Priority question for written answer P-000667/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Mélissa Camara (Verts/ALE)
The Slovakian Government, claiming foreign interference, has recently requested information on the funding of non-governmental organisations, media and journalists operating in Slovakia. This move raises concerns about respect for the fundamental democratic principles of the European Union.
Firstly, it could undermine the freedom of association and of the press, guaranteed under Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Similar restrictions have already been condemned by the EU Court of Justice in Commission v Hungary in 2020.
Secondly, while the fight against foreign interference is a legitimate objective, it cannot result in discriminatory or arbitrary measures against certain civil society actors. The transparency requirement must be applied in a balanced manner and not be instrumentalised for political purposes.
Finally, this move could undermine political pluralism and equality in the democratic debate, values which are enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
Given these risks, does the Commission intend to examine this situation and, if necessary, initiate proceedings against Slovakia to ensure that the EU’s fundamental values are respected?
On 29 November 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a directive amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, to improve protection for travellers and simplify and clarify certain aspects of the current directive. The Commission announced in a 2020 communication on a new consumer agenda that it would look into revising the directive following the turmoil caused by the mass cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposal is the result of two years of stakeholder consultations and a reassessment of the current rules. The main changes focus on securing travellers’ rights and improving insolvency protection. Other key changes include extending the directive’s scope to lay down rules on contracts between package organisers and service providers. In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). After the European elections, a rapporteur was reappointed on 30 September 2024. In the meantime, the Council adopted its negotiating mandate on 18 December 2024. Second edition. The ‘EU Legislation in Progress’ briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure
Question for written answer E-000529/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Sander Smit (PPE), Alexander Bernhuber (PPE)
Recent reports have revealed that non-governmental organisations, funded and instructed by the Commission, have engaged in lobbying activities targeting Members of the European Parliament[1]. Such practices, combined with previous incidents – involving lobbying[2], selective information sharing[3], intimidation[4] and targeted campaigns directed at EU citizens in strategic Member States[5] – raise serious concerns about the separation of powers, institutional balance, transparency, potential Treaty violations[6] and the adequacy of internal codes of conduct[7] as well as impartiality of staff[8]. These developments fuel public distrust in the Commission – in particular in its efforts to combat political interference and disinformation.
1.Will the Commission disclose a full breakdown of expenditures related to legislative proposals and promotional activities, both before and after adoption, including those channelled through third parties?
2.Does the Commission acknowledge that its actions may not only be ‘inappropriate’[9] but could also constitute a violation of the trias politica, EU Treaties and codes of conduct and commit to an independent investigation?
3.Is the Commission considering updating the codes of conduct or introducing an oath of impartiality for all Commission staff or other measures to restore public trust?
Question for written answer E-000502/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Michalis Hadjipantela (PPE)
Cyprus has made significant progress towards accession to the Schengen area, including the successful integration into the Schengen information system (SIS) in 2023, while the first-time Schengen evaluation is currently ongoing. Schengen membership for Cyprus would strengthen EU integration, enhance security cooperation, increase tourism and boost economic growth.
However, challenges remain, particularly regarding the supervision and control of the Green Line separating the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus from the area occupied by Türkiye.
Given these circumstances:
1.How does the Commission assess the progress made by the Republic of Cyprus in fulfilling the technical requirements of Schengen membership, and what key outstanding issues remain?
2.What measures can the Commission design and propose to help the Republic of Cyprus address the challenges related to the Green Line, in line with respecting the EU acquis and the non-recognition of the secessionist entity?
3.What financial support can the Commission provide to Cyprus, taking into account the support received by the latest countries to have joined Schengen, to facilitate its accession to the Schengen area?
Question for written answer E-000514/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE)
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009[1] on plant protection products aims to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment. Adjuvants, used to enhance the ‘efficacy’ of active substances in plant protection products, can increase their toxicity to humans and the environment. They still lack a harmonised risk assessment framework across Member States, as required under Article 58 of the Regulation. Article 58 explicitly mandates the adoption of a regulation detailing ‘data requirements, notification, evaluation, assessment and decision-making procedures’ for the authorisation of adjuvants. Fifteen years after the adoption of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, the Commission has proposed no such regulation.
1.Is the Commission currently working on a proposal to implement Article 58 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009?
2.If so, what is the status of this work? If work is ongoing, can the Commission provide the anticipated timeline for presenting its proposal? If work on a proposal has not yet been initiated, could the Commission justify the delay and provide an estimated timeline for when it plans to initiate it?
Submitted: 5.2.2025
[1] Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj.
Question for written answer E-000516/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Giuseppe Antoci (The Left)
A constitutional bill laying down ‘rules on the judicial system and establishing the High Disciplinary Court’, adopted at first reading[1], introduces changes to a number of the Italian Constitution’s articles.
Article 4 in particular provides for the amendment of Article 105 of the Constitution. It stipulates that disciplinary jurisdiction over magistrati – judges and prosecutors – shall be assigned to a new body called the ‘High Disciplinary Court’[2].
Judgments handed down by the High Disciplinary Court can only be contested before a different panel of the same Court, making it ‘self-referential’ and effectively meaning its decisions are not subject to appeal – a guarantee afforded by all other courts.
Exercised in this way, the Court’s disciplinary power could be used to serve political ends: firstly, because the panel’s composition tips the balance between ‘lay’ and professional judges towards the former – and they will have been chosen at random by politicians; secondly, because, with jurisdiction over disciplinary matters being taken out of the hands of examining judges, they would, despite being on the ‘front line’[3], no longer have any representative to express their views in disciplinary matters.
Disciplinary judgments, which would essentially be unappealable, could be used by politicians to make the judiciary fear the executive power.
Can the Commission say whether the reform to separate the magistrati career paths and establish the High Disciplinary Court complies with the principles of independence and autonomy enshrined in the EU Treaties[4]?
[2] This court will be made up of 15 members: 3 lawyers/university professors appointed by the Italian President and another 3 drawn at random from a specially compiled list (‘lay’ members); and 9 professional magistrati drawn at random (3 prosecutors, 6 judges). It will be presided by a ‘lay’ member.
[3] They are the most vulnerable to political attack for unwelcome investigations and verdicts.
[4] Article 2 TEU and Rule of Law Checklist adopted by the Venice Commission, pp. 39–41.
Question for written answer E-000508/2025 to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Rule 144 Dainius Žalimas (Renew), Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE), Nathalie Loiseau (Renew), Rihards Kols (ECR), Michał Wawrykiewicz (PPE), Michał Szczerba (PPE)
We are writing to urgently address the political and constitutional crisis in Georgia, which is rapidly eroding the country’s democratic future and its European aspirations. The increasing repression faced by independent media outlets and non-governmental organisations in Georgia, including physical violence and psychological pressure on journalists and other activists, underscores the urgency of the situation.
