of decisions related to individual communications. The formula adopted by Member States regarding the processing of individual communications had not been fully adopted and this had been exacerbated by the financial crisis. The Committee had taken several steps to address the situation, including efforts to align working methods and increase the efficiency of processing individual communications. Last year, the Committee adopted a record number of decisions on communications – over 450. However, the large backlog remained, and the situation remained urgent.

    Statements and Questions by States Parties

    States expressed support for the work of the Committee, the treaty bodies and the human rights system. It was the responsibility of States to support the work of the Committee, one speaker said.

    Speakers said creative initiatives were needed to address the financial situation, including digital meetings. One State expressed support for the Committee’s efforts to harmonise and increase efficiency for its work.

    One speaker said the Committee needed to further consider the cultural diversity of States in preparing its concluding observations. If the Committee did not consider challenges such as terrorism and unilateral coercive measures, its recommendations would be considered irrelevant to the realities on the ground in some countries. The speaker called on the Committee to prepare a general comment on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on civil and political rights.

    Responses by a Committee Expert

    A Committee Expert said the treaty bodies were implementing innovative methods to review States parties. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had this year conducted a special, informal meeting in Fiji to review States parties in the region. This initiative was funded by States parties, and could be a model for other Committees to follow. The application of simplified procedures to individual communications would not be sufficient for fully addressing the Committee’s backlog.

    Closing Remarks

    CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said treaty bodies were at the core of the human rights architecture. However, the Committee’s third session would not happen without extraordinary measures, and this trend would continue if the Committee continued to rely on the United Nations’ regular budget. Less than five per cent of the United Nations’ regular budget was allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The treaty body system was not receiving enough funding for its core work. It was doing its best in terms of rationalisation and increasing efficiency. But as allocated resources declined, support diminished, creating a vicious cycle.

    To address this situation, special measures were needed, such as utilising voluntary contributions transparently. Without a properly functioning treaty body system, human rights protections would weaken around the world. Decisive and urgent action was needed to protect the treaty body system and human rights around the world.

    ____________

    This document is produced by the United Nations Information Service at Geneva and is intended for public information; it is not an official document.
    The English and French versions of our news releases are different because they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

    CCPR25.017E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – The statutory right of first refusal on the purchase of forests in Slovenia is an infringement of EU law – E-002543/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002543/2025/rev.1
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Matej Tonin (PPE)

    In Slovenia there is an established right of first refusal for the purchase of forests in the case of complexes of more than 30 hectares located in Slovenia. This right of first refusal is granted to Slovenian State Forests (Slovenski državni gozdovi, d.o.o. (SiDG)), the company that manages and administers forests owned by the state.

    I believe that such a broadly defined possibility to exercise a right of first refusal infringes EU law on three separate grounds:

    (1) Because it restricts the free movement of capital between Member States;

    (2) Because it constitutes an infringement of EU competition rules, as well as being unlawful State aid to a public company; and

    (3) Because there is no valid reason to establish such a right of first refusal, nor can such a right be in the public interest.

    Two applicants have already notified the Commission of an infringement of EU law, namely Jurij Rudež 6/12/2023 CPLT (2024)00008 and the Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia 16/01/2024 (2024)00467T.

    I would like to ask the Commission:

    Could such a broadly defined and legally guaranteed right of first refusal constitute an infringement of EU law?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    Last updated: 10 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: EU Member States join programme supporting EU exports to Ukraine

    Source: European Investment Bank

    ©Oleksandra Shliakhetska/ EIB

    Ten EU Member States – Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain – have joined InvestEU’s Ukraine Export Credit Pilot, a guarantee facility backed by the European Investment Fund (EIF), part of the European Investment Bank Group. Three more countries are expected to join the programme soon. 

    Under the programme, national export credit agencies in each country each country will receive an EIF-backed guarantee for national exporters of goods and services to Ukraine. They are also eligible for support from InvestEU Advisory services.

    The guarantees help reduce financial risks and keep exports flowing – from machinery and building materials to critical technologies – while also supporting Ukraine’s deeper integration into the EU single market and its longer-term path toward EU membership.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New Coalition of the Willing headquarters as leaders step up support for Ukraine’s immediate flight

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    New Coalition of the Willing headquarters as leaders step up support for Ukraine’s immediate flight

    The Coalition of the Willing will have a new permanent headquarters in Paris, with plans in place for a future coordination cell in Kyiv, as command structures for the future reassurance force are finalised.

    The Coalition of the Willing will have a new permanent headquarters in Paris, with plans in place for a future coordination cell in Kyiv, as command structures for the future reassurance force are finalised. 

    It comes after leaders from the Coalition of the Willing met virtually today, with the Prime Minister and President Macron joining from the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood and President Zelenskyy, Prime Minister Meloni and other leaders joining from the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome to discuss the latest planning and our wider efforts to support Ukraine.

    For the first time, representatives of the United States, including Special Presidential Envoy, General Keith Kellogg, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Richard Blumenthal, joined the meeting.

    Military chiefs updated on the significant progress made, including the completion of reconnaissance visits to Ukraine, to better understand how a post-ceasefire force could best help regenerate the strength and firepower of Ukrainian forces and provide reassurance in the years to come.

    Following agreement on command structures for the force, leaders agreed that planning should continue on an enduring, business as usual footing, to ensure that a force can deploy in the days following the cessation of hostilities.

    That will include a 3-star multi-national operational headquarters in Paris, led by the UK and France, to oversee all tactical and operational arrangements.

    The headquarters, which will rotate to London after the first 12 months, will allow partners to contribute forces flexibly and deploy military teams for different operational strands of work.

    When the force deploys, a co-ordination cell, headed up by a UK 2-star military officer will also be set up in Kyiv.

    Following the cessation of hostilities, the force is expected to:

    • Regenerate land forces: providing logistic, armament and training experts to assist with the regeneration and reconstitution of Ukraine’s land forces.
    • Secure Ukraine’s skies: The Coalition will provide safe skies alongside Ukraine’s Air Force using Coalition aircraft to deliver Air Policing, reassuring the Ukrainian population and establishing the conditions for normal international air travel to re-commence. 
    • Support safer seas: The existing Black Sea Task Force of Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria will be bolstered by additional specialist staff to accelerate the clearance of mines from the Black Sea and ensure safe and secure maritime access for all vessels transiting to and from Ukraine ports. 

    During the meeting, leaders condemned President Putin’s brutal attacks on Ukrainian cities and disregard for peace talks and reaffirmed their determination to continue applying pressure on Putin to stop his illegal attacks and engage meaningfully in negotiations. They also welcomed progress made at the Ukraine Recovery Conference to help Ukraine grow its economy and protect its infrastructure against Russia’s attacks. 

    They agreed their priority effort must be to focus on Ukraine’s immediate defence in the face of relentless Russian attacks on critical national infrastructure and civilians.

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:

    Supporting Ukraine is not just the right thing to do, it’s essential for delivering security at home. That is why the Coalition of the Willing is ensuring we have a future force that can deploy following a ceasefire to deter Russian aggression for years to come.

    But as we continue to prepare for peace, our focus must also be on making it happen. So, alongside our partners, in the coming days and weeks, we will step up our support to keep Ukraine in the fight now, increasing pressure on Putin through crippling sanctions and ensuring Ukraine’s Armed Forces have the equipment they need to defend their sovereign territory.

    I am clear that the more we do to counter Russia’s aggression, the safer we will keep the British people, our allies and the Euro-Atlantic area.

    President Putin has made it clear with his barbaric missile strikes that he is not ready for peace – underscoring the need for the international priority to be to strengthen Ukraine in the fight now.

    Despite this, Coalition of the Willing members have been steadfast about their commitment to making sure they are ready to support Ukraine to deter future Russian attacks when the conditions for peace are right. 

    The ‘Multinational Force Ukraine’ will bolster Ukraine’s ability to return to peace and stability by supporting the regeneration of Ukraine’s own forces. Strong Ukrainian armed forces is the best way to deter Russia – and ensure the country is able to rebuild a thriving economy and attract international investment.

    The military plan comes after military chiefs met in Paris on Monday to agree the strategy for the force and coordinate plans with the EU, NATO and the US and more than 200 planners from 30 international partners.

    Leaders have now met six times to further planning and political support for the plans. The meeting comes after Ukraine’s friends and partners pledged €40bn of military support for the country in 2025 at the NATO Summit last month.

    This year, the UK will contribute £4.5 billion of military support to Ukraine – more than ever before, as well as launching a new landmark partnership share battlefield technology.

    That agreement, reached last month, will boost Ukraine’s drone production capacity and link the UK’s defence industry with the cutting-edge technology being developed on the front lines in Ukraine.

    Updates to this page

    Published 10 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • FIFA rankings: India men’s football team slips to 133, lowest in nine years

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The Indian men’s football team has slipped to its lowest FIFA ranking in nine years, falling six spots to 133rd in the latest update released on Thursday. The drop comes after back-to-back defeats in June — a 0-2 loss to Thailand in a friendly on June 4, followed by a 0-1 defeat to lower-ranked Hong Kong in an Asian Cup qualifier.

    These results also led to head coach Manolo Marquez parting ways with the All India Football Federation (AIFF). India last ranked lower in December 2016, when it stood at 135. The team’s all-time best ranking remains 94, achieved in February 1996.

    India now has 1,113.22 rating points, down from 1,132.03, and stands 24th among 46 Asian nations, with Japan leading the continent at 17th in the global rankings. It has been a rough stretch for the Indian men’s team, with the recent loss to Hong Kong severely denting its hopes of qualifying for the 2027 Asian Cup.

    Among Asian Football Confederation (AFC) members, India is ranked 24th out of 47 member associations.

    Under head coach Manolo Marquez, the team managed just one win in its last eight outings — a victory over the Maldives in March. In 2025 so far, India has played four matches, recording one win, one draw, and two defeats.

    The string of poor results led to the return of legendary striker and former captain Sunil Chhetri to the squad, but his comeback has done little to change the team’s fortunes.

    India’s next international fixture is an away match against Singapore in October, as part of the third round of the Asian Cup qualifiers.

    Meanwhile, reigning World Champion Argentina tops the FIFA rankings among 210 nations, followed by Spain, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Croatia, in that order to complete the top 10.

    Costa Rica is the biggest climber in the rankings with a 14-place jump, while Honduras gained the most points.

    IANS

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Plans to relocate Gazans to a ‘humanitarian city’ look like a crime against humanity – international law expert

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Sweeney, Professor, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are refusing to implement a government plan to move hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into a what it calls a “humanitarian city” in Rafah on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt. Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, chief of the IDF general staff said the plan was not part of the military’s operational plan for destroying Hamas and freeing the remaining hostages.

    Army reservists have reportedly also complained that the plan amounts to a war crime. In my view as an expert in international law, they are correct. Forcibly relocating a population is prohibited, even in war. It is also a crime against humanity and could even amount, under certain circumstances, to genocide.

    There is some important historical context to consider before examining the legal issues at play.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation in the UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    The prosecution of crimes against humanity first took place at the Nuremberg trials of surviving senior Nazis after the second world war. By that time the idea of war crimes was clearly established – but they tended to concern what you should not do to the enemy civilian population.

    The problem was that the worst atrocities of the Nazis were committed against their own people – the German Jews (and many, many others too). The idea of crimes against humanity was created to fill this gap, and was used to prosecute the surviving masterminds of the Holocaust.

    Conditions for a ‘crime against humanity’

    Crimes against humanity are a category that contains several separate crimes. If the right conditions are there, you might talk about “the crime against humanity of murder” or the “crime against humanity of rape”. The conditions are that the underpinning crime takes place against a backdrop of a “widespread or systematic” attack on a civilian population.

    The attack does not have to include a literal armed attack: apartheid, for example, was established as a crime against humanity in 1973 in response to the policies of the South African government. It is also not necessary that there is an armed conflict for a particular crime to be a crime against humanity.

    Within the category of crimes against humanity is included “deportation and forcible transfer” (see article 7 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court).

    This is what the Israeli government’s plan for moving Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” would appear to amount to. If the plan stopped at leaving Gazan Palestinians in Rafah then it would be “forcible transfer”, and if they were relocated to another country it would be “deportation”.

    Coercion is key to the crime of forcible transfer. It’s fanciful to think that every single Gazan civilian would want to move to Rafah in circumstances where they would be security-checked on entry and thereafter forbidden from leaving.

    How could a liveable city, with all the infrastructure needed, even be created? What of the dentists, doctors, teachers, lawyers, mechanics, entrepreneurs and anyone else who was able to make an honest living? Will they really be given a place to carry out their work?

    Ethnic cleansing

    The term “ethnic cleansing” is sometimes used to describe what is being proposed by the Israeli government. I dislike the term, and it has no meaning in law. It became a commonly used term during the 1990s conflict in the former Yugoslavia when ethnic Serbs, and in some instances ethnic Croats, expelled hundreds of thousands of people of any other ethnicity out of the territory that they held.

    For this practice, the president of the former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević, and a string of Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders were charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

    Milošević died before the ICTY could deliver a verdict in his case, but many others were found guilty. The actions of the Bosnian Serb forces in the town of Srebrenica were even found by the ICTY to have been an act of genocide, because they were not just expelling non-Serbs but wiping them out: at one point in July 1995 they killed around 8,000 men and boys in just a few days.

    A lot would depend on the conditions in which the Palestinians would live in the “humanitarian city”. If they were deprived of sufficient food and medical supplies in a way that could only be seen as intended to lead to their deaths, then that too could be held to qualify as an act of genocide.

    Justice and accountability

    It is clear to me that the forced relocation of Gazans to a “humanitarian city” would violate international law. What is not so clear cut is how to hold its instigators to account.

    There are already arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant. But there is no international police force and so the ICC relies on participating states to arrest suspects on its behalf. Hungary welcomed Netanyahu in April this year, while announcing it would withdraw from the ICC.

    In the same way, Netanyahu flew to Washington DC this week to meet with Donald Trump, but was not arrested because the US doesn’t recognise the ICC. During his visit, Netanyahu announced he would be nominating Trump for the Nobel peace prize.

    South Africa has also sought to hold the state of Israel to account at the International Court of Justice, alleging the crime of genocide. The court has yet to rule, saying only that it is plausible that acts of genocide might occur in Gaza.

    Since Hamas launched its vicious attack on Isreal on the October 7 2023, there has been constant violence and massive loss of life in the region. However, the proposed “humanitarian city” is not, in my view, a lawful route to peace and stability. As for anyone actually facing justice for the many atrocities that we have seen, an international consensus in favour simply doesn’t exist. And, in the current climate, there’s little sign that it will exist any time soon.

    James Sweeney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Plans to relocate Gazans to a ‘humanitarian city’ look like a crime against humanity – international law expert – https://theconversation.com/plans-to-relocate-gazans-to-a-humanitarian-city-look-like-a-crime-against-humanity-international-law-expert-260727

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Banking: Piero Cipollone: Shifting payment landscape – what a digital euro will bring

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    It is a pleasure to speak to you today.

    The ongoing shift in the way we pay is affecting the fundamental fabric of our economies. Whether we are consumers browsing digital marketplaces, entrepreneurs pursuing digital innovation, or decision-makers facing the digital transition, we are all involved in reshaping payments.

    Payments are more than a means of settling transactions, they are the lifeblood of a modern economy. And in a digital world, our economies will only be as competitive, inclusive, autonomous and resilient as our payments are.

    Slovenia has put the digital transformation at the heart of its economic strategy, aiming to place the country among the top five most digitalised economies in Europe by 2030. An innovative and striving digital payments ecosystem can play a key role in this journey.

    As a central bank, our responsibility is to accompany and enable this transition. We must ensure that the shift to digital payments enhances accessibility and efficiency, without creating fragmentation or new dependencies.

    MIL OSI Global Banks –

  • MIL-OSI: BULGOLD Announces Closing of Non-Brokered Private Placement for Gross Proceeds of Approximately $1 Million

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Not for distribution to United States newswire services or for dissemination in the United States

    TORONTO, July 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — BULGOLD Inc. (TSXV: ZLTO) (the “Company” or “BULGOLD”) is pleased to announce the closing of its previously announced non-brokered private placement (the “Offering”) for gross proceeds of approximately $1,076,720 from the sale of 21,534,407 common shares in the capital of the Company (each, a “Share”) at a price of $0.05 per Share (the “Issue Price”).

    In consideration for the services rendered by certain arm’s length parties (the “Finders”) in connection with the Offering, the Finders received an aggregate cash fee of $7,700 and an aggregate of 154,000 finder’s warrants (the “Finder’s Warrant”). Each Finder’s Warrant entitles the holder to acquire one additional common share in the capital of the Company at an exercise price of $0.07 until January 9, 2027.

    Management of the Company subscribed for $138,567 of the Offering. The issuances of Common Shares to such insiders are considered related party transactions under Multilateral Instrument 61-101 Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (“MI 61-101”). The Company relied on exemptions from the formal valuation and minority approval requirements in sections 5.5(b) and 5.7(1)(b) of MI 61-101, respectively, in respect of such insider participation. The Offering remains subject to the final approval of the TSX Venture Exchange. The Shares are subject to a hold period ending on November 10, 2025.

    The Company will use the proceeds from the Offering for exploration, as well as for general corporate purposes.

    The securities described herein have not been, and will not be, registered under the United States Securities Act, or any state securities laws, and accordingly may not be offered or sold within the United States except in compliance with the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities requirements or pursuant to exemptions therefrom. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any securities in any jurisdiction.

    About BULGOLD Inc.

    BULGOLD is a gold exploration company focused on the exploration and development of mineral exploration projects in Central and Eastern Europe. The Company controls 100% of three quality quartz-adularia epithermal gold projects located in the Bulgarian and Slovak portions of the Western Tethyan Belt: the Lutila Gold Project, the Kostilkovo Gold Project and the Kutel Gold Project. Management of the Company believes that its assets show potential for high-grade, good-metallurgy, low-sulfidation epithermal gold mineralisation.

    On July 10, 2025, BULGOLD’s issued and outstanding shares were 49,132,335 of which approximately 28.3% were held by Founders, Directors and Management. Additional information about the Company is available on BULGOLD’s website (www.BULGOLD.com) and on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca).

    Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    This press release contains forward‐looking statements and forward‐looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. These statements relate to future events or future performance and include statements relating to the Offering, including but not limited to, the use of proceeds, the timing and ability of the Company to receive necessary regulatory and other approvals, including the final acceptance of the Offering by the TSX Venture Exchange. All statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements or information. The forward‐looking statements and information are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by management of the Company. Although management of the Company believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking statements and information are based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward‐looking statements and information since no assurance can be given that they will prove to be correct.

    Forward-looking statements and information are provided for the purpose of providing information about the current expectations and plans of management of the Company relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such statements and information may not be appropriate for other purposes, such as making investment decisions. Since forward‐looking statements and information address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors and risks, including the inherent uncertainty of mineral exploration; risks related to title to mineral properties; and credit, market, currency, operational, commodity, geopolitical, liquidity and funding risks generally, including changes in economic conditions, interest rates or tax rates and general market and economic conditions. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on the forward‐looking statements and information contained in this press release. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. The forward‐looking statements and information contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof and no undertaking is given to update publicly or revise any forward‐looking statements or information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements and information contained in this press release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

    For further information, please contact:

    BULGOLD Inc.
    Sean Hasson, President and Chief Executive Officer
    Telephone: +359 887 560 545
    Email: sean.hasson@BULGOLD.com 
    Website: www.BULGOLD.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide: UK statement to the OSCE, July 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Speech

    30th anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide: UK statement to the OSCE, July 2025

    Ambassador Holland honours the memory of those killed in the Srebrenica genocide, and underlines the UK’s support to Bosnia and Herzegovina in its ongoing efforts to build a stable, inclusive country for all its citizens.

    Madam Chair, 30 years ago in Srebrenica, genocide took place in Europe for the first time since 1945. Over 8,000 innocent men and boys were brutally killed in a single month that summer, and more than 20,000 women and children were forcibly uprooted from their homes. We honour the memory of those killed, pay tribute to the survivors, and stand firm alongside them in their pursuit of justice and reconciliation.

    On 16 June, the UK marked our National Srebrenica Memorial Day at a ceremony in St Paul’s Cathedral, attended by the Deputy Prime Minister. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh will visit Bosnia and Herzegovina this week for the official Commemoration at the Srebrenica Memorial Centre.

    The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that several individuals were guilty of genocide in Srebrenica. Acknowledgement of that fact should in no way be seen as an attempt to blame an entire country or people for the suffering of another, and it should not be a cause for tension and division. Rather, it is a basis on which true reconciliation can be achieved.

    The UK stands with Bosnia and Herzegovina in its ongoing efforts to build a stable, inclusive country for all its citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and to heal the divisions inflicted by war. It is deeply troubling that divisive and inciteful rhetoric, reckless secessionist ambitions, and direct attacks on the Dayton Peace Agreement – which remains Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional framework – continue to threaten peace and stability.

    Madam Chair, this will be the fourth successive year that we mark this anniversary in the shadow of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Terrible events such as the genocide at Srebrenica show the consequences of inaction. We owe it to the victims to create societies that are stable, inclusive and cohesive, and to fight against prejudice, hatred, fear and division. Remaining true to our shared commitment to the concept of comprehensive security, articulated by the Helsinki principles and central to membership of the OSCE, remains the best way to achieve this.

    Only through such collective responsibility can we honour the past, respect the survivors’ enduring efforts, and work to ensure that atrocities such as the Srebrenica genocide are never repeated.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Updates to this page

    Published 10 July 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: Enphase Energy Expands IQ EV Charger 2 in Europe with New Markets, Certifications, and Smart Meter Integration

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    FREMONT, Calif., July 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH), a global energy technology company and the world’s leading supplier of microinverter-based solar and battery systems, today announced that production shipments of its newest electric vehicle (EV) charger, the IQ® EV Charger 2, have expanded across Europe to now include Greece, Romania, Ireland, and Poland. The IQ EV Charger 2 is a smart charger designed to work seamlessly with Enphase solar and battery systems or as a powerful standalone charger. Additionally, in France, the IQ EV Charger 2 has received one of the country’s highest quality standards, the E.V. READY certification, and can now integrate with the “Linky” meter to enable dynamic load balancing for standalone charger installations.

    The Enphase IQ EV Charger 2 is designed to deliver high performance, intelligent energy management, and exceptional flexibility for homeowners and fleets. It supports both single-phase and three-phase wiring with configurable power up to 32 A per phase and features automatic phase switching to enable charging with as little as 1.38 kW of solar production. Smart features include AI-powered optimization using real-time rates and forecasts, dynamic load balancing, and a certified MID energy meter for accurate tracking. The charger is also future-ready, with built-in hardware and software to support AC bidirectional charging for potential vehicle-to-home (V2H) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) applications.

    The IQ EV Charger 2 is available in socketed and tethered variants, featuring a rugged Type-2 connector that is fully compatible with the majority of EVs sold in Europe. Installation is fast and efficient, featuring a 7.5-meter cable for added flexibility and a streamlined setup process that minimizes labor time and installation costs. It is housed in an IP55-rated enclosure, making it weatherproof and safe for indoor and outdoor installations. All IQ EV Charger 2 products activated in Greece, Romania, Ireland, and Poland are backed by an industry-leading five-year warranty and 24/7 customer support from Enphase – ensuring exceptional peace of mind.

    “The Enphase IQ EV Charger 2 uses solar power to help homeowners reduce costs and grid reliance,” said Tomasz Noga, owner of iPowerInstall, an installer of Enphase products in Poland. “It integrates seamlessly with the rest of the Enphase Energy System.”

    The IQ EV Charger 2 now also integrates with the Linky meter, enabling dynamic load balancing for standalone EV charger installations. The Linky meter is France’s leading smart electricity meter technology, developed by Enedis, the country’s main electricity distribution system operator. The IQ EV Charger 2 connects via USB to the Linky meter and reads the entire home consumption data. It dynamically adjusts the EV charging rate based on the total home consumption shared by the meter.

    The IQ EV Charger 2 has received the E.V. READY certification, which is the leading standard for EV charging in France. E.V. READY is designed to help ensure product reliability, safety, and long-term compatibility with a wide range of EVs and smart home systems. Certification from ASEFA, the independent body that administers the program, signifies rigorous compliance with industry benchmarks for manufacturing, performance, and interoperability with vehicles and grids.

    “The new certification and integrations reinforce the high quality of the Enphase IQ EV Charger 2,” said Mickaêl Garcia, general manager at NRJ Ingénierie, an installer of Enphase products in France. “It gives our customers additional confidence in the product’s long-term reliability and compatibility with future energy systems.”

    “Our IQ EV Charger 2 is designed for performance, safety, and reliability, and is now officially certified to meet these key values,” said Jayant Somani, senior vice president and general manager of the digital business unit at Enphase Energy. “Expanding to more European countries accelerates Enphase’s growth strategy, allowing us to bring comprehensive energy management solutions to these dynamic markets as homeowners increasingly demand an intelligent, integrated charging technology. The E.V. READY certification helps give our customers and partners greater peace of mind that the charger can perform in harmony with local grid requirements and future energy technologies in Europe.”

    Enphase launched the IQ EV Charger 2 in 14 European markets in March 2025. For more information about the IQ EV Charger 2 launch, please visit the Enphase websites for Greece, Romania, Ireland, and Poland.

    About Enphase Energy, Inc.

    Enphase Energy, a global energy technology company based in Fremont, CA, is the world’s leading supplier of microinverter-based solar and battery systems that enable people to harness the sun to make, use, save, and sell their own power—and control it all with a smart mobile app. The company revolutionized the solar industry with its microinverter-based technology and builds all-in-one solar, battery, and software solutions. Enphase has shipped approximately 81.5 million microinverters, and approximately 4.8 million Enphase-based systems have been deployed in over 160 countries. For more information, visit https://enphase.com/.

    ©2025 Enphase Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. Enphase Energy, Enphase, the “e” logo, IQ, IQ8, and certain other marks listed at https://enphase.com/trademark-usage-guidelines are trademarks or service marks of Enphase Energy, Inc. Other names are for informational purposes and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release may contain forward-looking statements, including statements related to the expected capabilities and performance of Enphase Energy’s technology and products, including safety, quality, and reliability; and expectations regarding the features of the IQ EV Charger 2 . These forward-looking statements are based on Enphase Energy’s current expectations and inherently involve significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those contemplated by these forward-looking statements as a result of such risks and uncertainties including those risks described in more detail in Enphase Energy’s most recently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other documents filed by Enphase Energy from time to time with the SEC. Enphase Energy undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this release as a result of new information, future events or changes in its expectations, except as required by law.

    Contact:

    Enphase Energy

    press@enphaseenergy.com

    This press release was published by a CLEAR® Verified individual.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI China: China honors international contributors to cultural exchange

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    BEIJING, July 10 — The second Orchid Awards ceremony was held in Beijing on Thursday, honoring China’s foreign friends and organizations that have promoted the shared values of humanity, facilitated cultural exchange between China and the rest of the world, and strengthened popular support for jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity.

    Among the awardees were nine foreign nationals, including Irina Bokova from Bulgaria, Rashid Alimov from Tajikistan and Maxime Vivas from France. The Philadelphia Orchestra from the United States also received the award.

    In their remarks, awardees stressed the importance of cultural dialogue in a world facing growing uncertainty. They said that the world should seek common ground while shelving differences, deepen mutual learning, and make a shared commitment to peace and cooperation.

    Hosted by the China International Communication Group, the event drew over 300 participants from relevant central departments, international organizations, diplomatic envoys in China, and representatives of Chinese and foreign think tanks and media organizations.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Financial Action Task Force (FATF) High risk and other monitored jurisdictions – June 12-13, 2025

    Source: Reserve Bank of India

    The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) vide public document ‘High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action’ – 13 June 2025, has called on its members and other jurisdictions to refer to the statement on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran adopted in February 2020 which remains in effect. Further, Myanmar was added to the list of High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action in the October 2022 FATF plenary and FATF has called on its members and other jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence measures proportionate to the risk arising from Myanmar. When applying enhanced due diligence measures, countries have been advised to ensure that flows of funds for humanitarian assistance, legitimate NPO activity and remittances are not disrupted. The status of Myanmar in the list of countries subject to a call for action, remains unchanged.

    FATF had earlier identified the following jurisdictions as having strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing and had placed the jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring, which had developed action plan with the FATF to deal with them. These jurisdictions were: Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Lebanon, Mali, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, Vietnam and Yemen. As per the June 13, 2025 FATF public statement, Bolivia and the Virgin Islands (UK) have been added to the list of Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring while Croatia, Mali and Tanzania have been removed from this list based on review by the FATF.

    FATF plenary releases documents titled “High-Risk jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action” and “Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring” with respect to jurisdictions that have strategic AML/CFT deficiencies as part of the ongoing efforts to identify and work with jurisdictions with strategic Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) deficiencies. This advice does not preclude the regulated entities from legitimate trade and business transactions with these countries and jurisdictions mentioned there.

    The detailed information is available in the updated public statements and document released by FATF on June 13, 2025. The statements and document can be accessed at the following URL:

    1. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfgeneral/outcomes-FATF-MONEYVAL-plenary-june-2025.html

    2. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/High-risk-and-other-monitored-jurisdictions/increased-monitoring-june-2025.html

    3. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/High-risk-and-other-monitored-jurisdictions/Call-for-action-june-2025.html

    About FATF

    The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body established in 1989 by the Ministers of its Member jurisdictions. The objectives of the FATF are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The FATF monitors the progress of its members in implementing necessary measures, reviews money laundering and terrorist financing techniques and counter-measures, and promotes the adoption and implementation of appropriate measures globally. The FATF’s decision making body, the FATF Plenary, meets three times a year and updates these statements, which may be noted.

    Ajit Prasad          
    Deputy General Manager
    (Communications)    

    Press Release: 2025-2026/686

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Financial Action Task Force (FATF) High risk and other monitored jurisdictions – June 12-13, 2025

    Source: Reserve Bank of India

    The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) vide public document ‘High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action’ – 13 June 2025, has called on its members and other jurisdictions to refer to the statement on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran adopted in February 2020 which remains in effect. Further, Myanmar was added to the list of High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action in the October 2022 FATF plenary and FATF has called on its members and other jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence measures proportionate to the risk arising from Myanmar. When applying enhanced due diligence measures, countries have been advised to ensure that flows of funds for humanitarian assistance, legitimate NPO activity and remittances are not disrupted. The status of Myanmar in the list of countries subject to a call for action, remains unchanged.

    FATF had earlier identified the following jurisdictions as having strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing and had placed the jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring, which had developed action plan with the FATF to deal with them. These jurisdictions were: Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Lebanon, Mali, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, Vietnam and Yemen. As per the June 13, 2025 FATF public statement, Bolivia and the Virgin Islands (UK) have been added to the list of Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring while Croatia, Mali and Tanzania have been removed from this list based on review by the FATF.

    FATF plenary releases documents titled “High-Risk jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action” and “Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring” with respect to jurisdictions that have strategic AML/CFT deficiencies as part of the ongoing efforts to identify and work with jurisdictions with strategic Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) deficiencies. This advice does not preclude the regulated entities from legitimate trade and business transactions with these countries and jurisdictions mentioned there.

    The detailed information is available in the updated public statements and document released by FATF on June 13, 2025. The statements and document can be accessed at the following URL:

    1. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfgeneral/outcomes-FATF-MONEYVAL-plenary-june-2025.html

    2. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/High-risk-and-other-monitored-jurisdictions/increased-monitoring-june-2025.html

    3. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/High-risk-and-other-monitored-jurisdictions/Call-for-action-june-2025.html

    About FATF

    The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body established in 1989 by the Ministers of its Member jurisdictions. The objectives of the FATF are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The FATF monitors the progress of its members in implementing necessary measures, reviews money laundering and terrorist financing techniques and counter-measures, and promotes the adoption and implementation of appropriate measures globally. The FATF’s decision making body, the FATF Plenary, meets three times a year and updates these statements, which may be noted.