In light of the recent suspension of US foreign aid and the increasing pressures faced by civil society organisations and independent media outlets in Georgia, we respectfully request clarification on the European External Action Service’s planned course of action to ensure the survival of these critical elements of democracy in Georgia.
Specifically:
1.When and in what form does the EU intend to redirect its financial support from the Georgian authorities to Georgian civil society and independent media?
2.What specific measures are being put in place to ensure that this financial support reaches those organisations promptly and effectively, enabling them to continue their vital work during this critical period?
Question for written answer E-000533/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Gaetano Pedulla’ (The Left), Pasquale Tridico (The Left), Dario Tamburrano (The Left), Danilo Della Valle (The Left), Mario Furore (The Left), Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE)
Converted into Law No 67/2024, Decree-Law No 39/2024 amends Decree-Law No 34/2020 (itself converted into Law No 77/2020) and retroactively repeals an acquired right concerning tax credits under the ‘Superbonus’ and ‘Façade Bonus’ schemes.
This law is causing irreparable damage to private taxpayers, companies and professionals by depriving them of their rights to sums that are certain, of a fixed amount and due. Decree-Law No 39/2024 is also causing legal uncertainty and having a knock-on effect on people’s savings as it violates the ESA 2010 Regulation[1] by unilaterally amending its provisions concerning the accounting classification of housing renovation tax credits. In addition, the Decree-Law is penalising those Italian taxpayers who have carried out works under the Superbonus scheme, retroactively depriving them of the possibility of offsetting or transferring their credits, a state of affairs that is causing significant harm to the market and which seriously undermines the principle of competition.
In the light of the above:
1.Does the Commission hold that changing the accounting classification of the tax credits under the Superbonus and Façade Bonus schemes from ‘non-payable’ (as originally established by Decree-Law No 34/2020) to ‘payable’ (Decree-Law No 11/ 2023[2], the Updated 2023 Economic and Finance Document[3], Decree-Law No 39/2024[4]) complies with the provisions laid down by the ESA 2010 Regulation[5]?
2.Does the Commission hold that the retroactive revocation of the right to transfer housing renovation-related tax credits under Law No 67/2024 undermines the EU principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union?
Submitted: 5.2.2025
[1] Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union, Annex A, Points 20.167 and 20.168.
[2] Decree-Law No 11/2023 has retroactive effect on the 2020,2021 and 2022 budgets, which have already been approved.
[4] Though these tax credits are considered to be ‘payable’, Article 131(3b) of Decree-Law No 39/2024 (converted into Law No 67/2024) states that ‘tax credits that were not used in a given year may not be used in the following years, nor can they be deducted from total tax liability’, a provision that is contrary to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013, Annex A, Point 20.167.
[5] This change has likely played a part in increasing Italy’s deficit-to-GDP ratio.
Question for written answer E-000507/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew)
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) recently issued a recommendation (EIOPA-BOS-24-521) addressed to the Financial Supervision Commission, the Bulgarian financial regulator. Material contained in the document is inaccurate and some of it is demonstrably false.
Would the Commission indicate:
1.The origin of the material used in preparing this document.
2.The extent to which Romania’s financial supervisory authority (ASF) was involved in the preparation of the recommendation and the role ASF played in supplying the data and materials used in its preparation.
3.How the current actions of the EIOPA against Euroins Bulgaria can be reconciled with the position taken by the Commission in response to parliamentary questions on Euroins Romania that regulatory actions could only be taken by the Romanian regulator. Does the same principle not apply to Bulgaria?
Question for written answer E-000541/2025 to the Council Rule 144 Georgios Aftias (PPE)
Greece has one of the longest coastlines in the European Union – spanning 14 000 kilometres – and more than 300 islands, most of which have fewer than 50 000 inhabitants.
By that very fact, life on the Greek islands is accompanied by a number of struggles, with increased costs of living, transport and healthcare and a multitude of other problems. Many young people leave the islands, while those who stay face a great number of real difficulties. This troublesome development calls for immediate support for islands in Greece and other countries with the same problem, including through additional funding.
Europe must remain vigilant to ensure the preservation of settlements, the social cohesion of the islands and the connectivity between them. The islands enrich the European image with unique natural beauty, something that all European citizens desire. Therefore, you need to take action right away. After all, our islands shield Europe against a number of threats.
In view of this, can the Council say:
1.Are regional and cohesion funds ready to provide further support for islands?
2.Are you determined to keep our islands’ societies and economies alive?
Source: Switzerland – Department of Foreign Affairs in English
The state secretary of the FDFA, Mr Alexandre Fasel, and his Indian counterpart, Mr Tanmaya Lal, met today in New Delhi for the 13th round of annual bilateral political consultations. These discussions marked an important stage in cooperation between the two countries, focusing on economic relations, environmental challenges and regional and international issues.
Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, spoke for much of the European diplomatic community when she reacted to news of Donald Trump’s phone chat with Vladimir Putin: “This is the way the Trump administration operates,” she declared. “This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality.”
The resigned tone of Baerbock’s words was not matched by her colleague, defence minister Boris Pistorius, whose criticism that “the Trump administration has already made public concessions to Putin before negotiations have even begun” was rather more direct.
Their sentiments were echoed, not only by European leaders, but in the US itself: “Putin Scores a Big Victory, and Not on the Battlefield” read a headline in the New York Times. The newspaper opined that Trump’s call had succeeded in bringing Putin back in from the cold after three years in which Russia had become increasingly isolated both politically and economically.
This was not lost on the Russian media, where commentators boasted that the phone call “broke the west’s blockade”. The stock market gained 5% and the rouble strengthened against the dollar as a result.
Reflecting on the call, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, continued with operation flatter Donald Trump by comparing his attitude favourably with that of his predecessor in the White House, Joe Biden. “The previous US administration held the view that everything needed to be done to keep the war going. The current administration, as far as we understand, adheres to the point of view that everything must be done to stop the war and for peace to prevail.
“We are more impressed with the position of the current administration, and we are open to dialogue.”
Trump’s conversation with Putin roughly coincided with a meeting of senior European defence officials in Brussels which heard the new US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, outline America’s radical new outlook when it comes to European security. Namely that it’s not really America’s problem any more.
Hegseth also told the meeting in Brussels yesterday that the Trump administration’s position is that Nato membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table, that the idea it would get its 2014 borders back was unrealistic and that if Europe wanted to guarantee Ukraine’s security as part of any peace deal, that would be its business. Any peacekeeping force would not involve American troops and would not be a Nato operation, so it would not involve collective defence.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
International security expert David Dunn believes that the fact that Trump considers himself a consummate deal maker makes the fact that his administration is willing to concede so much ground before negotiations proper have even got underway is remarkable. And not in a good way.
Dunn, who specialises in US foreign and security policy at the University of Birmingham, finds it significant that Trump spoke with Putin first and then called Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky to fill him in on the call. This order of priority, says Dunn, is a sign of the subordination of Ukraine’s role in the talks.
He concludes that “for the present at least, it appears that negotiations will be less about pressuring Putin to bring a just end to the war he started than forcing Ukraine to give in to the Russian leader’s demands”.
Hegseth’s briefing to European defence officials, meanwhile, came as little surprise to David Galbreath. Writing here, Galbreath – who specialises in defence and security at the University of Bath – says the US pivot away from a focus on Europe has been years in the making – “since the very end of the cold war”.
There has long been a feeling in Washington that the US has borne too much of the financial burden for European security. This is not just a Donald Trump thing, he believes, but an attitude percolating in US security circles for some decades. Once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the focus for Nato become not so much collective defence as collective security, where “conflict would be managed on Nato’s borders”.
But it was then the US which invoked article 5 of the Nato treaty, which establishes that “an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”. The Bush government invoked Article 5 the day after the 9/11 attacks and Nato responded by patrolling US skies to provide security.
Pete Hegseth dashes Ukraine’s hopes of a future guaranteed by Nato.
Galbreath notes that many European countries, particularly the newer ones such as Estonia and Latvia, sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. “The persistent justification I heard in the Baltic states was “we need to be there when the US needs us so that they will be there when we need them”.
The prospect of a profound shift in the world order are daunting after 80 years in which security – in Europe certainly – was guaranteed by successive US administrations and underpinned, not just by Nato but by a whole set of international agreements.
Now, instead of the US acting as the “world’s policeman”, we have a president talking seriously about taking control of Greenland, one way or another, who won’t rule out using force to seize the Panama Canal and who dreams of turning Gaza into a coastal “riviera” development.
Meanwhile Russia is engaged in a brutal war of conquest in Ukraine and is actively meddling in the affairs of several other countries. And in China, Xi Jinping regularly talks up the idea of reunifying with Taiwan, by force if necessary, and is fortifying islands in the South China Sea with a view to aggressively pursuing territorial claims there as well.
And we thought the age of empires was in the rear view mirror, writes historian Eric Storm of Leiden University. Storm, whose speciality is the rise of nation states, has discerned a resurgence of imperial tendencies around the world and fears that the rules-based order that has dominated the decades since the second world war now appears increasingly tenuous.
In any given week, you’d expect the imminent prospect of the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire to be the big international story. And certainly, while Trump and Putin were “flooding the zone” (see last week’s round-up for the origins of this phrase) the prospects of the deal lasting beyond its first phase have become more and more uncertain.
Hamas has recently pulled back from its threat not to release any more hostages. Earlier in the week it threatened to call a halt to the hostage-prisoner exchange, claiming that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had breached the terms of the ceasefire deal. Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded – with Trump’s backing – saying that unless all hostages were released on Saturday, all bets were off and the IDF would resume its military operations in the Gaza Strip. Trump added that “all hell is going to break out”.
The US president has also doubled down on his idea for a redeveloped Gaza and has continued to pressure Jordan and Egypt to accept millions of Palestinian refugees. This, as you would expect, has not made the population of Gaza feel any more secure.
Nils Mallock and Jeremy Ginges, behavioural psychologists at the London School of Economics, were in the region last month and conducted a survey of Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza to get a feel for how the two populations regard each other. It makes for depressing reading.
The number of Israelis who reject the idea of a two-state solution has risen sharply since the October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas, from 46% to 62%. And roughly the same proportion of people in Gaza can now no longer envisage living side by side with Israelis. Both sides think that the other side is motivated by hatred, something which is known to make any diplomatic solution less feasible.
We also asked Scott Lucas, a Middle East specialist at University College Dublin, to assess the likelihood of the ceasefire lasting into phase two, which is when the IDF is supposed to pull out of Gaza, allowing the people there room to being to rebuild, both physically and in terms of governance.
He responded with a hollow laugh and a shake of the head, before sending us this digest of the key developments in the Middle East crisis this week.
We’ve become very used to seeing apocalyptic photos of the devastation of Gaza: the pulverised streets, choked with rubble, that make the idea of rebuilding seem so remote. But the people of Gaza also cultivated a huge amount of crops – about half the food they ate was grown there. Gazan farmers grew tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and strawberries in open fields as well as cultivating olive and citrus trees.
Geographers Lina Eklund, He Yin and Jamon Van Den Hoek have analysed satellite images across the Gaza Strip over the past 17 months to work out the scale of agricultural destruction. It makes for terrifying reading.
Members of The Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee today (Thursday 13 February) had the chance to discuss and review the Council’s response to the Ofgem Call for Evidence review of its regulatory remit, enforcement powers and consumer protections.
Chair of Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee, Cllr Ken Gowans, said: “Highland Council’s response to the Ofgem Call for Evidence emphasises the unique challenges and opportunities in the Highlands. This is a region where renewable energy production far exceeds local demand, but which also experiences the UK’s highest energy costs and significant infrastructure constraints.
“The Council’s response highlighted the need for increased funding and investment in infrastructure and community energy projects within the Highlands. We look forward to continuing our close engagement and collaboration with Ofgem and other stakeholders to ensure the Council’s recommendations are incorporated into the regulatory review process.”
In December 2024, the UK Government launched a review of the energy regulator to strengthen the retail energy market, protect consumers and households from poor service and ensure Ofgem can meet ongoing energy challenges in a dynamic and evolving market.
Members agreed to endorse the Council’s recommendations for enhanced regional equity, improved consumer protections and streamlined regulatory processes. Members also agreed that continued engagement with Ofgem and other stakeholders is critical to addressing the systemic challenges faced by the Highlands in energy pricing and infrastructure development.
Members of The Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee have unanimously endorsed the Regional Economic Strategy produced by the Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership.
The Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership (HIREP) is a partnership of public, private, third sector and academic organisations, working together to realise the regions’ economic potential in a sustainable and inclusive way. Itwas established in 2021 to enable inclusive and sustainable economic growth and build resilience throughout the region, by identifying and focussing on areas of joint strategic purpose to provide co-ordinated action in pursuit of regional growth opportunities and to address shared challenges.
Chair of the Committee, Councillor Ken Gowans said: “Scottish and UK Governments have acknowledged that the Highlands and Islands have a vital role to play in terms of meeting climate change targets and supporting the shift to clean, green sources of energy. To do this effectively we need a strong collaborative approach to make such that during transformational change we can maximise the economic and social benefits for our communities and businesses in all parts of the region.
“The strategy focusses on areas where working together is the most effective and efficient means to generate maximum impact and benefit. It captures strong, clear objectives that focus on fostering innovation, business resilience, and sustainable communities. It also highlights the critical role of high-quality, affordable housing, efficient transport and digital infrastructure, and the region’s leadership in transitioning to net zero.
“We welcomed the opportunity to review the Strategy to ensure not only it is robust and well-informed, but also that it aligns with our objectives while addressing key points of difference. In doing so we are keen to point out that all agencies need to work together. There needs to be recognition of the roles and responsibilities of other public sector partners.