    Ajit Prasad          
    Deputy General Manager
    (Communications)    

    Press Release: 2025-2026/686

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Bosnia and Herzegovina: 30th anniversary of Srebrenica massacre “a painful reminder from history”

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Ahead of the 30th anniversary of the massacre in Srebrenica more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Europe, Dinushika Dissanayake, said:

    “As we mark this solemn milestone and honour the memory of the victims, we also pay tribute to their families and to organizations like Mothers of Srebrenica, who spent the last three decades in tireless pursuit of truth, justice and reparations.

    “While many perpetrators have been brought to justice, the anniversary is a painful reminder that nearly 1,000 people presumed killed in Srebrenica in 1995 are still missing. Their families continue to live without answers, unable to lay their loved ones to rest or gain any real sense of closure.

    This anniversary is a painful reminder that nearly 1,000 people presumed killed in Srebrenica are still missing

    “As families grapple with enduring trauma, they are facing renewed efforts by senior officials in parts of the region to deny the crimes and glorify individuals convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity. The denial of genocide is not only a profound insult to victims and families, it is also a rejection of the definitive rulings by international courts that established beyond doubt that the acts committed in Srebrenica constituted genocide.”

    Background

    In July 1995, units of the Bosnian Serb Army (‘VRS’) attacked Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was a designated UN “safe area”. On 10-11 July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were taken prisoner and subsequently killed by the Bosnian Serb Army, despite the presence of UN peacekeepers.

    In 2007, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide. While the bodies of more than 7,000 victims have been exhumed, identified and buried, more than 1,000 people are still missing or unidentified.

    Despite high-level prosecutions, including Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, there is still a huge backlog of cases pending before domestic courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    In May 2024, the UN General Assembly designated 11 July as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: UK: Government’s unchecked use of tech and AI systems leading to exclusion of people with disabilities and other marginalized groups 

    Source: Amnesty International –

    People with disabilities, those living in poverty or who have serious health conditions are being left in a bureaucratic limbo due to digital exclusion caused by the Department of Work and Pensions’ (DWP) unchecked roll-out of technologies, Amnesty International said today in a new report. 

    The report, “Too Much Technology, Not Enough Empathy” exposes how the DWP’s constant testing, rolling out, and rolling back of costly artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies for Universal Credit (UC), Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and other social security schemes has created an inaccessible social security system for people who are already marginalized and at risk of poverty in the UK.  

    Many people requiring social security do not have access to digital technologies, internet or internet connected devices. Their affordability coupled with language barriers and long waiting times for telephone services have led to digital exclusion from DWP’s systems. 

    “The DWP’s mission to reduce ‘costs’ is the beating heart of fascination with, and overreliance on, problematic tech. People are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table due to cuts in social security and yet the DWP is more concerned about experimental technologies to surveil claimants,” said Imogen-Richmond Bishop, Researcher on Technology, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

    “The tech-enabled system to claim and manage welfare benefits is resulting in relentless dehumanization and strain for people who are already wrestling to access their basic needs in a broken system.” 

    The research is an extension of Amnesty International’s 2025 report, “Social Insecurity: The devastating human rights impact of social security system failures in the UK”that details how the UK’s social security system requires a wholesale overhaul to put it back on track to being human rights compliant and ensure a decent standard of living. The struggles in accessing adequate social security payments to prevent poverty are intersectional and complex, with technology forming one component of the broader social support ecosystem. 

    The tech-enabled system to claim and manage welfare benefits is resulting in relentless dehumanization and strain for people who are already wrestling to access their basic needs in a broken system.

    Imogen-Richmond Bishop, Researcher on Technology, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

    Both investigations draw their findings from questionnaires, focus group interviews with social security recipients and social security advisors, and build on previous work done by civil society. In total, views of 782 people were captured through this process that took place from October 2024 to January 2025. 

    Perfect storm of pre-existing flaws and new problems 

    The use of digital technologies combined with further cuts to the UK’s social security system after years of austerity has created a perfect storm, where pre-existing flaws are being exacerbated, and new problems linked to these new technologies are being created. 

    Automated systems and the use of AI in the assessment and provision of social security can introduce a significant risk of errors in decision making, due to biased or discriminatory algorithms, with serious consequences for claimants.  

    Digital exclusion can be experienced due to a person’s living conditions, educational attainment, health status, and income levels – complex factors that are not always fully captured by automated social security systems.   

    For one of the claimants interviewed by Amnesty International, gender, and socio-economic status all represented barriers to her access to services online. 

    “You know, have some form of compassion, you know, make the forms and things easier. I mean, I’m quite illiterate. I mean, a lot of women, and men of my age, can’t use them […] So they’re stuffed. They send me letters on my phone. I can’t open them. So I ring up. I can’t open it. I haven’t got an iPad. I can’t afford an iPad, you know,” the claimant told Amnesty International. 

    Human rights implications 

    The digitized and sweeping data collection has also created an all-seeing social security system that impacts claimants’ rights to privacy, data protection, and human dignity. 

    Using extensive amounts of data to determine eligibility for state support is not new. However, the scale and the breadth of the data used, and the speed with which it is processed now is new and can bring with it new unintended consequences and human rights risks.  

    “DWP’s experimentation with tech systems has jeopardised human rights and reduced people in need to data points. The success of a claim can be dependent on whether they neatly fit into a box or meet set criteria rather than their actual eligibility. Technology in this instance has oversimplified people’s complex realities and this demeans people’s needs especially when they are unable to get the support they need from a human case worker,” said Imogen Richmond-Bishop. 

    Amnesty International wrote to the DWP ahead of the publication of the report and provided a comprehensive summary of the research findings and the methodology. DWP declined to comment on the substance of the report at this time of publication.  

    The UK authorities must carry out an independent, and impartial review of the social security system as well as the digital systems used by the DWP and scrap any that violate human rights. We need laws to regulate AI to ensure it doesn’t contribute to human rights violations. Digital systems must be transparent, explainable, and never mandatory.  

    Background: 

    In May 2025, Amnesty International’s “Social Insecurity” report, exposed how cuts, sanctions and systemic failings of the UK’s social security system are pushing people deeper into poverty. 

    Amnesty International has also done research on public sector automation and digitalization in Denmark, Netherlands, India, Serbia, and supported work in France and Sweden on the resulting human rights risks and impacts of algorithmic decision-making in these jurisdictions.   

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Minutes – Wednesday, 9 July 2025 – Strasbourg – Final edition

    Source: European Parliament

    PV-10-2025-07-09

    EN

    EN

    iPlPv_Sit

    Minutes
    Wednesday, 9 July 2025 – Strasbourg

    IN THE CHAIR: Roberta METSOLA
    President

    1. Opening of the sitting

    The sitting opened at 09:02.



    2. Negotiations ahead of Parliament’s first reading (Rule 72) (action taken)

    The decisions of the JURI, TRAN, BUDG, ECON, REGI and EMPL committees to enter into interinstitutional negotiations had been announced on 7 July 2025 (minutes of 7.7.2025, item 5).

    As no request for a vote pursuant to Rule 72(2) had been made, the committees responsible had been able to enter into negotiations upon expiry of the deadline.



    3. Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 26 June 2025 (debate)

    European Council and Commission statements: Conclusions of the European Council meeting of 26 June 2025 (2025/2981(RSP))

    The President provided some clarifications on the way in which the debate would be conducted, as a new format was being tested.

    António Costa (President of the European Council) and Ursula von der Leyen (President of the Commission) made the statements.

    The following spoke: Dolors Montserrat, on behalf of the PPE Group, Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group, Kinga Gál, on behalf of the PfE Group, Nicolas Bay, on behalf of the ECR Group, Valérie Hayer, on behalf of the Renew Group, Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Manon Aubry, on behalf of The Left Group, René Aust, on behalf of the ESN Group, Paulo Cunha, Nicola Zingaretti, Paolo Borchia, Carlo Fidanza, Estrella Galán, Milan Uhrík, Kostas Papadakis, Luděk Niedermayer, Dan Nica, Marieke Ehlers, Reinhold Lopatka and Javier Moreno Sánchez.

    IN THE CHAIR: Christel SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

    The following spoke: Anna Bryłka, Gaetano Pedulla’, Seán Kelly, Marta Temido, who also answered a blue-card question from João Oliveira, and Csaba Dömötör.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Maria Grapini, João Oliveira, Alexander Jungbluth, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Malika Sorel and Milan Mazurek.

    The following spoke: Maroš Šefčovič (Member of the Commission) and António Costa.

    The debate closed.



    4. The EU’s post-2027 long-term budget: Parliament’s expectations ahead of the Commission’s proposal (debate)

    Council and Commission statements: The EU’s post-2027 long-term budget: Parliament’s expectations ahead of the Commission’s proposal (2025/2803(RSP))

    Marie Bjerre (President-in-Office of the Council) and Piotr Serafin (Member of the Commission) made the statements.

    The following spoke: Siegfried Mureşan, on behalf of the PPE Group, Mohammed Chahim, on behalf of the S&D Group, Tamás Deutsch, on behalf of the PfE Group, Patryk Jaki, on behalf of the ECR Group, Fabienne Keller, on behalf of the Renew Group, Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, João Oliveira, on behalf of The Left Group, Alexander Jungbluth, on behalf of the ESN Group, Karlo Ressler, Carla Tavares, Angéline Furet, Johan Van Overtveldt, Lucia Yar, Rasmus Nordqvist, Younous Omarjee, Milan Mazurek, Thomas Geisel, Herbert Dorfmann, Victor Negrescu, Ruggero Razza, Ľubica Karvašová, Andrey Novakov, Nicola Zingaretti, Jaak Madison, Rasmus Andresen, Christian Ehler, Andreas Schieder, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Jean-Marc Germain, Tomasz Buczek, Bogdan Rzońca, Anouk Van Brug, Danuše Nerudová, Sandra Gómez López, Moritz Körner and Janusz Lewandowski.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Georgios Aftias, Thomas Bajada, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Petras Gražulis, Branislav Ondruš, Dariusz Joński, Hélder Sousa Silva and Nina Carberry.

    The following spoke: Piotr Serafin and Marie Bjerre.

    The debate closed.

    (The sitting was suspended at 11:56.)



    IN THE CHAIR: Roberta METSOLA
    President

    5. Resumption of the sitting

    The sitting resumed at 12:00.

    ⁂

    The following spoke: Terry Reintke.



    6. Requests for the waiver of immunity

    The competent Austrian authorities had sent the President a request for Harald Vilimsky’s immunity to be waived in connection with legal proceedings in Austria.

    Pursuant to Rule 9(1), the request had been referred to the committee responsible, in this case the JURI Committee.



    7. Voting time

    For detailed results of the votes, see also ‘Results of votes’ and ‘Results of roll-call votes’.



    7.1. European Climate Law ***I (vote)

    European Climate Law (COM(2025)0524 – C10-0137/2025 – 2025/0524(COD)) – ENVI Committee

    REQUESTS FOR AN URGENT DECISION from the Verts/ALE, Renew and S&D groups (Rule 170(5))

    Rejected

    The following had spoken:

    Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Lena Schilling and Tiemo Wölken (movers of the requests), and Jeroen Lenaers (against the requests), before the vote.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 1)



    7.2. Objection pursuant to Rule 114(3): amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add certain countries to the list of high-risk third countries, and to remove other countries from that list (vote)

    Motions for resolutions B10-0311/2025, B10-0315/2025, B10-0316/2025 and B10-0318/2025 pursuant to Rule 114(3) (minutes of 9.7.2025, item I)

    (Majority of Parliament’s component Members required)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION B10-0311/2025

    Rejected

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION B10-0315/2025

    Rejected

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION B10-0316/2025

    Rejected

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION B10-0318/2025

    Rejected

    The following had spoken:

    Maria Luís Albuquerque (Member of the Commission), before the vote, to make a statement.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 2)



    7.3. Objection pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3): Deforestation Regulation – list of countries presenting a low or high risk (vote)

    Motion for a resolution tabled by the ENVI Committee pursuant to Rule 115(2) and (3), on the draft Commission regulation on Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with Article 3, point (a) (2025/2739(RPS)) (B10-0321/2025) – Member responsible: Alexander Bernhuber

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0149)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 3)



    7.4. Amending Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 on certain measures for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing ***I (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 on certain measures for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing [COM(2024)0407 – C10-0098/2024 – 2024/0224(COD)] – Committee on Fisheries. Rapporteur: Thomas Bajada (A10-0070/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0150)

    Parliament’s first reading thus closed.

    The following had spoken:

    Thomas Bajada, before the vote, to make a statement on the basis of Rule 165(4).

    (‘Results of votes’, item 4)



    7.5. Draft amending budget No 1/2025: entering the surplus of the financial year 2024 (vote)

    Report on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2025 of the European Union for the financial year 2025 entering the surplus of the financial year 2024 [09619/2025 – C10-0125/2025 – 2025/0091(BUD)] – Committee on Budgets. Rapporteur: Victor Negrescu (A10-0116/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0151)

    The following had spoken:

    Victor Negrescu, before the vote, to make a statement on the basis of Rule 165(4).

    (‘Results of votes’, item 5)



    7.6. Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund: assistance to Austria, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Moldova relating to floods that occurred in September 2024 and Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to floods that occurred in October 2024 (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Austria, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Moldova relating to floods occurred in September 2024 and Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to floods occurred in October 2024 [COM(2025)0250 – C10-0102/2025 – 2025/0138(BUD)] – Committee on Budgets. Rapporteur: Andrzej Halicki (A10-0114/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0152)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 6)



    7.7. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Application EGF/2025/000 TA 2025 – Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission (vote)

    Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers – EGF/2025/000 TA 2025 – Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission [COM(2025)0680 – C10-0103/2025 – 2025/0135(BUD)] – Committee on Budgets. Rapporteur: Jean-Marc Germain (A10-0115/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0153)

    The following had spoken:

    Jean-Marc Germain, before the vote, to make a statement on the basis of Rule 165(4).

    (‘Results of votes’, item 7)



    7.8. Product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports (vote)

    Report on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports [2025/2037(INI)] – Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Rapporteur: Salvatore De Meo (A10-0133/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0154)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 8)



    7.9. 2023 and 2024 reports on Albania (vote)

    Report on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Albania [2025/2017(INI)] – Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rapporteur: Andreas Schieder (A10-0106/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0155)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 9)



    7.10. 2023 and 2024 reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina (vote)

    Report on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina [2025/2018(INI)] – Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rapporteur: Ondřej Kolář (A10-0108/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0156)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 10)



    7.11. 2023 and 2024 reports on North Macedonia (vote)

    Report on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on North Macedonia [2025/2021(INI)] – Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rapporteur: Thomas Waitz (A10-0118/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0157)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 11)



    7.12. 2023 and 2024 reports on Georgia (vote)

    Report on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Georgia [2025/2024(INI)] – Committee on Foreign Affairs. Rapporteur: Rasa Juknevičienė (A10-0110/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0158)

    The following had spoken:

    – Rasa Juknevičienė, to move an oral amendment to Amendment 9. Parliament had agreed to put the oral amendment to the vote.

    – Urmas Paet, to move an oral amendment to paragraph 16. Parliament had agreed to put the oral amendment to the vote.

    (‘Results of votes’, item 12)



    7.13. Implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals in view of the 2025 High-Level Political Forum (vote)

    Report on implementation and delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals in view of the 2025 High-Level Political Forum [2025/2014(INI)] – Committee on Development – Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety. Rapporteurs: Robert Biedroń and Nikolas Farantouris (A10-0125/2025)

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0159)

    The following had spoken:

    Robert Biedroń and Nikolas Farantouris, before the vote, to make a statement on the basis of Rule 165(4).