“The next stage is the preparation of the delivery plan but in the meantime, the Committee endorses the overall focus of the strategy and as a HIREP partner, we will continue to work on our own plans and strategies that feed into and deliver at regional or sub regional level.”
The strategy supported by the Committee today focuses on harnessing growth opportunities, fostering innovation, improving infrastructure, and advancing a just transition to net zero. It outlines the following six core goals:
1.Increase the profile and understanding of the Highlands and Islands to support effective policy and unlock regional investment.
2.Become a region which delivers high quality and affordable housing for residents.
3.Enhance the region’s transport and digital infrastructure to become and exemplar of efficient rural connectivity.
4.Build resilience and competitiveness through place-based opportunities and stimulating an active culture of entrepreneurship and innovation.
5.Maximise the economic and community benefits from renewable energy investments and drive the regions move to net zero and climate resilience and adaption.
6.Develop a co-ordinated response to skills and labour requirements across the region.
Additionally, four cross-cutting themes are highlighted throughout the strategy: –
Members of The Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee have approved an updated Local Transport Strategy, following stakeholder engagement work last year, and have given officers the green light to go forward with the development of the Delivery Plan.
The Local Transport Strategy sets out the future policy direction and focus for how The Highland Council will maintain, manage and improve the transport system in Highland over the 10-year period from 2025 to 2035. It covers the movement of people and goods and considers all modes of transport across Highland.
Chair of the Committee, Councillor Ken Gowans said: “Firstly I want to sincerely thank everyone who took part in the public consultation we held last year. This includes all stakeholders, community groups, organisations and the members of the public who attended drop-in events and used the on-line survey to pass on their suggestions and comments. Their very valuable input has helped us move forward.
“Highland faces significant transport challenges because of our huge geographical area and scattered population. The Strategy underpins the future direction and policy focus for transport in Highland and aligns with broader local policies, including planning, economic development, environmental, and health initiatives, as well as Scottish national and regional strategies. Our Local Transport Strategy covers all modes of transport and the differing needs of our rural areas and our varied settlements.
“The vision of this strategy is that our communities, businesses and visitors in Highland will be served by a low carbon transport system that is sustainable, inclusive, safe, resilient and accessible. I’m delighted that we can now move forward to the next step which is the creation of the Delivery Plan that will set out how the vision will be achieved.”
Members of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee have had the opportunity to be updated on progress being made for the Community Wealth Building action plan when they met today. They have given their backing to a stand-alone Highland Social Value Charter update report coming to their May 2025 committee.
Last year public opinion was sought during a 12 week on a draft strategy previously approved by Councillors in March 2024. Feedback from this engagement has informed a revised version of the strategy and action plan which sets out a 3-year vision for taking forward and embedding the Council’s approach to Community Wealth Building.
Chair of Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee, Cllr Ken Gowans, said: “Our Community Wealth Building Strategy provides an alternative approach to economic development and a practical response that aims to keep wealth within a local area. Often described as a ‘people-centred approach to economic development’ it is about ensuring every area and community can participate in, and benefit from, economic activity. “
The Council will deliver its vision through five key objectives that align with five pillars of community wealth building. These objectives are headed as: ‘Spending’, ‘Fair Employment’, ‘Land and Property’, ‘Financial Power’, and ‘Inclusive Ownership’.
Members of The Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee have agreed the council’s response to the National Speed Limit Review Transport Scotland is currently running on behalf of the Scottish Government. The review seeks views on proposed changes to speed limits in Scotland. In their response they make it clear that they do not support a reduction to 50mph.
Two options have been proposed in the consultation documentation namely, no change to existing speed limits or to reduce the national speed limit on single carriageway roads from 60 mph to 50 mph and increase the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) over 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight from 40 mph to 50 mph on single carriageways and from 50 mph to 60 mph on dual carriageways.
Committee Chair, Councillor Ken Gowans said: “We welcomed this opportunity to discuss and agree our position with regards to this consultation. In our response we do not support a reduction to 50mph. We are recommending no change to the existing national speed limit on 60mph single-carriageway roads and we support the proposal to increase speed limits for goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single carriageways from 40mph to 50mph and dual carriageways from 50mph to 60mph.”
“Considering the significant road network and the geographic spread of the Highland Council Area, we felt that these proposals to reduce the national speed limit could have a significant impact on the daily lives of people in terms of journey time. We note from the consultation covering letter that prior to the consultation issue analysis from the review indicates that these speed limit changes maintain journey times and enhance journey time reliability. We would welcome sight of this analysis as it is particularly pertinent to the Highland Region, particular interest would be any analysis undertaken for rural areas.”
Taking into account the geographical nature of the Highland Council Area, the key points outlined in Highland Councils response for recommending no change to the existing national speed limit on 60mph single-carriageway roads are:-
Considering the significant length of national speed limit road network and remoteness of the Highland Council Area it is felt that a change in speed limit, particularly on our A class single carriageway roads, could have a significant impact on our rural communities. In particular in relation to Driver Behaviour and Local Businesses/Highland Economy.
In terms of driver behaviour, increased frustration or impatience could potentially lead to more aggressive driving or risky overtaking manoeuvres. Setting inappropriate speed limits can lead to drivers ignoring them which has consequences in terms of wider speed compliance.
In economic terms, in particular relating of journey times, there is concern re the impact a reduced speed limit will have on local businesses e.g., businesses in time-sensitive sectors, may face challenges with supply chain logistics and increased operational costs. The consultation states journey times would be maintained, evidence of this has been requested in the consultation response for rural areas.
Councillor Gowans added: “We are also highlighting in our response that any changes in speed limit would have an impact on policing resources and would need to be supported by a national media campaign.”
As part of the current consultation Transport Scotland held a drop-in event on 30 January in Ullapool and another at the WASPS Creative Academy in Inverness on 5 February. A further Highland session will take place in Portree Community Centre from 3pm – 7pm on Thursday 20 February.
Members of The Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee today welcomed a presentation from the Gro For You project, a pioneering community innovation campus in Tain.
Sarah MacKenzie, Co-Founder and CEO, shared plans for the new community project, which is due to open in autumn 2025, alongside fellow Co-Founder and Finance Director, Richard Jones and Centre Director, Ashley Ross.
Chair of Highland Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee, Cllr Ken Gowans, said: “Today’s presentation was a fantastic opportunity for the committee to hear more about this pioneering project which has the potential to address important regional challenges and boost the local economy through employability, education and tourism. We wish the team continued success with their mission to support sustainable communities in Tain and beyond.”
Sarah MacKenzie, CEO, said: “Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to talk about Gro For You. We are seeing first-hand the challenges faced by young people in rural communities and hope that a transformational innovation campus will be of great benefit to our local communities and future generations by providing accessible training and learning opportunities, transferable skills for young people and community facilities.” Campus assets will include growing domes, sensory gardens and play area, a community café and hospitality training centre, outdoor kitchen, electric vehicle charging points, motorhome waste disposal, ground mounted solar panels, a rewilding zone and a rainwater harvesting system.
An 8% rent increase has been agreed for council homes this year, in order to meet increasing costs and the need to provide future housing options while keeping rent affordable for tenants.
Highland Council rents remain well below the national average for social landlords and significantly below private rented sector rents. The average Highland Council rent on a 52-week rental charge basis for 2024/25 is £82.84 per week, compared to the average of £98.99 per week for all Council and Housing Association landlords.
Cllr Glynis Campbell Sinclair, Housing and Property Chair said: “It’s important that we consider the impacts involved when examining options for rent increases and that our approach is a balanced one. A key part of this decision-making process is consulting directly with our tenants to learn more on how an increase may impact them and also what their priorities are for the service we are currently delivering.”
Feedback from this year’s tenant consultation has prioritised investment in the current estate such as cyclical maintenance, grounds maintenance and energy efficiency works, including new windows and doors and insulation. However, services are almost exclusively funded through income received from rents and the service charges paid by Council house tenants. The Council must therefore balance the required expenses against the expected income to be able to effectively deliver on the priorities vocalised by tenants.
Councillor Campbell Sinclair said: “As voiced by tenants, the change to council rents will be invested in housing stock on improvements like new windows and insulation. This will not only benefit tenants financially with the potential for reduced energy bills but also health wise with warmer, well insulated properties.”
She continued: “The Council also appreciates and understands the challenges facing tenants related to the cost of living. Our housing and welfare teams work closely together to deliver support to tenants who need it most, and I would encourage anyone who may be struggling to reach out to them.”
Further details on help with the cost of living can be found on the Council’s website.
“1,000 Letters and 15,000 Kisses” screamed the headline in an 1898 edition of the English newspaper, the Halifax Evening Courier.
Harriet Ann McLean, a 32-year-old laundry maid, was suing Francis Charles Matthews, a green grocer, for reneging on the promise of marriage.
Over a decade-long courtship, Harriet had received 1,030 letters containing 15,000 crosses – kisses – from her “loving, precious, future husband Frank”.
By 1898, using a cross for a kiss was commonplace for British letter writers – particularly those of the more “ordinary” variety: the increasingly literate servants, tradesmen and shop workers whose love notes drew laughter when their imploding relationships brought them to court.
The symbol grew in popularity in the following decades, yet its origins have remained obscure.
X marks the spot (of the kiss)
Some three decades after Harriet won her suit, someone wrote a letter to Melbourne’s The Sun News asking if its readers knew the origins of using an X for a kiss.
One correspondent proposed the X resembled the lips of two people kissing. Another thought “the cross marks the spot” where the author had imprinted a kiss for the recipient.
One reader suggested the cross marks the spot where the writer imprinted a kiss. Trove
The following year, a more confidently penned and rapidly reprinted piece claimed the origins lay in the centuries-old practice of those with low literacy using an X in place of a signature. The article argued that, after marking a document with X, the signee kissed the page as a pledge of good faith, and so the X came to be associated with a kiss.
This account was to become popular, being rolled out by journalists many times over the following decades. And it may contain some truth. The laundry maids and green grocers who popularised the X as a kiss in their love notes were part of a newly literate community in the 19th century, for whom using an X as a signature was likely familiar.
However, their 17th and 18th century ancestors had not behaved similarly in their iconography of love. Marks of love on convict tokens, tattoos and the scrappy documents that survive tended to take the form of hearts, crossed Cupid’s arrows and interlinking initials. The cross as a kiss was nowhere to be found.
The kiss had an important role in European culture. The holy kiss, once a mouth kiss shared by congregants in church, allowed for the mingling of spirits and the creation of a uniform Christian body.
Similarly, kisses of fealty (also on the mouth) formed part of a ritual that established a contract between superiors who held land, and their vassals who rented it. This tradition was carried well into the 16th century.
The lovers’ kiss also had many of the above meanings – a kiss of love, loyalty and unity of spirit.
As such, sending kisses in letters had been common among Europeans for centuries, but was usually done in written form. “I send you a thousand kiss’s”, wrote poet Judith Madan to her husband in 1728.
Kisses marked intimacy but could also be delivered to children and friends. As English letter writer Rebecca Cooper dispatched to her sister Catherine Elliott in 1764, “love to all friends not forgetting my sweet boy with fifty kisses”.
Wax dots and ink splots
Using a cross to symbolise a kiss was not unprecedented. Lovers had used ink splots, wax drippings, or drawings to send secret messages to a beloved from at least the 16th century. But at the time these signs were usually personalised and only interpretable by the intended recipient (or especially persistent historians).
Using specific marks to represent kisses became more fashionable and recognisable during the Victorian period, starting from around the mid-19th century.
The detective in an 1850 Charles Dicken’s short story tracked his suspect by a wax dot he left on his envelopes – a kiss for the recipient.
Similarly, in 1862 the jury for the “Hopley v. Hurst” breach of promise of marriage suit heard that the defendant’s letters to his future bride contained “spots of ink” at the bottom, each representing a kiss.
In 1871, William Steward of Montrose, Scotland, used “a number of crosses and small circles” at the bottom of a letter to his lover, according to the trial report in the Western Times.
The cross as a kiss – initially just one of many symbols used for this purpose – grew in use until it became the predominant choice by the 20th century.
During the second world war, the cross was even briefly banned by the military censors in Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, due to worries it could be used to send illicit information.
The cross was found across the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland in the early years of its use. It eventually spread to the rest of the Anglophone world, but made less headway on the European continent, where lovers continued to write their kisses out in full.
As the symbol’s popularity grew, so did the mythology and theories around it – its more mundane origin among working-class lovers forgotten.
Katie Barclay receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council has unanimously agreed a district rate increase of 3.91% for the incoming financial year (2025-26).
For the average household in the borough with a Capital Value of £110,000 this represents an additional 42 pence per week (or £1.81 per month) and reflects the new budget set for 2025-26, to operate and maintain vital public services and deliver a significant capital investment programme across the borough. For a business in the borough with a NAV of £50,000 the increase is approximately £49 per month.
The increase takes into account external financial challenges and cost pressures associated with the rate of inflation, the continued volatility with energy costs and rising staffing costs following the national pay increase. To mitigate against rising costs, council has set a savings plan of £2.7m through a critical budget review and agreed efficiencies programme.
Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, Councillor Sarah Duffy said,
“The council has meticulously set a rate that strikes a balance between addressing external financial pressures and maintaining essential public services while continuing vital investment in our communities, towns, and villages.
“This budget will support economic growth, deliver a robust capital investment programme, and keep the financial impact on our ratepayers as low as possible.”
The rate set is used to finance local public services including refuse collections and waste disposal, recycling centres, leisure, tourism, and community facilities, as well as other key planning and building control services, and an annual events programme to support the local economy and boost civic pride.
Deputy Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, Councillor Kyle Savage said,
“Significant efforts have been made through the efficiencies programme to reduce the impact on residents and businesses.