    (‘Results of votes’, item 13)



    7.14. The human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (vote)

    Motions for resolutions RC-B10-0304/2025, B10-0303/2025, B10-0304/2025, B10-0305/2025, B10-0306/2025, B10-0307/2025 and B10-0308/2025 (2025/2710(RSP))

    The debate had taken place on 16 June 2025 (minutes of 16.6.2025, item 21).

    (Majority of the votes cast)

    JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION RC-B10-0304/2025

    Adopted (P10_TA(2025)0160)

    (Motion for a resolution B10-0303/2025 fell.)

    (‘Results of votes’, item 14)

    (The sitting was suspended at 13:01.)



    IN THE CHAIR: Sabine VERHEYEN
    Vice-President

    8. Resumption of the sitting

    The sitting resumed at 13:05.



    9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

    The minutes of the previous sitting were approved.



    10. Lessons from Budapest Pride: the urgent need for an EU wide anti-discrimination law and defending fundamental rights against right-wing attacks (topical debate)

    The following spoke: Ana Catarina Mendes to open the debate proposed by the S&D Group.

    The following spoke: Marie Bjerre (President-in-Office of the Council) and Michael McGrath (Member of the Commission).

    The following spoke: Sven Simon, on behalf of the PPE Group, Klára Dobrev, on behalf of the S&D Group, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, on behalf of the PfE Group, Alessandro Ciriani, on behalf of the ECR Group, Fabienne Keller, on behalf of the Renew Group, Alice Kuhnke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Manon Aubry, on behalf of The Left Group (the President reminded the speaker of the rules on conduct), Zsuzsanna Borvendég, on behalf of the ESN Group, Maria Walsh, Marc Angel, Tom Vandendriessche, Paolo Inselvini, Sophie Wilmès, Tineke Strik, Irene Montero, Irmhild Boßdorf (the President reminded the House of the rules on conduct), Michał Wawrykiewicz, Raphaël Glucksmann, András László, Georgiana Teodorescu, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Nicolae Ștefănuță, Özlem Demirel, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Evin Incir, Petra Steger, Maciej Wąsik, Moritz Körner, Kim Van Sparrentak, Carolina Morace, Markus Buchheit, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Birgit Sippel, Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová, Marlena Maląg, Hilde Vautmans (the President reminded the speaker of the rules on conduct), Daniel Freund, Li Andersson, Milan Uhrík, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Julien Sanchez, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, Mélissa Camara, Mary Khan, Alessandro Zan, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Cristian Terheş, Lukas Sieper on the previous speaker’s remarks (the President took note of this and again reminded the House of the rules on conduct), and Juan Fernando López Aguilar.

    The following spoke: Michael McGrath.

    IN THE CHAIR: Younous OMARJEE
    Vice-President

    The following spoke: Marie Bjerre.

    The debate closed.



    11. EU-US trade negotiations (debate)

    Council and Commission statements: EU-US trade negotiations (2025/2804(RSP))

    Marie Bjerre (President-in-Office of the Council) and Maroš Šefčovič (Member of the Commission) made the statements.

    The following spoke: Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group, Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group, Enikő Győri, on behalf of the PfE Group, Rihards Kols, on behalf of the ECR Group, Karin Karlsbro, on behalf of the Renew Group, Anna Cavazzini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Martin Schirdewan, on behalf of The Left Group, Michał Szczerba, Bernd Lange, Séverine Werbrouck, Svenja Hahn, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Lynn Boylan, Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus, Željana Zovko, Brando Benifei, Jorge Martín Frías, Dick Erixon, Dan Barna, Sergey Lagodinsky, Marina Mesure, Kateřina Konečná, Daniel Caspary, who also answered a blue-card question from Lukas Sieper, Alex Agius Saliba, Gilles Pennelle, Adrian-George Axinia, João Cotrim De Figueiredo, who also answered a blue-card question from Bruno Gonçalves, Catarina Vieira, Pasquale Tridico, Branislav Ondruš, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Silvia Sardone, Jacek Ozdoba, Sophie Wilmès, Lukas Sieper, Céline Imart, Evin Incir, Pierre Pimpie, Anna Zalewska, Massimiliano Salini, Jean-Marc Germain, Francisco José Millán Mon, Cristina Maestre, Miriam Lexmann, Mika Aaltola, Jessika Van Leeuwen, Nina Carberry, Luděk Niedermayer, Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral, Wouter Beke, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Maria Walsh and Michalis Hadjipantela.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Regina Doherty, Maria Grapini, Sebastian Tynkkynen and Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez.

    The following spoke: Maroš Šefčovič and Marie Bjerre.

    The debate closed.



    12. EU Preparedness Union in light of the upcoming wildfire and droughts season (debate)

    Council and Commission statements: EU Preparedness Union in light of the upcoming wildfire and droughts season (2025/2771(RSP))

    Marie Bjerre (President-in-Office of the Council) made the statement.

    IN THE CHAIR: Antonella SBERNA
    Vice-President

    Hadja Lahbib (Member of the Commission) made the statement.

    The following spoke: Lena Düpont, on behalf of the PPE Group, Antonio Decaro, on behalf of the S&D Group, Sergio Berlato, on behalf of the ECR Group, Grégory Allione, on behalf of the Renew Group, Benedetta Scuderi, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Valentina Palmisano, on behalf of The Left Group, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Marta Temido, Csaba Dömötör, who also answered a blue-card question from Stine Bosse, Diego Solier, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Elena Kountoura, Nikolaos Anadiotis, Matej Tonin, Leire Pajín, Julien Leonardelli, who also answered blue-card questions from Grégory Allione and Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Ruggero Razza, who also answered a blue-card question from Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Mārtiņš Staķis, Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos, Ana Miguel Pedro, who also declined to take a blue-card question from Ana Miranda Paz, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Ana Vasconcelos, Ana Miranda Paz, Péter Magyar, Victor Negrescu, Marjan Šarec, Dimitris Tsiodras, Sofie Eriksson, Giusi Princi, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Daniel Buda, Hannes Heide, Sunčana Glavak, Rosa Serrano Sierra, Sérgio Humberto and Michalis Hadjipantela.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Francisco José Millán Mon, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Viktória Ferenc, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Ciaran Mullooly, Diana Riba i Giner, Maria Zacharia and Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă.

    The following spoke: Hadja Lahbib and Marie Bjerre.

    IN THE CHAIR: Martin HOJSÍK
    Vice-President

    The debate closed.



    13. Composition of committees and delegations

    The ECR Group had notified the President of the following decision changing the composition of the committees and delegations:

    – Delegation to the Africa-EU Parliamentary Assembly: Galato Alexandraki was no longer a member

    The decision took effect as of that day.



    14. Presentation of stockpiling strategies – strengthening response capacities for a changing risk and threat landscape (debate)

    Commission statement: Presentation of stockpiling strategies – strengthening response capacities for a changing risk and threat landscape (2025/2790(RSP))

    Hadja Lahbib (Member of the Commission) made the statement.

    The following spoke: Tomislav Sokol, on behalf of the PPE Group, Christophe Clergeau, on behalf of the S&D Group, Valérie Deloge, on behalf of the PfE Group, Kosma Złotowski, on behalf of the ECR Group, Grégory Allione, on behalf of the Renew Group, Pär Holmgren, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Catarina Martins, on behalf of The Left Group, Christine Anderson, on behalf of the ESN Group, Mirosława Nykiel, Nicolás González Casares, Stine Bosse, Ruth Firmenich, Paulius Saudargas, Marta Temido, Liesbet Sommen and Michalis Hadjipantela.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis and Sebastian Tynkkynen.

    The following spoke: Hadja Lahbib.

    The debate closed.



    15. Alleged misuse of EU funds by Members of the far-right and measures to ensure institutional integrity (debate)

    Statements by Parliament: Alleged misuse of EU funds by Members of the far-right and measures to ensure institutional integrity (2025/2808(RSP))

    The following spoke: Niclas Herbst, on behalf of the PPE Group, Chloé Ridel, on behalf of the S&D Group, Moritz Körner, on behalf of the Renew Group, Mélissa Camara, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Manon Aubry, on behalf of The Left Group, Arno Bausemer, on behalf of the ESN Group, Tomáš Zdechovský, who also answered a blue-card question from Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Giuseppe Lupo, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, who also answered blue-card questions from Tomáš Zdechovský and Sebastian Tynkkynen, Daniel Freund, who also answered blue-card questions from Arno Bausemer and Moritz Körner (the President reminded the speaker to keep to the subject of the debate), Jonas Sjöstedt, Reinhold Lopatka, Andreas Schieder and Helmut Brandstätter.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Juan Fernando López Aguilar.

    The debate closed.



    16. Democratic Republic of the Congo-Rwanda peace deal agreement (debate)

    Council and Commission statements: Democratic Republic of the Congo-Rwanda peace deal agreement (2025/2792(RSP))

    Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission) made the statement on behalf of the Commission.

    The following spoke: Ingeborg Ter Laak, on behalf of the PPE Group, Marit Maij, on behalf of the S&D Group, Philippe Olivier, on behalf of the PfE Group, Nicolas Bay, on behalf of the ECR Group, Hilde Vautmans, on behalf of the Renew Group, Mounir Satouri, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Marc Botenga, on behalf of The Left Group, Wouter Beke and Francisco Assis.

    IN THE CHAIR: Victor NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

    The following spoke: France Jamet, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Pernando Barrena Arza, Jan Farský and Hannes Heide.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Juan Fernando López Aguilar.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela.

    The debate closed.



    17. Outcome of the Conference on the Financing for Development in Seville (debate)

    Council and Commission statements: Outcome of the Conference on the Financing for Development in Seville (2025/2793(RSP))

    Marie Bjerre (President-in-Office of the Council) and Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission) made the statements.

    The following spoke: Lukas Mandl, on behalf of the PPE Group, Marit Maij, on behalf of the S&D Group, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, on behalf of the PfE Group, Mario Mantovani, on behalf of the ECR Group, Barry Andrews, on behalf of the Renew Group, Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Marc Jongen, on behalf of the ESN Group, Udo Bullmann, Tiago Moreira de Sá, Beatrice Timgren, Charles Goerens, Leire Pajín, Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal, Robert Biedroń, Murielle Laurent, Francisco Assis and Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela and Marie Bjerre.

    The debate closed.



    18. 51 years after the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus: condemning the continued Turkish occupation and supporting the resumption of negotiations for a comprehensive solution in line with international law, the UNSC resolutions, EU principles and acquis (debate)

    Commission statement: 51 years after the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus: condemning the continued Turkish occupation and supporting the resumption of negotiations for a comprehensive solution in line with international law, the UNSC resolutions, EU principles and acquis (2025/2794(RSP))

    Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission) made the statement.

    The following spoke: Loucas Fourlas, on behalf of the PPE Group, Costas Mavrides, on behalf of the S&D Group, Afroditi Latinopoulou, on behalf of the PfE Group, Geadis Geadi, on behalf of the ECR Group, Kai Tegethoff, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Giorgos Georgiou, on behalf of The Left Group, and Marc Jongen, on behalf of the ESN Group.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela.

    The debate closed.



    19. Debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)

    (For the titles and authors of the motions for resolutions, see minutes of 9.7.2025, item I.)



    19.1. Case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai

    Motions for resolutions B10-0328/2025, B10-0333/2025, B10-0336/2025, B10-0340/2025 and B10-0341/2025 (2025/2796(RSP))

    Seán Kelly and Aodhán Ó Ríordáin introduced their groups’ motions for resolutions.

    IN THE CHAIR: Javi LÓPEZ
    Vice-President

    Petras Auštrevičius and Catarina Vieira introduced their groups’ motions for resolutions.

    The following spoke: Reinhold Lopatka, on behalf of the PPE Group, and Barry Andrews, on behalf of the Renew Group.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission).

    The debate closed.

    Vote: 10 July 2025.



    19.2. Arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic

    Motions for resolutions B10-0323/2025, B10-0327/2025, B10-0334/2025, B10-0339/2025 and B10-0342/2025 (2025/2797(RSP))

    Wouter Beke, Francisco Assis, Hilde Vautmans, Saskia Bricmont and Catarina Martins introduced their groups’ motions for resolutions.

    The following spoke: Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group, and João Cotrim De Figueiredo, on behalf of the Renew Group.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Seán Kelly.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission).

    The debate closed.

    Vote: 10 July 2025.



    19.3. Urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus

    Motions for resolutions B10-0325/2025, B10-0335/2025, B10-0338/2025, B10-0343/2025, B10-0344/2025, B10-0345/2025, B10-0346/2025 and B10-0347/2025 (2025/2798(RSP))

    Ingeborg Ter Laak, Marco Tarquinio, Nathalie Loiseau, Hannah Neumann, Nikolas Farantouris, Silvia Sardone, Bert-Jan Ruissen and Tomasz Froelich introduced their groups’ motions for resolutions.

    The following spoke: Sander Smit, on behalf of the PPE Group, Yannis Maniatis, on behalf of the S&D Group, Matthieu Valet, on behalf of the PfE Group, Małgorzata Gosiewska, on behalf of the ECR Group, Michalis Hadjipantela, Evin Incir, Margarita de la Pisa Carrión, Laurence Trochu, Christophe Gomart, Paolo Inselvini, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński and Geadis Geadi.

    The following spoke under the catch-the-eye procedure: Fredis Beleris and Costas Mavrides.

    The following spoke: Jozef Síkela (Member of the Commission).

    The debate closed.

    Vote: 10 July 2025.



    20. Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)

    Explanations of votes given in writing would appear on the Members’ pages on Parliament’s website.



    21. Agenda of the next sitting

    The next sitting would be held the following day, 10 July 2025, starting at 09:00. The agenda was available on Parliament’s website.



    22. Approval of the minutes of the sitting

    In accordance with Rule 208(3), the minutes of the sitting would be put to the House for approval at the beginning of the afternoon of the next sitting.



    23. Closure of the sitting

    The sitting closed at 22:02.