“I would like to commend both members and council officers for their diligence in setting the lowest achievable rate.”
Key investment projects include the completion of a £6 million public realm scheme in Banbridge Town Centre with a further £3.2 million to expand the FE McWilliam Gallery due to commence this year. An extended borough-wide Empty to Occupied scheme to bring vacant commercial properties back into sustainable use, along with £4 million to enhance rural villages and small settlements including an environmental improvement scheme due to commence this year in Markethill, Rathfriland and Gilford.
Continued investment for community and wellbeing facilities remains a priority with £1.8 million earmarked for remedial works at the Orchard Leisure Centre, to support service delivery as plans are progressed for a future new build leisure facility in Armagh.
The investment of £2.1 million will deliver the council’s play strategy to develop and upgrade play parks across the borough, as well as £6 million for pitches, parks and open spaces and a further £2.5 million to enhance community centre provision in Lurgan.
Rates bills are made up of two parts – the local district rate which pays for council services and the regional rate which pays for services provided by central government. The regional rate has yet to be agreed.
As part of our ongoing refurbishment of North Bridge, there will be a northbound closure for six weeks from Monday 17 February.
During this period traffic will only be permitted to proceed southbound (from Princes Street towards South Bridge).
The six-week closure is to undertake resurfacing on both the southbound approach to the bridge (both lanes outside Waverley Gate toward Princes Street) and the southbound departure of the bridge (both lanes from the entrance to the Hilton Edinburgh Carlton on North Bridge to the junction at High Street).
The wider work on North Bridge has included refurbishing the cast iron bridge facades, grit blasting and repainting structural steelwork, repairing and improving the footway paving and underdrainage amongst a host of other improvements. A full list of the improvements and the wider project benefits is on our website.
We’re targeting the end of this year for the end of major repair works.
Transport and Environment Convener, Councillor Stephen Jenkinson said:
I appreciate this temporary closure will be frustrating for our residents and businesses. I want to thank them for their continued patience as we carry out these essential works.
These works are part of the wider project to restore this crucial link between the north and south of the city – and of course preserve it for future generations.
I’m conscious that this work is taking longer to complete than we had initially anticipated, but this is this a hugely complex project, with the historic nature of the bridge requiring painstaking and specialist work to restore it to its former glory.
Decolonization is not the end of a journey, but the first step on a new path, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said today as the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples began its 2025 Session.
Opening the session, Mr. Guterres — speaking via a message delivered by Courtney Rattray, his Chef de Cabinet — pointed out that even after achieving decolonization, countries still need to grapple with the legacies of being oppressed, which range from chronic institutional underinvestment to profound imbalances and discrimination. He also recalled how liberation movements in Portuguese colonies transformed societies, adding that decolonization has been one of the defining causes of his own political journey.
The path to decolonization requires collaboration between Non-Self-Governing Territories, administering Powers and Member States, he said, calling for more dialogue and constructive discussions. “Resilience and adaption need to be at the heart” of these discussions, he said, because most Non-Self-Governing Territories are small islands at the front line of the climate crisis.
Menissa Rambally (Saint Lucia), who was re-elected as Chair for this session, noted that 2025 marks the midpoint of the fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. “Let us move forward with determination and unity, inspired by the resilience and aspirations of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories,” she said. Recalling the Special Committee’s visiting mission to the British Virgin Islands in August 2024, she thanked the United Kingdom and the Government and people of the British Virgin Islands for their cooperation.
Timor-Leste to Host Regional Seminar
She also thanked the Government and people of Timor-Leste for their willingness to host this year’s regional seminar. The Committee then approved the Government of that country as host of the 2025 Pacific regional seminar from 21 to 23 May in Dili, while noting that the seminar is traditionally held to coincide with the annual observance of the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories — 25 to 31 May.
The Special Committee also heard from the representative of Timor-Leste, who said he was “deeply honoured by the trust” vested in his country. It not merely an honour, but a responsibility, as well, he said, welcoming it as a recognition of his nation’s resilience. “We stand ready to provide a nurturing and inspiring environment for dialogue, reflection and strategic planning,” he said, noting that preparations are underway. Noting that wisdom and patience are needed for transformative change, he looked forward to the day when decolonization is not just a goal but a lived reality.
Report of Visiting Mission to British Virgin Islands
The Chair then introduced the report of the visiting mission to the British Virgin Islands (document A/AC.109/2025/20), noting that it was held from 26 to 27 August 2024, and included meetings with a broad range of civil society representatives. Highlighting the “exceptional dialogue” with territorial Government, the people of the Territory and the administering Power, she said that the mission identified a need for improved education on decolonization so that the people can make informed decisions about their future. The mission also noted a growing consensus to advance the decolonization process, she said, adding that the United Kingdom and United Nations remain essential to facilitating this.
The representative of Antigua and Barbuda also recalled the visiting mission and described it as “a major step in giving a voice to the islanders”. Highlighting the relationship between the British Virgin Islands and his country, as well as the wider Caribbean community, he noted that the mission met with a wide cross-section of the Islands’ population. Many people expressed the need for developing self-Government arrangements and shared openly about the process that would be required. “They are aware of the challenge ahead” and they know what they need, he said, stressing the need for continued engagement between the British Virgin Islands and the United Kingdom.
The representatives of Papua New Guinea and Iraq welcomed the recommendations in the report of the visiting mission, while Saint Lucia’s delegate noted the role of education in promoting self-determination.
Committee Members Reaffirm Commitment to Decolonization
Committee members, including the representatives of Syria, Bolivia, India and Sierra Leone, also took the opportunity to reaffirm commitment to decolonization. The representative of Indonesia, recalling the Bandung Conference of 1955, held in his country, underscored the need to avoid a “one-size-fits-all approach”.
Cuba’s delegate expressed support for self-determination for “the brotherly people of Puerto Rico”. Though colonialism was abolished practically everywhere in the second half of the twentieth century, it prevails in new modes, he pointed out. Nicaragua’s delegate called for more extensive participation from Non-Self-Governing Territories in the regional seminars.
Fiji’s delegate said the prime consideration in self-determination is the will of the people. “If we look at recent history, in the last 65 years,” he said, it is clear that it is more important to enable Non-Self-Governing Territories to be self-governing “and then we help them”. The process of helping them meet the conditions for self-determination is not going to work, he cautioned, stressing that the process should be driven by “the determination of the human beings involved.”
Committee Elects Bureau and Approve Work Programme
Also today, the Special Committee elected its Bureau by acclamation, electing Ernesto Soberón Guzmán (Cuba), Hari Prabowo (Indonesia) and Michael Imran Kanu (Sierra Leone) as Vice-Chairs. Koussay Aldahhak (Syria) was re-elected as Rapporteur.
Members also approved their “Organization of work: relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly” (document A/AC.109/2025/L.1) and tentative work programme and timetable (document A/AC.109/2025/L.2), as orally revised.