    LIST OF DOCUMENTS SERVING AS A BASIS FOR THE DEBATES AND DECISIONS OF PARLIAMENT



    I. Motions for resolutions tabled

    Case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai

    The following Members or political groups had requested that a debate be held, in accordance with Rule 150, on the following motions for resolutions:

    on the case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai (2025/2796(RSP)) (B10-0328/2025)
    Rasmus Andresen, Villy Søvndal, Maria Ohisalo, Nicolae Ștefănuță, Mélissa Camara, Mounir Satouri, Catarina Vieira, Ville Niinistö
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    on the case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai (2025/2796(RSP)) (B10-0333/2025)
    Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Engin Eroglu, Karin Karlsbro, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar
    on behalf of the Renew Group

    on the case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai (2025/2796(RSP)) (B10-0336/2025)
    Yannis Maniatis, Francisco Assis, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin
    on behalf of The Left Group

    on the case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai (2025/2796(RSP)) (B10-0340/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Seán Kelly, Tomáš Zdechovský, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Tomas Tobé, Wouter Beke, Davor Ivo Stier, Łukasz Kohut, Mirosława Nykiel, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group

    on the case of Ryan Cornelius in Dubai (2025/2796(RSP)) (B10-0341/2025)
    Adam Bielan, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Marlena Maląg, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Bogdan Rzońca, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Ivaylo Valchev, Anna Zalewska, Waldemar Tomaszewski, Ondřej Krutílek, Veronika Vrecionová
    on behalf of the ECR Group

    Arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic

    The following Members or political groups had requested that a debate be held, in accordance with Rule 150, on the following motions for resolutions:

    on the arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2025/2797(RSP)) (B10-0323/2025)
    Catarina Martins
    on behalf of The Left Group

    on the arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2025/2797(RSP)) (B10-0327/2025)
    Yannis Maniatis, Kathleen Van Brempt, Francisco Assis
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Saskia Bricmont, Mélissa Camara, Catarina Vieira, Maria Ohisalo, Mounir Satouri, Nicolae Ștefănuță, Ville Niinistö
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    on the arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2025/2797(RSP)) (B10-0334/2025)
    Hilde Vautmans, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Benoit Cassart, Olivier Chastel, Engin Eroglu, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Lucia Yar
    on behalf of the Renew Group

    on the arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2025/2797(RSP)) (B10-0339/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Wouter Beke, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Željana Zovko, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Andrey Kovatchev, Tomas Tobé, Tomáš Zdechovský, Davor Ivo Stier, Łukasz Kohut, Liudas Mažylis, Vangelis Meimarakis, Loránt Vincze, Seán Kelly, Mirosława Nykiel, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group

    on the arbitrary arrest and torture of Belgian-Portuguese researcher Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2025/2797(RSP)) (B10-0342/2025)
    Adam Bielan, Aurelijus Veryga, Carlo Fidanza, Marlena Maląg, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alexandr Vondra, Bogdan Rzońca, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Ondřej Krutílek, Veronika Vrecionová, Ivaylo Valchev, Alberico Gambino, Anna Zalewska, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Assita Kanko, Michał Dworczyk, Waldemar Tomaszewski
    on behalf of the ECR Group

    Urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus

    The following Members or political groups had requested that a debate be held, in accordance with Rule 150, on the following motions for resolutions:

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0325/2025)
    Nikolas Farantouris, Özlem Demirel
    on behalf of The Left Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0335/2025)
    Hannah Neumann, Maria Ohisalo, Katrin Langensiepen, Nicolae Ștefănuță, Mounir Satouri, Catarina Vieira
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0338/2025)
    Tomasz Froelich, Petr Bystron, Alexander Sell, Marc Jongen
    on behalf of the ESN Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0343/2025)
    Silvia Sardone, Susanna Ceccardi, Roberto Vannacci, Matthieu Valet, Pierre-Romain Thionnet, António Tânger Corrêa, Afroditi Latinopoulou, Hermann Tertsch
    on behalf of the PfE Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0344/2025)
    Nathalie Loiseau, Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez, Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Engin Eroglu, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Urmas Paet, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar
    on behalf of the Renew Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0345/2025)
    Adam Bielan, Bert-Jan Ruissen, Aurelijus Veryga, Carlo Fidanza, Marlena Maląg, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Bogdan Rzońca, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Alexandr Vondra, Reinis Pozņaks, Ondřej Krutílek, Veronika Vrecionová, Emmanouil Fragkos, Ivaylo Valchev, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Guillaume Peltier, Alberico Gambino, Marion Maréchal, Nicolas Bay, Laurence Trochu, Anna Zalewska, Assita Kanko, Waldemar Tomaszewski
    on behalf of the ECR Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0346/2025)
    Sebastião Bugalho, Ingeborg Ter Laak, David McAllister, François-Xavier Bellamy, Andrzej Halicki, Wouter Beke, Željana Zovko, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Andrey Kovatchev, Tomas Tobé, Tomáš Zdechovský, Davor Ivo Stier, Sander Smit, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Eleonora Meleti, Vangelis Meimarakis, Georgios Aftias, Dimitris Tsiodras, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Matej Tonin, Massimiliano Salini, Łukasz Kohut, Loránt Vincze, Seán Kelly, Mirosława Nykiel, Michał Wawrykiewicz, Inese Vaidere, Michalis Hadjipantela, Miriam Lexmann
    on behalf of the PPE Group

    on the urgent need to protect religious minorities in Syria following the recent terrorist attack on Mar Elias Church in Damascus (2025/2798(RSP)) (B10-0347/2025)
    Yannis Maniatis, Francisco Assis, Marco Tarquinio, Hana Jalloul Muro, Evin Incir, Nikos Papandreou
    on behalf of the S&D Group

    Objection pursuant to Rule 114(3): amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add certain countries to the list of high-risk third countries, and to remove other countries from that list

    Motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 114(3) by Jorge Buxadé Villalba, on behalf of the PfE Group, on the Commission delegated regulation of 10 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the FATF, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates from that list (C(2025)3815) – 2025/2740(DEA)) (B10-0311/2025)

    Motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 114(3) by Rasmus Andresen, Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, Murielle Laurent, Brando Benifei, Kathleen Van Brempt, Francisco Assis, Raphaël Glucksmann, Aurore Lalucq, Cecilia Strada, Christophe Clergeau, Eric Sargiacomo, Nora Mebarek, Chloé Ridel, Claire Fita, Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, Birgit Sippel, Gabriele Bischoff, Lucia Annunziata, Sandro Ruotolo, Emma Rafowicz, Pina Picierno, Alessandra Moretti, Pierre Jouvet, Annalisa Corrado, Evelyn Regner, Jean-Marc Germain, Marco Tarquinio, Udo Bullmann, Alessandro Zan, on the Commission delegated regulation of 10 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the FATF, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates from that list (C(2025)3815) – 2025/2740(DEA)) (B10-0315/2025)

    Motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 114(3) by Damien Carême, Jussi Saramo, on behalf of The Left Group, on the Commission delegated regulation of 10 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the FATF, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates from that list (C(2025)03815 – 2025/2740(DEA)) (B10-0316/2025)

    Motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 114(3) by Luděk Niedermayer, Javier Zarzalejos, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Isabel Benjumea Benjumea, Maravillas Abadía Jover, Carmen Crespo Díaz, Francisco José Millán Mon, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Gabriel Mato, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Esther Herranz García, Borja Giménez Larraz, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Susana Solís Pérez, Alma Ezcurra Almansa, Dolors Montserrat, Elena Nevado del Campo, Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Marco Falcone, Esteban González Pons, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Danuše Nerudová, David Casa, Tomáš Zdechovský, Kinga Kollár, Gabriella Gerzsenyi, Herbert Dorfmann, Christophe Gomart, Ondřej Kolář, Jan Farský, Michalis Hadjipantela, Siegfried Mureşan, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu, Virgil-Daniel Popescu, Iuliu Winkler, Gheorghe Falcă, Mircea-Gheorghe Hava, Daniel Buda, Paulius Saudargas, Maria Walsh, Loucas Fourlas, Verena Mertens, François-Xavier Bellamy, Karlo Ressler, Laurent Castillo, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Andrzej Halicki, on the Commission delegated regulation of 10 June 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 to add Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela to the list of high-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with the FATF, and to remove Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, Uganda and the United Arab Emirates from that list (C(2025)03815 – 2025/2740(DEA)) (B10-0318/2025)

    The human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians

    Motions for resolutions tabled under Rule 136(2) to wind up the debate:

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0303/2025)
    Özlem Demirel, Danilo Della Valle
    on behalf of The Left Group

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0304/2025)
    Sergey Lagodinsky, Markéta Gregorová, Ville Niinistö, Jutta Paulus, Mārtiņš Staķis
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0305/2025)
    Yannis Maniatis, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Thijs Reuten
    on behalf of the S&D Group

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0306/2025)
    Michael Gahler, Andrzej Halicki, Sebastião Bugalho, David McAllister, Siegfried Mureşan, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Mika Aaltola, Wouter Beke, Krzysztof Brejza, Lena Düpont, Jan Farský, Mircea-Gheorghe Hava, Rasa Juknevičienė, Ewa Kopacz, Andrey Kovatchev, Reinhold Lopatka, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Danuše Nerudová, Mirosława Nykiel, Liudas Mažylis, Ana Miguel Pedro, Paulius Saudargas, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Davor Ivo Stier, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Riho Terras, Pekka Toveri, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0307/2025)
    Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Ľubica Karvašová, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Nathalie Loiseau, Urmas Paet, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Eugen Tomac, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (B10-0308/2025)
    Michał Dworczyk, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Anna Zalewska, Reinis Pozņaks, Roberts Zīle, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Arkadiusz Mularczyk, Bogdan Rzońca, Rihards Kols, Alexandr Vondra, Ondřej Krutílek, Veronika Vrecionová, Aurelijus Veryga, Charlie Weimers, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Assita Kanko, Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Adam Bielan, Mariusz Kamiński
    on behalf of the ECR Group

    Joint motion for a resolution tabled under Rule 136(2) and (4):

    on the human cost of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the urgent need to end Russian aggression: the situation of illegally detained civilians and prisoners of war, and the continued bombing of civilians (2025/2710(RSP)) (RC-B10-0304/2025)
    (replacing motions for resolutions B10-0304/2025, B10-0305/2025, B10-0306/2025, B10-0307/2025 and B10-0308/2025)
    Michael Gahler, Andrzej Halicki, Sebastião Bugalho, David McAllister, Siegfried Mureşan, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Mika Aaltola, Wouter Beke, Krzysztof Brejza, Lena Düpont, Jan Farský, Mircea-Gheorghe Hava, Rasa Juknevičienė, Sandra Kalniete, Ewa Kopacz, Andrey Kovatchev, Reinhold Lopatka, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Liudas Mažylis, Danuše Nerudová, Mirosława Nykiel, Ana Miguel Pedro, Paulius Saudargas, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Davor Ivo Stier, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Ingeborg Ter Laak, Riho Terras, Matej Tonin, Pekka Toveri, Inese Vaidere
    on behalf of the PPE Group
    Yannis Maniatis, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Thijs Reuten
    on behalf of the S&D Group
    Adam Bielan, Michał Dworczyk, Małgorzata Gosiewska, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Roberts Zīle, Reinis Pozņaks, Ivaylo Valchev, Aurelijus Veryga, Mariusz Kamiński, Charlie Weimers, Alexandr Vondra, Assita Kanko, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński
    on behalf of the ECR Group
    Petras Auštrevičius, Malik Azmani, Dan Barna, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Ľubica Karvašová, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Nathalie Loiseau, Urmas Paet, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Eugen Tomac, Hilde Vautmans, Lucia Yar, Dainius Žalimas
    on behalf of the Renew Group
    Sergey Lagodinsky
    on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group



    II. Documents received

    The following documents had been received from other institutions:

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations INF 6/2025 – Section VI – Economic and Social Committee (N10-0026/2025 – C10-0131/2025 – 2025/2123(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations V/INF-01/C/25 – Section V – Court of Auditors (N10-0027/2025 – C10-0132/2025 – 2025/2124(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations V/INF-02/C/25 – Section V – Court of Auditors (N10-0028/2025 – C10-0133/2025 – 2025/2125(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations V/INF-03/T/25 – Section V – Court of Auditors (N10-0029/2025 – C10-0134/2025 – 2025/2126(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations V/INF-04/A/25 – Section V – Court of Auditors (N10-0030/2025 – C10-0135/2025 – 2025/2127(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations V/INF-05/C/25 – Section V – Court of Auditors (N10-0031/2025 – C10-0136/2025 – 2025/2128(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG

    – Proposal for transfer of appropriations 1/2025 – Section VIII – European Ombudsman (N10-0032/2025 – C10-0138/2025 – 2025/2129(GBD))
    referred to committee responsible: BUDG



    III. Delegated acts (Rule 114(2))

    Draft delegated acts forwarded to Parliament

    – Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the minimum contents of the liquidity management policy and procedures for certain issuers of asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens (C(2025)00602 – 2025/2777(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 3 months from the date of receipt of 27 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ECON

    – Commission Delegated Regulation amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulations (EU) 2017/583 and (EU) 2017/587 as regards transparency requirements for trading venues and investment firms in respect of bonds, structured finance products, emission allowances and equity instruments (C(2025)03104 – 2025/2773(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 3 months from the date of receipt of 18 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ECON

    – Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an increase of the minimum mesh size when fishing for squid in the North Sea and North Western Waters (C(2025)03720 – 2025/2769(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 16 June 2025

    Extension of the deadline for raising objections: 2 months at the European Parliament’s request

    referred to committee responsible: PECH

    – Commission Delegated Regulation correcting certain language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1366 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a network code on sector-specific rules for cybersecurity aspects of cross-border electricity flows (C(2025)03833 – 2025/2774(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 19 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ITRE

    – Commission Delegated Directive adapting to scientific and technical progress Annexes I and II to Directive (EU) 2022/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (C(2025)03886 – 2025/2775(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 23 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: TRAN

    – Commission Delegated Regulation amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2534 on household tumble dryers regarding information on repairability and clarifying some aspects of the measurements and calculation methods, the product information sheet, the technical documentation and the verification procedure (C(2025)03986 – 2025/2782(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 1 July 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ITRE

    – Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards the correction of the territorial scope of provisions concerning short-necked clam and red seabream (C(2025)04074 – 2025/2778(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 27 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: PECH

    – Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the method for identifying the main risk driver of a position and for determining whether a transaction represents a long or a short position as referred to in Articles 94(3), 273a(3) and 325a(2) (C(2025)04105 – 2025/2781(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 3 months from the date of receipt of 1 July 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ECON

    – Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements (C(2025)04133 – 2025/2779(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 30 June 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ITRE
    opinion: TRAN

    – Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions for assessing the materiality of extensions of, and changes to, the use of alternative internal models, and changes to the subset of the modellable risk factors (C(2025)04338 – 2025/2805(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 3 months from the date of receipt of 3 July 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ECON

    – Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down the technical conditions and procedures under which providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines are to share data with vetted researchers (C(2025)04340 – 2025/2799(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 3 months from the date of receipt of 2 July 2025

    referred to committee responsible: IMCO
    opinion: ITRE, JURI, LIBE

    – Commission Delegated Regulation amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards the simplification of the content and presentation of information to be disclosed concerning environmentally sustainable activities and Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2021/2139 and (EU) 2023/2486 as regards simplification of certain technical screening criteria for determining whether economic activities cause no significant harm to environmental objectives (C(2025)04568 – 2025/2806(DEA))

    Deadline for raising objections: 4 months from the date of receipt of 4 July 2025

    referred to committee responsible: ECON, ENVI

    Draft delegated act for which the period for raising objections had been extended

    – Commission Delegated Regulation on the implementation of the Union’s international obligations, as referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, as regards picked dogfish C(2025)03715 – 2025/2768(DEA)

    Deadline for raising objections: 2 months from the date of receipt of 13 June 2025

    Extension of the deadline for raising objections: 2 months at the request of the European Parliament

    referred to committee responsible: PECH



    IV. Transfers of appropriations and budgetary decisions

    In accordance with Article 31(1) of the Financial Regulation, the Committee on Budgets had decided to approve the European Commission’s transfers of appropriations DEC 08/2025, DEC 09/2025 and DEC 10/2025 – Section III – Commission.



    V. Action taken on Parliament’s positions and resolutions

    The Commission communication on the action taken on the resolutions adopted by Parliament during the March 2025 part-session (third part) was available on Parliament’s website.



    ATTENDANCE REGISTER

    Present:

    Aaltola Mika, Abadía Jover Maravillas, Adamowicz Magdalena, Aftias Georgios, Agirregoitia Martínez Oihane, Agius Peter, Agius Saliba Alex, Alexandraki Galato, Allione Grégory, Al-Sahlani Abir, Anadiotis Nikolaos, Anderson Christine, Andersson Li, Andresen Rasmus, Andrews Barry, Andriukaitis Vytenis Povilas, Androuët Mathilde, Angel Marc, Annemans Gerolf, Annunziata Lucia, Antoci Giuseppe, Arias Echeverría Pablo, Arłukowicz Bartosz, Arnaoutoglou Sakis, Arndt Anja, Arvanitis Konstantinos, Asens Llodrà Jaume, Assis Francisco, Attard Daniel, Aubry Manon, Auštrevičius Petras, Axinia Adrian-George, Azmani Malik, Bajada Thomas, Baljeu Jeannette, Ballarín Cereza Laura, Bardella Jordan, Barley Katarina, Barna Dan, Barrena Arza Pernando, Bartulica Stephen Nikola, Bartůšek Nikola, Bausemer Arno, Bay Nicolas, Bay Christophe, Beke Wouter, Beleris Fredis, Bellamy François-Xavier, Benjumea Benjumea Isabel, Beňová Monika, Bentele Hildegard, Berendsen Tom, Berger Stefan, Berg Sibylle, Berlato Sergio, Bernhuber Alexander, Biedroń Robert, Bielan Adam, Bischoff Gabriele, Blaha Ľuboš, Blinkevičiūtė Vilija, Blom Rachel, Bloss Michael, Bocheński Tobiasz, Boeselager Damian, Bogdan Ioan-Rareş, Bonaccini Stefano, Bonte Barbara, Borchia Paolo, Borrás Pabón Mireia, Borvendég Zsuzsanna, Borzan Biljana, Bosanac Gordan, Boßdorf Irmhild, Bosse Stine, Botenga Marc, Boyer Gilles, Boylan Lynn, Brandstätter Helmut, Brasier-Clain Marie-Luce, Braun Grzegorz, Brejza Krzysztof, Bricmont Saskia, Brnjac Nikolina, Brudziński Joachim Stanisław, Bryłka Anna, Buchheit Markus, Buczek Tomasz, Buda Daniel, Buda Waldemar, Bugalho Sebastião, Buła Andrzej, Bullmann Udo, Buxadé Villalba Jorge, Bystron Petr, Bžoch Jaroslav, Camara Mélissa, Canfin Pascal, Carberry Nina, Cârciu Gheorghe, Carême Damien, Casa David, Caspary Daniel, Cassart Benoit, Castillo Laurent, del Castillo Vera Pilar, Cavazzini Anna, Cavedagna Stefano, Ceccardi Susanna, Cepeda José, Ceulemans Estelle, Chahim Mohammed, Chaibi Leila, Chastel Olivier, Chinnici Caterina, Christensen Asger, Ciccioli Carlo, Cifrová Ostrihoňová Veronika, Ciriani Alessandro, Cisint Anna Maria, Clausen Per, Clergeau Christophe, Cormand David, Corrado Annalisa, Costanzo Vivien, Cotrim De Figueiredo João, Cowen Barry, Cremer Tobias, Crespo Díaz Carmen, Cristea Andi, Crosetto Giovanni, Cunha Paulo, Dahl Henrik, Danielsson Johan, Dauchy Marie, Dávid Dóra, David Ivan, Decaro Antonio, de la Hoz Quintano Raúl, Della Valle Danilo, Deloge Valérie, De Masi Fabio, De Meo Salvatore, Demirel Özlem, Deutsch Tamás, Devaux Valérie, Dibrani Adnan, Diepeveen Ton, Dieringer Elisabeth, Dîncu Vasile, Di Rupo Elio, Disdier Mélanie, Dobrev Klára, Doherty Regina, Doleschal Christian, Dömötör Csaba, Do Nascimento Cabral Paulo, Donazzan Elena, Dorfmann Herbert, Dostalova Klara, Dostál Ondřej, Droese Siegbert Frank, Düpont Lena, Dworczyk Michał, Ecke Matthias, Ehler Christian, Ehlers Marieke, Eriksson Sofie, Erixon Dick, Eroglu Engin, Estaràs Ferragut Rosa, Everding Sebastian, Ezcurra Almansa Alma, Falcă Gheorghe, Falcone Marco, Farantouris Nikolas, Farreng Laurence, Farský Jan, Ferber Markus, Ferenc Viktória, Fernández Jonás, Fidanza Carlo, Fiocchi Pietro, Firmenich Ruth, Fita Claire, Flanagan Luke Ming, Fourlas Loucas, Fourreau Emma, Fragkos Emmanouil, Freund Daniel, Frigout Anne-Sophie, Fritzon Heléne, Froelich Tomasz, Fuglsang Niels, Funchion Kathleen, Furet Angéline, Furore Mario, Gahler Michael, Gál Kinga, Galán Estrella, Gálvez Lina, Gambino Alberico, García Hermida-Van Der Walle Raquel, Garraud Jean-Paul, Gasiuk-Pihowicz Kamila, Geadi Geadis, Gedin Hanna, Geese Alexandra, Geier Jens, Geisel Thomas, Gemma Chiara, Georgiou Giorgos, Gerbrandy Gerben-Jan, Germain Jean-Marc, Gerzsenyi Gabriella, Geuking Niels, Gieseke Jens, Giménez Larraz Borja, Girauta Vidal Juan Carlos, Glavak Sunčana, Glück Andreas, Glucksmann Raphaël, Goerens Charles, Gomart Christophe, Gomes Isilda, Gómez López Sandra, Gonçalves Bruno, Gonçalves Sérgio, González Casares Nicolás, González Pons Esteban, Gori Giorgio, Gosiewska Małgorzata, Gotink Dirk, Gozi Sandro, Grapini Maria, Gražulis Petras, Gregorová Markéta, Grims Branko, Griset Catherine, Gronkiewicz-Waltz Hanna, Groothuis Bart, Grossmann Elisabeth, Grudler Christophe, Gualmini Elisabetta, Guarda Cristina, Guetta Bernard, Guzenina Maria, Győri Enikő, Gyürk András, Hadjipantela Michalis, Hahn Svenja, Haider Roman, Halicki Andrzej, Hansen Niels Flemming, Hassan Rima, Hauser Gerald, Häusling Martin, Hava Mircea-Gheorghe, Heide Hannes, Heinäluoma Eero, Henriksson Anna-Maja, Herbst Niclas, Herranz García Esther, Hohlmeier Monika, Hojsík Martin, Holmgren Pär, Hölvényi György, Homs Ginel Alicia, Humberto Sérgio, Ijabs Ivars, Imart Céline, Incir Evin, Inselvini Paolo, Iovanovici Şoşoacă Diana, Jamet France, Jarubas Adam, Jerković Romana, Jongen Marc, Joński Dariusz, Joron Virginie, Jouvet Pierre, Joveva Irena, Juknevičienė Rasa, Junco García Nora, Jungbluth Alexander, Kabilov Taner, Kalfon François, Kaliňák Erik, Kaljurand Marina, Kalniete Sandra, Kamiński Mariusz, Kanev Radan, Kanko Assita, Karlsbro Karin, Kartheiser Fernand, Karvašová Ľubica, Katainen Elsi, Kefalogiannis Emmanouil, Kelleher Billy, Keller Fabienne, Kelly Seán, Kemp Martine, Kennes Rudi, Khan Mary, Kircher Sophia, Knafo Sarah, Knotek Ondřej, Kobosko Michał, Köhler Stefan, Kohut Łukasz, Kokalari Arba, Kolář Ondřej, Kollár Kinga, Kols Rihards, Konečná Kateřina, Kopacz Ewa, Körner Moritz, Kountoura Elena, Kovatchev Andrey, Krištopans Vilis, Kruis Sebastian, Krutílek Ondřej, Kubín Tomáš, Kuhnke Alice, Kulja András Tivadar, Kulmuni Katri, Kyllönen Merja, Kyuchyuk Ilhan, Lagodinsky Sergey, Lakos Eszter, Lalucq Aurore, Lange Bernd, Laššáková Judita, László András, Latinopoulou Afroditi, Laurent Murielle, Laureti Camilla, Laykova Rada, Lazarov Ilia, Lazarus Luis-Vicențiu, Le Callennec Isabelle, Leggeri Fabrice, Lenaers Jeroen, Leonardelli Julien, Lewandowski Janusz, Lexmann Miriam, Liese Peter, Lins Norbert, Loiseau Nathalie, Løkkegaard Morten, Lopatka Reinhold, López Javi, López Aguilar Juan Fernando, López-Istúriz White Antonio, Lövin Isabella, Luena César, Łukacijewska Elżbieta Katarzyna, Lupo Giuseppe, McAllister David, Madison Jaak, Maestre Cristina, Magoni Lara, Magyar Péter, Maij Marit, Maląg Marlena, Manda Claudiu, Mandl Lukas, Maniatis Yannis, Mantovani Mario, Maran Pierfrancesco, Marczułajtis-Walczak Jagna, Maréchal Marion, Marino Ignazio Roberto, Marquardt Erik, Martín Frías Jorge, Martins Catarina, Martusciello Fulvio, Marzà Ibáñez Vicent, Mato Gabriel, Matthieu Sara, Mavrides Costas, Maydell Eva, Mayer Georg, Mazurek Milan, Mažylis Liudas, McNamara Michael, Mebarek Nora, Mehnert Alexandra, Meimarakis Vangelis, Meleti Eleonora, Mendes Ana Catarina, Mendia Idoia, Mertens Verena, Mesure Marina, Metsola Roberta, Metz Tilly, Mikser Sven, Milazzo Giuseppe, Millán Mon Francisco José, Minchev Nikola, Miranda Paz Ana, Molnár Csaba, Montero Irene, Montserrat Dolors, Morace Carolina, Morano Nadine, Moreira de Sá Tiago, Moreno Sánchez Javier, Moretti Alessandra, Motreanu Dan-Ştefan, Mularczyk Arkadiusz, Müller Piotr, Mullooly Ciaran, Mureşan Siegfried, Muşoiu Ştefan, Nagyová Jana, Nardella Dario, Navarrete Rojas Fernando, Negrescu Victor, Nemec Matjaž, Nerudová Danuše, Nesci Denis, Neuhoff Hans, Neumann Hannah, Nica Dan, Niebler Angelika, Niedermayer Luděk, Niinistö Ville, Nikolaou-Alavanos Lefteris, Nikolic Aleksandar, Ní Mhurchú Cynthia, Noichl Maria, Nordqvist Rasmus, Novakov Andrey, Nykiel Mirosława, Obajtek Daniel, Ódor Ľudovít, Oetjen Jan-Christoph, Oliveira João, Olivier Philippe, Omarjee Younous, Ondruš Branislav, Ó Ríordáin Aodhán, Orlando Leoluca, Ozdoba Jacek, Paet Urmas, Pajín Leire, Palmisano Valentina, Panayiotou Fidias, Papadakis Kostas, Papandreou Nikos, Pappas Nikos, Pascual de la Parte Nicolás, Patriciello Aldo, Paulus Jutta, Pedro Ana Miguel, Pedulla’ Gaetano, Pellerin-Carlin Thomas, Peltier Guillaume, Penkova Tsvetelina, Pennelle Gilles, Pérez Alvise, Peter-Hansen Kira Marie, Petrov Hristo, Picaro Michele, Picierno Pina, Picula Tonino, Piera Pascale, Pietikäinen Sirpa, Pimpie Pierre, Piperea Gheorghe, de la Pisa Carrión Margarita, Pokorná Jermanová Jaroslava, Polato Daniele, Polfjärd Jessica, Popescu Virgil-Daniel, Pozņaks Reinis, Prebilič Vladimir, Princi Giusi, Protas Jacek, Pürner Friedrich, Rackete Carola, Radev Emil, Radtke Dennis, Ratas Jüri, Razza Ruggero, Rechagneux Julie, Regner Evelyn, Repasi René, Repp Sabrina, Ressler Karlo, Riba i Giner Diana, Ricci Matteo, Ridel Chloé, Riehl Nela, Ripa Manuela, Rodrigues André, Ros Sempere Marcos, Roth Neveďalová Katarína, Rougé André, Ruissen Bert-Jan, Ruotolo Sandro, Rzońca Bogdan, Saeidi Arash, Salini Massimiliano, Salis Ilaria, Salla Aura, Sánchez Amor Nacho, Sanchez Julien, Sancho Murillo Elena, Saramo Jussi, Sardone Silvia, Šarec Marjan, Sargiacomo Eric, Satouri Mounir, Saudargas Paulius, Sbai Majdouline, Sberna Antonella, Schaldemose Christel, Schaller-Baross Ernő, Schenk Oliver, Scheuring-Wielgus Joanna, Schieder Andreas, Schilling Lena, Schneider Christine, Schnurrbusch Volker, Schwab Andreas, Scuderi Benedetta, Seekatz Ralf, Sell Alexander, Serrano Sierra Rosa, Sidl Günther, Sienkiewicz Bartłomiej, Sieper Lukas, Simon Sven, Singer Christine, Sinkevičius Virginijus, Sippel Birgit, Sjöstedt Jonas, Śmiszek Krzysztof, Smith Anthony, Smit Sander, Sokol Tomislav, Solier Diego, Solís Pérez Susana, Sommen Liesbet, Sonneborn Martin, Sorel Malika, Sousa Silva Hélder, Søvndal Villy, Squarta Marco, Staķis Mārtiņš, Stancanelli Raffaele, Ștefănuță Nicolae, Steger Petra, Stier Davor Ivo, Storm Kristoffer, Stöteler Sebastiaan, Stoyanov Stanislav, Strack-Zimmermann Marie-Agnes, Strada Cecilia, Streit Joachim, Strik Tineke, Strolenberg Anna, Sturdza Şerban Dimitrie, Stürgkh Anna, Sypniewski Marcin, Szczerba Michał, Szekeres Pál, Szydło Beata, Tamburrano Dario, Tânger Corrêa António, Tarczyński Dominik, Tarquinio Marco, Tarr Zoltán, Târziu Claudiu-Richard, Tavares Carla, Tegethoff Kai, Temido Marta, Teodorescu Georgiana, Teodorescu Måwe Alice, Terheş Cristian, Ter Laak Ingeborg, Terras Riho, Tertsch Hermann, Thionnet Pierre-Romain, Timgren Beatrice, Tinagli Irene, Tobback Bruno, Tobé Tomas, Tolassy Rody, Tomac Eugen, Tomašič Zala, Tomaszewski Waldemar, Tomc Romana, Tonin Matej, Toom Jana, Topo Raffaele, Torselli Francesco, Tosi Flavio, Toussaint Marie, Tovaglieri Isabella, Toveri Pekka, Tridico Pasquale, Trochu Laurence, Tsiodras Dimitris, Turek Filip, Tynkkynen Sebastian, Uhrík Milan, Vaidere Inese, Valchev Ivaylo, Vălean Adina, Valet Matthieu, Van Brempt Kathleen, Van Brug Anouk, van den Berg Brigitte, Vandendriessche Tom, Van Dijck Kris, Van Lanschot Reinier, Van Leeuwen Jessika, Vannacci Roberto, Van Overtveldt Johan, Van Sparrentak Kim, Varaut Alexandre, Vasconcelos Ana, Vasile-Voiculescu Vlad, Vautmans Hilde, Vedrenne Marie-Pierre, Ventola Francesco, Verheyen Sabine, Verougstraete Yvan, Veryga Aurelijus, Vešligaj Marko, Vicsek Annamária, Vieira Catarina, Vigenin Kristian, Vilimsky Harald, Vincze Loránt, Vind Marianne, Vistisen Anders, Vivaldini Mariateresa, Volgin Petar, von der Schulenburg Michael, Vondra Alexandr, Voss Axel, Vozemberg-Vrionidi Elissavet, Vrecionová Veronika, Vázquez Lázara Adrián, Waitz Thomas, Walsh Maria, Walsmann Marion, Warborn Jörgen, Warnke Jan-Peter, Wąsik Maciej, Wawrykiewicz Michał, Wcisło Marta, Wechsler Andrea, Weimers Charlie, Werbrouck Séverine, Wiesner Emma, Wiezik Michal, Wilmès Sophie, Winkler Iuliu, Winzig Angelika, Wiseler-Lima Isabel, Wiśniewska Jadwiga, Wölken Tiemo, Wolters Lara, Yar Lucia, Yon-Courtin Stéphanie, Yoncheva Elena, Zacharia Maria, Zajączkowska-Hernik Ewa, Zalewska Anna, Žalimas Dainius, Zan Alessandro, Zarzalejos Javier, Zdechovský Tomáš, Zdrojewski Bogdan Andrzej, Zijlstra Auke, Zingaretti Nicola, Złotowski Kosma, Zoido Álvarez Juan Ignacio, Zovko Željana, Zver Milan

    Excused:

    Burkhardt Delara, Friis Sigrid, Hazekamp Anja

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Speech by SJ at Hong Kong legal services seminar in Paris, France (English only) (with photo)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region – 4

         Following is the keynote speech by the Secretary for Justice, Mr Paul Lam, SC, at the “Paris Seminar: Hong Kong Legal Services – Gateway to China and Beyond” organised by the Department of Justice in Paris, France on July 9 (Paris time):
     
    His Excellency Mr Deng Li (Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to the French Republic), distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
     
    Good afternoon. Firstly, on behalf of the Department of Justice, I would like to welcome all of you joining our seminar this afternoon. I have to express my gratitude to Mr Deng Li for giving the very important opening remarks, and for helping the Department of Justice in organising this very important seminar. Second, I also wish to express my gratitude to all the supporting organisations, which include the legal professional bodies in Hong Kong, the important arbitration institutions, and leading law firms. This is in fact my first official visit to this part of the world, including France, and I think this is also the first occasion that the Department of Justice organised a seminar focusing on the legal services of Hong Kong. I’m very pleased and honoured to be able to invite very eminent speakers from both Hong Kong and France to share their experience with you in a minute. There will be two panel discussions this afternoon. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all the speakers.
     