Commenting on the outcome of the evaluation of the cooperation, Representative of Denmark at Eurojust, Ms Kirstine Troldborg, and Liaison Prosecutor for Norway, Mr Rudolf Christoffersen jointly, said: This really shows the importance of long-term judicial cooperation across borders between national authorities. Only by closely working together via Eurojust, we can really tackle major criminal networks and get justice done. The support of the Agency to our joint investigation team has been instrumental in getting these impressive results.
Investigations at national level in both countries showed that a well-structured organised crime group (OCG) trafficked large quantities of different kinds of illicit drugs to Denmark and Norway from Morocco via Spain. In order to tackle the OCG at large, judicial authorities in Denmark and Norway decided to set up a dedicated JIT in 2019, with financial, logistical and operational support from Eurojust.
Over the five-year period, this not only resulted in the total of 1 037 years of prison sentences being imposed, but also in the seizure of over 9 600 kilos of cannabis, around 675 kilos of cocaine, 355 kilos of amphetamine, 77 kilos of synthetic drugs and 41 kilos of heroin across the two countries.
Also, both in Denmark and Norway, various firearms, several apartments and other real estate, a vehicle, a boat, a motorbike and luxury watches, as well as cash and cryptocurrencies, were seized, with a total estimated value of EUR 15.6 million.
The following authorities were involved in the coordination of the operations against the OCG in both countries:
Denmark: National Special Crime Unit; Attached Prosecution Service to National Special Crime Unit
Norway: Norwegian National Criminal Investigation Service
In view of Protocol 22 of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, the EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice does not apply to Denmark. Since the entry into force of the Eurojust Regulation in December 2019, Denmark no longer has a National Member at Eurojust, but a Representative. Norway is one of twelve countries* with a Liaison Prosecutor at Eurojust that can open requests for judicial cooperation to authorities in EU Member States and vice versa, via Eurojust.
*The other countries with Liaison Prosecutors at Eurojust are: Albania, Georgia, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The global secretariat of the Global Validation Advisory Committee (GVAC) on the validation of elimination of mother-to-child transmission and elimination of viral hepatitis B and C as a public health problem has considered the appointment of four new members to the Committee. The new members bring expertise crucial to viral hepatitis C elimination to the GVAC. With these appointments, the Global Validation Secretariat bolsters the capacity of the GVAC to conduct its mission for assessing whether countries have met the criteria for validation of hepatitis elimination as a public health problem.
The new members are:
Dr Kimberly Green, Global Director for Primary Health Care (PHC), PATH, United States of America. Dr Green will bring expertise in prevention and service delivery of viral hepatitis.
Ms Rachel Halford, Chief Executive Officer, The Hepatitis C Trust, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ms Halford will bring expertise in civil society, human rights, community engagement and lived experience of hepatitis C.
Dr Ajeet Singh Bhadoria, Additional Professor, Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India. Dr Singh Bhadoria will bring expertise in epidemiology of liver diseases, patient care and services for viral hepatitis.
Dr Ibou Thior, Senior Technical Adviser, PATH, United States of America. Dr Thior will bring expertise in viral hepatitis research, blood safety and injection safety for prevention of hepatitis C.
To enhance WHO’s management of conflicts of interest, as well as strengthen public trust and transparency in connection with WHO advisory groups involving the provision of technical advice, the names and brief biographies of individuals being considered for assignment to WHO advisory groups are disclosed for public notice and comment.
The comments received by WHO through the public notice and comment process are treated confidentially and their receipt will be acknowledged through a generic email notification to the sender. Comments and perceptions brought to the attention of WHO through this process are an integral component of WHO’s conflict of interest assessment policy and are carefully reviewed. WHO reserves the right to discuss information received through this process with the relevant expert with no attribution to the provider of such information. Upon review and assessment of the information received through this process, WHO, in its sole discretion, may take appropriate management action in accordance with its policies.
The list of participating experts, a summary of relevant interests disclosed by such experts, and any appropriate mitigation measures taken by WHO relating to the management of conflicts of interests, will be reported publicly in accordance with WHO practice.
The deadline for public comments is 24 February 2025. Please send your comment to gvacsecretariat@who.int with subject: Public comments on new GVAC members.
Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an American subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier, along with three of its current and former employees, have been charged federally with crimes related to a scheme to illegally export aircraft parts and components from the United States to Russia and Russian airline companies without the required licenses from the Department of Commerce.
The three individuals charged include Daniela Friery, 43, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in Loveland, Ohio; Pavil Iglin, 46, a citizen of Russia who currently resides in Florida pursuant to a non-immigrant visa; and Marat Aysin, 39, a legal permanent resident of the United States who currently resides in Florida.
According to the 11-count indictment unsealed today, the three defendants worked for Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an aircraft equipment supplier with office locations near West Chester, Ohio, and Miami.
As alleged in the indictment, following Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Flighttime and the individual defendants knowingly and willfully violated and evaded the export restrictions imposed on Russia to ship aviation parts to Russia and Russian end users, including airlines subject to Department of Commerce Temporary Denial Orders, by mislabeling shipments, providing false certifications, and using intermediary companies and countries to obscure the true end destination and end users. The indictment details four specific export transactions totaling more than $2 million.
For example, in June 2022, Flighttime employees allegedly negotiated the purchase of an auxiliary power unit from an American supplier for $395,000. The U.S. supplier initially expressed hesitation about the transaction due to the company’s connections to Russia. In connection with the purchase, Aysin falsely told the American supplier that the part would be used to replenish stock in West Chester. Through Aysin, Iglin allegedly signed and dated a Russia end-user certificate with the supplier falsely certifying that the part would not be exported to Russia. The part was thereafter illegally exported to Russia for a Russian aviation company without the required license.
The company and three defendants are each charged with one count of conspiring to violate the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), and multiple counts of violating the ECRA, which are federal crimes punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
They are also charged with conspiracy to commit smuggling, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and multiple counts of smuggling, which carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison. Finally, they are each charged with one count of conspiring to launder monetary instruments, a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker for the Southern District of Ohio; Special Agent in Charge Elena Iatarola of the FBI Cincinnati Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Levine of the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the case.
The FBI and BIS are investigating the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy S. Mangan for the Southern District of Ohio is prosecuting the case with assistance from Trial Attorneys Maria Fedor and Menno Goedman of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an American subsidiary of a Russian aircraft parts supplier, along with three of its current and former employees, have been charged federally with crimes related to a scheme to illegally export aircraft parts and components from the United States to Russia and Russian airline companies without the required licenses from the Department of Commerce.
The three individuals charged include Daniela Friery, 43, a naturalized U.S. citizen residing in Loveland, Ohio; Pavil Iglin, 46, a citizen of Russia who currently resides in Florida pursuant to a non-immigrant visa; and Marat Aysin, 39, a legal permanent resident of the United States who currently resides in Florida.