    What I intend to do is just to set the scene and give an overview of the theme of today’s seminar. The topic for today is Hong Kong’s legal services. There is only one important message that I wish to convey successfully at the end of today, that is Hong Kong’s common law system serves as a unique gateway to China and beyond.
     
    Why Hong Kong is a unique gateway? The short answer is that under the very important principle of “one country, two systems”, on the one hand, Hong Kong’s common law system has a number of very essential elements which are crucial and important to the business community. But at the same time, precisely because Hong Kong is a part of China, we also have very unique and important connection with the Mainland’s legal system, which is unparalleled. So this is the short answer. But to make good my point, I would like to focus on, in my belief, six very important characteristics of Hong Kong’s common law system.
     
    My first point is that Hong Kong’s common law system is very stable. Hong Kong is the only common law jurisdiction within China and the continuation of the practice of common law system is guaranteed by the Basic Law, which is a constitutional document. So this is something that is not going to change. I also wish to use a very recent example to demonstrate the confidence that both China and the international community has in Hong Kong. On May 30, 2025, the convention concerning the establishment of the International Organization for Mediation was signed in Hong Kong. It was signed by 33 countries around the world including China and many countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America and even in Europe. I think the population of all these countries added together, cost you about one third of this world’s population.
     
    The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Wang Yi, came to Hong Kong and gave a very important speech. He explained why the party decided to hold the signing ceremony in Hong Kong, and more importantly, to set up the headquarters of the International Organization for Mediation in Hong Kong. The reason is that, because of “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong has the best of both worlds. On the one hand, we have a very strong common law tradition. But on the other hand, the People’s Republic of China is a civil law system. So we are a common law system in the context of a civil law system. That gives us a unique strength which makes it the perfect place to host the headquarters of the International Organization for Mediation. This is my first point – Hong Kong’s common law system is very, very stable.
     
    The second point is that Hong Kong’s common law system is very user-friendly. Hong Kong is in fact the only bilingual common law system in the world, using both English and Chinese. So all our statutes will be written in both languages. And of course, English is the language for the international business community. But apart from language, we have been working very hard to ensure that our legislation and   common law will meet the demand of the changing needs of the international community, or make it even more attractive. I wish to cite one recent example. In mid-May this year, we have just amended our company law to make it easier for companies being operated overseas to re-domicile to Hong Kong, so that these overseas companies can take advantage of the tax policy and regulatory regime in Hong Kong. And I understand that two major insurance companies have indicated that they will re-domicile to Hong Kong in November this year.
     
    My third point is that Hong Kong’s common law system provides a very safe and secure environment. Under the Basic Law, free flow of capital is guaranteed, free movement of properties including money in all forms of property is guaranteed. For as long as your investment, your money, your property, your business in Hong Kong, they are well protected by a very sophisticated regulatory regime administered by bodies such the Securities and Futures Commission, our Independent Commission Against Corruption and so on and so forth. One of the good reputation that Hong Kong enjoys is that corruption or malpractice is almost absent. So there’s no concern of corruption and other sort of malpractice. At the same time, we also make tremendous effort in ensuring that people can explore new opportunities in the safe environment. The recent example is the Stablecoins Ordinance. The Stablecoins Ordinance was enacted and will come into effect on August 1. Under this new ordinance, there will be a licensing regime for people or for traders in stablecoins. So we will allow trading and use of stablecoins subject to a very strict set of regulation to ensure that people will not be exposed to unnecessary risks. So this is my third point – Hong Kong’s common law system provides a very safe and secure environment.
     
    The fourth point is that Hong Kong’s common law system is extremely credible. One of the key reasons is that Hong Kong has a very independent and reputable judiciary. Our courts enjoy the final power of adjudication. And one special feature is that in our Court of Final Appeal, we have invited eminent judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on a part-time basis. So at the moment, there are six foreign non-permanent judges. Two come from England, they are Lord Hoffmann and Lord Neuberger, three from Australia and one from New Zealand. The most recent appointment was made and confirmed in June, Sir William Young, who used to be a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Apart from Court of Final Appeal, we also invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit in our Court of First Instance.
     
    But litigation is not the only means of resolving disputes. Hong Kong is also very famous for its international arbitration service. In the very recent Queen Mary University of London’s survey, which is the most important international survey on arbitration, Hong Kong ranked second in the world after London, Hong Kong and Singapore both ranked the second. The important thing that’s worth noting is that among the cases handled by the most important institution, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), almost 70 per cent of those cases are international in nature in the sense that either one of the parties would be a party not from Hong Kong. Even more importantly, around 15 per cent of cases handled by the HKIAC, in those cases, neither party came from Asia. So the only reason that they chose Hong Kong is, of course, because they’re confident in our arbitration service. This is my fourth point – Hong Kong’s system is very credible.
     
    My fifth point is that Hong Kong has an abundant supply of high-quality legal professionals with rich experience in handling cross-boundary or transboundary matters. Hong Kong’s legal profession is divided into two branches based on the English system. We have around 1 700 barristers who are specialists in dispute resolution. They will be engaged and instructed to appear in court in litigation and very often in arbitration. There are around 110 Senior Counsel, which will be equivalent to King’s Counsel in England. And on top of that, we adopt a very open policy. So on some cases, we will allow London Silk, a Senior Counsel, a King’s Counsel from London to take part in litigations in Hong Kong.
     
    Turning to another branch of the legal profession, the solicitors, I think there are more than 11 000 solicitors in Hong Kong, more than 900 law firms, and almost 400 of these law firms would either have offices outside Hong Kong or representative offices in Mainland China. And insofar as France is concerned, I think there are around 14 law firms in Hong Kong which have offices in France and there are also five French law firms having office in Hong Kong. So France does have a significant presence in Hong Kong. And also we have offices, lawyers practicing here in Paris. The point that I wish to make is that the legal service provided in Hong Kong is very international, so if you instruct a Hong Kong lawyer, you are not simply receiving Hong Kong legal service, you are receiving global legal service, so this is my fifth point.
     
    The last point is the very special and unique connection between the Hong Kong’s common law system and the Mainland’s civil law system. I wish to use a few examples. Up to the present, Hong Kong and the Mainland have signed nine very important mutual legal assistance arrangements. And the most often used arrangement concerns the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards. So an arbitration award in Hong Kong can be easily enforced and recognised on the Mainland under the scheme substantially the same as that under the New York Convention. And more importantly, back in 2019, Hong Kong and Mainland China have entered into a very special arrangement, under which for arbitrations administered by specific arbitration institution in Hong Kong, the parties will be at liberty to appear or to apply before the Mainland Court for interim measures. For example, interim injunctions preserving assets or evidence that turn out to be an extremely important practical tool. So ever since the scheme came into effect on October 1, 2019, up to May this year, there were around 146 applications and the amount involved in these interim injunctions will be in the region of about US$5 billion. That’s a piece of evidence demonstrating the practical utility of this measure.
     
    My last example concerns a very recent measure introduced in February this year. It concerns the Greater Bay Area, which consists of Hong Kong, Macau, and also nine important cities in the Guangdong Province. The size of the Greater Bay Area is more like Croatia, and the population is around 86 million. And the GDP of the Greater Bay Area has already exceeded Australia, which would be the top 10 to consider as a single economic entity. So back in February, we introduced a new measure, which allows Hong Kong enterprises in certain cities in the Greater Bay Area to have the option of choosing Hong Kong law as the governing law to regulate their contracts, and also to choose Hong Kong as the seat for arbitration. Because in the past, if a foreign company or even a Hong Kong company set up an establishment on the Mainland, you have to use Mainland law. And for arbitration, you can only do the arbitration on the Mainland, so the options that I’ve just mentioned were not open. The other important point is that, insofar on the definition of Hong Kong enterprise is concerned, it doesn’t matter the percentage of interest owned by the Hong Kong party. For example, it’s very easy for a French company to come to Hong Kong to find a partner, a Hong Kong partner, which may hold a very small interest, say one per cent. So as long as there’s some common interest, it will be qualified as a Hong Kong enterprise, and that will give you the liberty to choose Hong Kong law or to use Hong Kong as a place of arbitration, so this is my sixth point.
     
    To sum up, Hong Kong’s common law system is stable, it’s very user-friendly, it’s very safe and secure, it’s very credible, and we have an abundant supply of international legal professionals. And lastly, we have very unique connection with the Mainland system. And my dear friends, it’s really the combination, it’s really the sum total of these six elements, which in my view, render Hong Kong a unique gateway. Hong Kong is definitely not the only gateway, but I’m very confident to say that because of the matters that I mentioned, Hong Kong as a gateway is unique. It’s unparalleled. It’s something that you cannot find elsewhere.
     
    President Xi Jinping said that the rule of law provides the best business environment (法治是最好的營商環境). I think Hong Kong offers the best business environment because we have a very strong rule of law based on a common law system, which has all the unique characteristics that I said. I think Hong Kong’s reputation is very recognised internationally. According to a survey done by the IMD, the International Institute for Management Development based in Switzerland very recently, in terms of global competitiveness, Hong Kong ranked the third. Hong Kong actually ranked the second in terms of government efficiency and business efficiency. When it comes to our tax policy and business legislation, Hong Kong actually ranked the first. I think this is a very objective assessment of the reputation enjoyed by Hong Kong.
     
    Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sure that you will be more convinced by what I have just said after hearing from our very eminent speakers who will share their experience in handling legal matters or in relation to China, Hong Kong and also France in the next two hours or so. Now, to conclude, I would like to thank all of you again for joining this legal seminar, and I sincerely hope that you will find today’s seminar constructive and enjoyable. Thank you very much.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Banking: Gent Sejko: Bolstering credit to the agriculture sector

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Dear Minister Minister of Finance,

    Dear representatives of the banking sector,

    Let me start by conveying my heartfelt thanks for your participation in this important roundtable discussion, co-organized with the Ministry of Finance. This event aims to identify the appropriate pathways and instruments for opening a new chapter regarding credit to the agricultural sector in Albania.

    As we have emphasized in many previous discussions and communication platforms, lending to the agricultural sector has been-and continues to be-a structural weakness for both our economy and banking sector.

    The comparison of the significant role that agriculture plays in the Albanian economy with the limited level of credit this sector receives from the banking sector, clearly illustrates this weakness. Agriculture accounts for around 20% of GDP of Albania and employs around 1/3 of population, yet it benefits less than 2% of total bank credit. Moreover, recent trends in the agricultural lending have not been encouraging.

    The underlying reasons of the low level of credit to the agricultural sector-ranging from property ownership issues and high levels of informality, to the relatively high business risk and low productivity due to the absence of economies of scale-have been consistently discussed. Some of these problems still remain relevant, while others are gradually being addressed.

    However, even in this challenging context – credit to the agricultural remains low. This deficiency must be addressed without further delay if we aim at boosting the stable development of this sector that is crucial for the Albanian economy.

    Against this backdrop, the Bank of Albania has aligned its Financing Programme to Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises to emphasize the growth of credit to the agricultural sector.
    This program, that involves all stakeholders in the banking sector, offers a reliable and sustainable source of low-cost funding to support lending of development projects in the agricultural sector, including agrotourism and the agro-food industry.

    Last, the Government of Albania has undertaken concrete steps in this regard, by making available a sovereign guarantee scheme for loans granted to the agriculture sector.  This guarantee significantly mitigates the credit risk related with this sector, in turn considerably reducing one of the fundamental problems we have discussed, and the collateral.

    We deem that both development projects provide a solid platform for progressing further as we make a new qualitative step in lending to the agriculture. Nevertheless, the success of this platform considerably dependents on the involvement and the commitment to utilising its instruments.

    In this context, allow me to draw your attention to three important points.

    • First, from the narrower perspective of the business interests you represent, I would like to highlight that the low level of lending to the agricultural sector should be considered equally both as a reflection of existing structural and operational problems, and as a potential indicator for the high returns you may have from investments in this sector. In light of this, I encourage you to give agricultural sector the attention and expertise it rightly deserves.
    • Second, from the perspective of the overall economic development, the growth of the agricultural sector-aligned and progressing in parallel with other sectors of the economy-should be regarded as a crucial pillar for the long-term and sustainable development of Albania. From this standpoint, as primary actors in Albania’s economic and financial landscape, you are encouraged to view lending to the agricultural sector as a strategic investment that yields positive returns for the country’s sustainable and inclusive growth.
    • Third, as key actors in the social life of the country, the support to the agriculture sector should also be viewed as a moral obligation toward Albania, the country where you safely carry out your business and in a profitable manner. Supporting the food supply chain industry remains a factor of vital importance for a country and its population.

    Dear representatives of the banking sector,

    I kindly invite you to consider the issues addressed above more as an appeal to your rational judgement than to your emotions. The Bank of Albania will not, under no circumstances, take measures that would jeopardise the soundness of your financial positions or undermine the financial stability interests of Albania in the long term.

    That said, while safeguarding financial stability, I believe it is appropriate to engage in an open and transparent dialogue aimed at rethinking our approach to lending in the agricultural sector, in line with the long-term interests of the social and economic development of Albania.

    Thank You!

    MIL OSI Global Banks –

  • Djokovic sets up Sinner showdown, Swiatek reaches first Wimbledon semi-final

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Novak Djokovic’s pursuit of yet more career milestones continued unabated as he reached a record 14th Wimbledon semi-final and a showdown with world number one Jannik Sinner on Wednesday.

    The 38-year-old Serb recovered from a set down to beat Flavio Cobolli 6-7(6) 6-2 7-5 6-4 and is now only two victories away from an unprecedented 25th Grand Slam title.

    Blocking his path next is a rather more formidable Italian in the form of Sinner who eased any worries about an elbow injury to beat American powerhouse Ben Shelton 7-6(2) 6-4 6-4.

    In the women’s quarter-finals, Poland’s claycourt specialist Iga Swiatek broke new ground by reaching her first Wimbledon semi-final, beating Liudmila Samsonova 6-2 7-5.

    The eighth seed will face Switzerland’s unseeded Belinda Bencic who edged out Russian teenager Mirra Andreeva 7-6(3) 7-6(2) to also reach her first semi-final at the grasscourt slam.

    By reaching a record-extending 52nd Grand Slam semi, Djokovic also kept alive his hopes of equalling Roger Federer’s men’s record eight Wimbledon singles titles.

    It remains a tall order even for a player widely regarded as the greatest of all time, especially with top seed Sinner and Spain’s holder Carlos Alcaraz, the two new powers in men’s tennis, most people’s bet to contest the final on July 13.

    But no one should be writing off Djokovic who has won 44 of his last 46 matches at the All England Club and seems to know every single blade of grass on the historic Centre Court.

    “It means the world to me that at 38 I am able to play in the final stages of Wimbledon,” Djokovic, who suffered a nasty slip on match point but appeared unscathed, said.

    “Competing with youngsters makes me feel young, like Cobolli today. I enjoy running and sliding around the court. Speaking of the young guys, I will have Sinner in the next round so I look forward to that. That is going to be a great match-up.”

    SINNER INJURY

    Sinner may well have been back home in Italy had Bulgaria’s Grigor Dimitrov not damaged his right pectoral muscle and retired with a two-set lead in the fourth round on Monday.

    The three-times Grand Slam champion also sustained an elbow injury early on in that match and there was some doubt about his physical state ahead of his clash with 10th seed Shelton.

    But he produced a clinical performance, reeling off seven successive points to win the first-set tiebreak and then pouncing in the 10th game of the next two sets to match his run to the semi-final two years ago when he lost to Djokovic.

    Sinner, bidding to become the first Italian to win a Wimbledon singles title, wore a protective sleeve on his right arm but was rock solid against the big-serving Shelton.

    “I had quite good feelings in the warm-up today,” Sinner, who dropped only six points on his first serve, said.

    “I put into my mind that I’m going to play today. So the concerns were not that big if I would play or not.

    “It was just a matter of what my percentage is. Today was very high, so I’m happy.”

    Swiatek appears to have finally overcome her grass court demons and the four-times French Open champion could not hide her delight at reaching the semi-final at the sixth attempt.

    “Honestly, it feels great. I have goosebumps after this win. I am super happy and super proud of myself and I will keep going. I worked really hard to progress here on this surface.”

    Former Olympic champion Bencic became the first Swiss woman to reach the semis since Martina Hingis in 1998 after stunning 18-year-old seventh seed Andreeva on Centre Court.

    “It’s crazy, it’s unbelievable. It’s a dream come true,” the 28-year-old mother said. “I’m just speechless.”

    Bencic will face Swiatek on Thursday after top seed Aryna Sabalenka takes on 13th-seeded American Amanda Anisimova.

    The first silverware of this year’s tournament will also be decided on Thursday when Dutchman Sem Verbeek and Czech Katerina Siniakova face Britain’s Joe Salisbury and Brazil’s Luisa Stefani in the mixed doubles final on Centre Court.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI China: Djokovic survives late fall to set Sinner SF at Wimbledon

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Seven-time champion Novak Djokovic battled past Italy’s Flavio Cobolli in a hard-fought match on Wednesday, securing his place in the Wimbledon semifinals, where he will face Jannik Sinner in a highly anticipated showdown.

    The Serbian star, chasing a record 25th Grand Slam title, rallied from a set down to defeat Cobolli 6-7 (6), 6-2, 7-5, 6-4.

    Djokovic converted six of his 12 break points, while Cobolli’s 44 unforced errors – double Djokovic’s 22 – proved costly.

    Novak Djokovic set up a mouthwatering Wimbledon semi-final against world number one Jannik Sinner as he moved a step closer to claiming a historic 25th Grand Slam title.

    Top seed Sinner overcame lingering discomfort from an elbow injury to defeat American Ben Shelton 7-6 (2), 6-4, 6-4.

    The 23-year-old Italian had injured his right elbow after slipping during his fourth-round match against Grigor Dimitrov on Monday. Wearing a protective sleeve, Sinner showed little sign of trouble as he controlled the match against Shelton.

    After the match, he admitted trying to ignore the injury during play. “When you are in a match with a lot of tension, you try not to think about it.”

    “It has improved a lot from yesterday to today. Yesterday my day was very short on the practice court,” he added.

    Friday’s semifinal will be a rematch of their 2023 encounter, which Djokovic won in straight sets.

    The other men’s semifinal will feature world No. 2 Carlos Alcaraz against fifth seed Taylor Fritz.

    In the women’s draw, 18-year-old Russian Mirra Andreeva’s impressive run came to an end with a 7-6 (3), 7-6 (2) loss to Switzerland’s Belinda Bencic.

    The 35th-ranked Swiss, a former Olympic champion, will now face eighth seed Iga Swiatek, who booked her semifinal place with a 6-2, 7-5 win over Russia’s Liudmila Samsonova.

    The other semifinal will see world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka take on American 13th seed Amanda Anisimova. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Technology – Moldova’s Virtual IT Park Attracts Global Attention with Record Growth and €1 Billion Revenue Target – MITP

    Source: Moldova Innovation Technology Park (MITP)

    Chisinau, Moldova, July 9th,2025 – Moldova Innovation Technology Park (MITP), the first fully virtual IT park in Europe and a key pillar of Moldova’s innovation ecosystem, continues to break records and transform the country’s economic landscape.

    In 2025, MITP expects its resident companies to generate over €1 billion in revenue, representing a 30% increase compared to 2024 and reaffirming the IT sector as a major engine of Moldova’s economic growth.

    Launched in 2018 by the Government of Moldova, MITP has rapidly evolved into a gateway to Eastern Europe’s emerging tech scene. Today, it unites over 2,370 resident companies from 43 countries, including new entrants from the United States, Germany, the UK, Italy, Ukraine, France, and many others. In 2024 alone, 533 new companies joined — the highest annual growth since the park’s creation.

    “The regional geopolitical context has played a decisive role. In 2021, MITP hosted only three Ukrainian companies. By 2024, this number had surged more than fourteen-fold due to strategic relocations caused by the war. Meanwhile, the number of Romanian-owned companies nearly doubled over the past three years, influenced in part by recent tax changes affecting Romania’s IT sector,”

    — said Marina Bzovîi, Administrator of MITP.

    Beyond the IT sector, Moldova is undergoing a structural economic transformation, marked by a decisive shift from goods-based production to a service-driven growth model. In 2025, the country recorded three historic milestones in services exports:

    $626 million USD in Q1 alone — a record high for the first quarter
    $2.8 billion USD annually — an all-time maximum
    Services now represent 44.5% of total exports, the highest share in Moldova’s history

    IT services lead this growth, totaling $686 million USD, followed by transportation services ($561 million), and business support services ($279 million). Education and health services are also on a strong upward trajectory. As a result, Moldova now enjoys a $900 million USD trade surplus in services, helping offset deficits in goods and positioning the country as a dynamic, services-driven economy.

    “Moldova’s economic model is undergoing a profound transformation — from a traditional, goods-based economy to one driven by high-value services and digital innovation. The extraordinary growth of MITP is a testament to our unwavering commitment to building a future-ready, service-oriented economy that creates skilled jobs and attracts global investors. As we accelerate our digital transformation and promote smart regulation, Moldova is emerging as a competitive, innovation-led destination in the heart of Europe.”
     

    — Doina Nistor, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Digitalization and Economic Development of the Republic of Moldova

    MITP is home to pioneering companies that have chosen Moldova as the ideal place to innovate and grow. For example, Parkopedia, founded by Eugene Tsyrklevich, began as a small operation and now provides smart parking solutions for global automotive giants such as BMW, Audi, and Toyota — all developed from Moldova, thanks to MITP’s supportive environment. Meanwhile, Argus AI, co-founded by neurosurgeon Alexandru Andrusca and AI expert Vladimir Verbulski, has created an advanced virtual reality system for neurosurgical planning, making such technology more accessible worldwide. These success stories showcase Moldova’s emergence as an unexpected but highly attractive home for cutting-edge tech and ambitious entrepreneurs.

    The economic impact of MITP is substantial: in 2024, resident companies contributed over €78 million to Moldova’s public budget, four times more than in 2017. About half of this amount comes from businesses established after the park’s launch, highlighting MITP’s role as a catalyst for job creation, investment attraction, and Moldova’s growing digital competitiveness.

    About Moldova Innovation Technology Park (MITP)

    Launched in early 2018 by the Government of Moldova, MITP is an innovative, fully virtual IT park designed to strengthen Moldova’s technology ecosystem and enhance its regional competitiveness. The park offers a unique 7% single tax system, simplified immigration procedures (including an IT Visa program), reduced bureaucratic barriers, and the possibility of a fully virtual presence.

    MITP serves as a central access point to the most attractive incentives and services in the IT sector. Its multi-stakeholder governance model and fully virtual structure make it a one-of-a-kind success story in Europe. The park’s mission is to act as a catalyst for IT investments by promoting flexible government policies, fostering an environment for ICT innovation, and driving Moldova’s economic digital transformation.

    Created for a 20-year period, MITP now unites over 2,370 resident companies from 43 countries, positioning Moldova as a rising tech destination on the global map.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: BSTDB Concludes the 27th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors in Yerevan

    Source: Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

    Press Release | 09-Jul-2025

    Governors Reaffirm Support for BSTDB and Approve New Strategic Branding

    The Board of Governors of the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) held its 27th Annual Meeting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Artur Javadyan, BSTDB Governor for the Republic of Armenia.

     The Meeting brought together high-level representatives from BSTDB’s eleven member states, along with BSEC leaders and the Bank’s Observers.

    The Governors evaluated the Bank’s operational activity and unanimously approved the Financial Statements for 2024. They praised BSTDB’s sustained role as a reliable partner for regional economic advancement.

    During the Meeting, the Board of Governors extended the term of Dr. Serhat Köksal as President of BSTDB by two years.

    Mr. Artur Javadyan, Chairman of the Board of Governors, commented: “Amid challenging economic times, BSTDB continued to deliver tangible results, reinforcing its role as a catalyst for sustainable regional growth”.

    Dr. Serhat Köksal, President of BSTDB, noted: ‘This meeting reaffirmed the shared vision of our member countries for a resilient and inclusive Black Sea region, underpinned by responsible finance.” Dr. Köksal expressed his gratitude to the Governors, stating: “I am deeply honored by the renewed trust placed in me. I thank the Board of Governors for their continued confidence and support, and I remain committed to advancing our collective vision for a resilient and inclusive Black Sea region, grounded in responsible finance.” 

    The BSTDB President also acknowledged the excellent organization and warm hospitality extended by Governor Javadyan and the host country.

    The Board also elected Mr. Sahil Babayev, Governor for the Republic of Azerbaijan, as the new Chair of the Board of Governors for the upcoming one-year term. Governors for the Republic of Bulgaria and Georgia were elected as Deputy Chairpersons. The 28th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors will be held in Azerbaijan. The exact date and venue of the Meeting will be determined in due course.

    In addition, the Board approved BSTDB’s new visual identity, reflecting the institution’s strategic orientation and commitment to modernization. The new brand will be officially unveiled in the coming weeks.

     

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.

     

    Contact: Haroula Christodoulou

    : @BSTDB

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: BSTDB Concludes the 27th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors in Yerevan

    Source: Black Sea Trade and Development Bank

    Press Release | 09-Jul-2025

    Governors Reaffirm Support for BSTDB and Approve New Strategic Branding

    The Board of Governors of the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) held its 27th Annual Meeting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Artur Javadyan, BSTDB Governor for the Republic of Armenia.

     The Meeting brought together high-level representatives from BSTDB’s eleven member states, along with BSEC leaders and the Bank’s Observers.

    The Governors evaluated the Bank’s operational activity and unanimously approved the Financial Statements for 2024. They praised BSTDB’s sustained role as a reliable partner for regional economic advancement.

    During the Meeting, the Board of Governors extended the term of Dr. Serhat Köksal as President of BSTDB by two years.

    Mr. Artur Javadyan, Chairman of the Board of Governors, commented: “Amid challenging economic times, BSTDB continued to deliver tangible results, reinforcing its role as a catalyst for sustainable regional growth”.

    Dr. Serhat Köksal, President of BSTDB, noted: ‘This meeting reaffirmed the shared vision of our member countries for a resilient and inclusive Black Sea region, underpinned by responsible finance.” Dr. Köksal expressed his gratitude to the Governors, stating: “I am deeply honored by the renewed trust placed in me. I thank the Board of Governors for their continued confidence and support, and I remain committed to advancing our collective vision for a resilient and inclusive Black Sea region, grounded in responsible finance.” 

    The BSTDB President also acknowledged the excellent organization and warm hospitality extended by Governor Javadyan and the host country.

    The Board also elected Mr. Sahil Babayev, Governor for the Republic of Azerbaijan, as the new Chair of the Board of Governors for the upcoming one-year term. Governors for the Republic of Bulgaria and Georgia were elected as Deputy Chairpersons. The 28th Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors will be held in Azerbaijan. The exact date and venue of the Meeting will be determined in due course.

    In addition, the Board approved BSTDB’s new visual identity, reflecting the institution’s strategic orientation and commitment to modernization. The new brand will be officially unveiled in the coming weeks.

     

    The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.

     

    Contact: Haroula Christodoulou

    : @BSTDB

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Press release – MEPs support EU aid worth €280 million for flood-stricken countries

    Source: European Parliament

    Parliament adopted a proposal to unlock €280 million of EU Solidarity Fund money to assist countries affected by devastating floods in 2024.

    On Wednesday, MEPs with 643 votes in favour, 13 against, and 35 abstentions endorsed a Commission proposal to provide financial help to Austria, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to deal with the consequences of severe flooding in September and October 2024.

    The € 280,740,903 in aid from the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) will be distributed as follows:

    • Austria: €42.8 million
    • Czechia: €114 million
    • Poland: €76 million
    • Slovakia: €2.1 million
    • Bosnia and Herzegovina: €45.7 million
    • Moldova: €195,200

    The funds will support a wide range of recovery measures, including infrastructure repair, temporary accommodation, improvements to preventive infrastructure, protecting cultural heritage sites, and clean-up operations.

    MEPs expressed their deepest solidarity with the victims, their families, and all the individuals affected by the destructive floods. They also said the Commission should substantially expand the EUSF budget or its equivalent in its upcoming proposal on the new EU long-term budget (MFF). MEPs also added that the EU should continue to address climate change adaptation and mitigation by supporting European and national policies to prevent natural disasters.

    Quote

    “Parliament takes another positive step in supporting citizens in need. Following today’s vote, extra funds will aid the victims of last year’s tragic floods in Austria, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Moldova, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was made possible by last year’s decision to give more money to the European Solidarity Fund. Now it can help repair infrastructure, provide shelter, and improve preventive actions. As natural disasters grow more frequent and severe, the EU must be able to provide swift and effective financial aid,” Andrzej Halicki (EPP, PL), Parliament’s rapporteur, said.

    Background

    The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF), the EU’s main post-disaster relief instrument, since its launch in 2002, has provided over €9.6 billion to help respond to 136 major crises – including 116 natural disasters and 20 health emergencies – across 24 EU countries (as well as the UK) and four candidate countries.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Failure of private hospitals in Bulgaria to apply EU public procurement rules, to the detriment of Bulgarian taxpayers: procedure INFR(2018)2268 – P-002749/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Priority question for written answer  P-002749/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Radan Kanev (PPE)

    Member States had to transpose Directive 2014/24/EU into their national legislation by 18 April 2016, with each facility over 50 % publicly-funded having to comply with the rules on transparency, equal treatment and efficiency in public procurement. However, Bulgarian legislation allows for the injustice of private hospitals purchasing medicines through direct negotiations, without public tenders, despite the fact they receive significant funding from the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF).

    This practice is creating significant differences in medicines prices between public and private hospitals, with private hospitals paying tens times more for the same medicines and the cost being covered by Bulgarian taxpayers through the NHIF.

    These breaches led to infringement procedure INFR(2018)2268 being initiated and, under the Commission’s reasoned opinion issued on 24 April 2024, Bulgaria has two months to remedy them before the case is brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

    So far, there is nothing to indicate that Bulgaria has taken any action in response.

    • 1.What developments have there been in INFR(2018)2268 against Bulgaria, and has the Commission acted on the two-month deadline set in April 2024?
    • 2.What is the Commission’s assessment in respect of the compliance of Bulgarian legislation with the requirements of Directive 2014/24/EU?
    • 3.What follow-up action will the Commission take in the event that Bulgaria fails to put in place effective mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of public procurement by private hospitals?

    Submitted: 5.7.2025

    Last updated: 9 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Latest news – Ordinary meeting of 9 July 2025, Strasbourg – Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

    Source: European Parliament

    The delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the ASEAN has elected its 1st and 2nd vice chairs:

    1st Vice Chair: MENDIA Idoia, S&D, Spain

    2nd Vice Chair: VASILE-VOICULESCU Vlad, Renew, Romania

     

    © European Union, 2025 – EP

    MIL OSI Europe News –