According to the 11-count indictment unsealed today, the three defendants worked for Flighttime Enterprises Inc., an aircraft equipment supplier with office locations near West Chester, Ohio, and Miami.
As alleged in the indictment, following Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Flighttime and the individual defendants knowingly and willfully violated and evaded the export restrictions imposed on Russia to ship aviation parts to Russia and Russian end users, including airlines subject to Department of Commerce Temporary Denial Orders, by mislabeling shipments, providing false certifications, and using intermediary companies and countries to obscure the true end destination and end users. The indictment details four specific export transactions totaling more than $2 million.
For example, in June 2022, Flighttime employees allegedly negotiated the purchase of an auxiliary power unit from an American supplier for $395,000. The U.S. supplier initially expressed hesitation about the transaction due to the company’s connections to Russia. In connection with the purchase, Aysin falsely told the American supplier that the part would be used to replenish stock in West Chester. Through Aysin, Iglin allegedly signed and dated a Russia end-user certificate with the supplier falsely certifying that the part would not be exported to Russia. The part was thereafter illegally exported to Russia for a Russian aviation company without the required license.
The company and three defendants are each charged with one count of conspiring to violate the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), and multiple counts of violating the ECRA, which are federal crimes punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
They are also charged with conspiracy to commit smuggling, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and multiple counts of smuggling, which carry maximum penalties of 10 years in prison. Finally, they are each charged with one count of conspiring to launder monetary instruments, a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker for the Southern District of Ohio; Special Agent in Charge Elena Iatarola of the FBI Cincinnati Field Office; and Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Levine of the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced the case.
The FBI and BIS are investigating the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy S. Mangan for the Southern District of Ohio is prosecuting the case with assistance from Trial Attorneys Maria Fedor and Menno Goedman of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with the interim President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
The Prime Minister offered congratulations on the success of ending the Assad regime, which inflicted decades of suffering on the Syrian people. He underscored that Canada continues to stand with Syrians in their pursuit of a more just and inclusive society, noting Canada has welcomed over 100,000 refugees since 2015. Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly and Special Envoy Alghabra are currently attending the International Conference on Syria in Paris, France, where they will discuss how the international community can support the Syrian people in re-building their country.
Prime Minister Trudeau and interim President al-Sharaa agreed on the importance of an inclusive political process to ensure lasting peace and stability for all Syrians. The Prime Minister underscored the importance of protecting human rights, including women and minority communities, as well as establishing good governance for Syria. He also emphasized Canada’s support for the immediate delivery of assistance and to facilitate the delivery of aid into Syria to support its redevelopment efforts. Both acknowledged the challenges of the current sanctions and efforts undertaken by the transitional government to put Syria on the path towards future success.
The two leaders looked forward to a new chapter for Syria, and they agreed to remain in contact.
Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, spoke for much of the European diplomatic community when she reacted to news of Donald Trump’s phone chat with Vladimir Putin: “This is the way the Trump administration operates,” she declared. “This is not how others do foreign policy, but this is now the reality.”
The resigned tone of Baerbock’s words was not matched by her colleague, defence minister Boris Pistorius, whose criticism that “the Trump administration has already made public concessions to Putin before negotiations have even begun” was rather more direct.
Their sentiments were echoed, not only by European leaders, but in the US itself: “Putin Scores a Big Victory, and Not on the Battlefield” read a headline in the New York Times. The newspaper opined that Trump’s call had succeeded in bringing Putin back in from the cold after three years in which Russia had become increasingly isolated both politically and economically.
This was not lost on the Russian media, where commentators boasted that the phone call “broke the west’s blockade”. The stock market gained 5% and the rouble strengthened against the dollar as a result.
Reflecting on the call, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, continued with operation flatter Donald Trump by comparing his attitude favourably with that of his predecessor in the White House, Joe Biden. “The previous US administration held the view that everything needed to be done to keep the war going. The current administration, as far as we understand, adheres to the point of view that everything must be done to stop the war and for peace to prevail.
“We are more impressed with the position of the current administration, and we are open to dialogue.”
Trump’s conversation with Putin roughly coincided with a meeting of senior European defence officials in Brussels which heard the new US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, outline America’s radical new outlook when it comes to European security. Namely that it’s not really America’s problem any more.
Hegseth also told the meeting in Brussels yesterday that the Trump administration’s position is that Nato membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table, that the idea it would get its 2014 borders back was unrealistic and that if Europe wanted to guarantee Ukraine’s security as part of any peace deal, that would be its business. Any peacekeeping force would not involve American troops and would not be a Nato operation, so it would not involve collective defence.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
International security expert David Dunn believes that the fact that Trump considers himself a consummate deal maker makes the fact that his administration is willing to concede so much ground before negotiations proper have even got underway is remarkable. And not in a good way.
Dunn, who specialises in US foreign and security policy at the University of Birmingham, finds it significant that Trump spoke with Putin first and then called Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky to fill him in on the call. This order of priority, says Dunn, is a sign of the subordination of Ukraine’s role in the talks.
He concludes that “for the present at least, it appears that negotiations will be less about pressuring Putin to bring a just end to the war he started than forcing Ukraine to give in to the Russian leader’s demands”.
Hegseth’s briefing to European defence officials, meanwhile, came as little surprise to David Galbreath. Writing here, Galbreath – who specialises in defence and security at the University of Bath – says the US pivot away from a focus on Europe has been years in the making – “since the very end of the cold war”.
There has long been a feeling in Washington that the US has borne too much of the financial burden for European security. This is not just a Donald Trump thing, he believes, but an attitude percolating in US security circles for some decades. Once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated, the focus for Nato become not so much collective defence as collective security, where “conflict would be managed on Nato’s borders”.
But it was then the US which invoked article 5 of the Nato treaty, which establishes that “an armed attack against one or more [member states] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”. The Bush government invoked Article 5 the day after the 9/11 attacks and Nato responded by patrolling US skies to provide security.
Pete Hegseth dashes Ukraine’s hopes of a future guaranteed by Nato.
Galbreath notes that many European countries, particularly the newer ones such as Estonia and Latvia, sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. “The persistent justification I heard in the Baltic states was “we need to be there when the US needs us so that they will be there when we need them”.
The prospect of a profound shift in the world order are daunting after 80 years in which security – in Europe certainly – was guaranteed by successive US administrations and underpinned, not just by Nato but by a whole set of international agreements.
Now, instead of the US acting as the “world’s policeman”, we have a president talking seriously about taking control of Greenland, one way or another, who won’t rule out using force to seize the Panama Canal and who dreams of turning Gaza into a coastal “riviera” development.
Meanwhile Russia is engaged in a brutal war of conquest in Ukraine and is actively meddling in the affairs of several other countries. And in China, Xi Jinping regularly talks up the idea of reunifying with Taiwan, by force if necessary, and is fortifying islands in the South China Sea with a view to aggressively pursuing territorial claims there as well.
And we thought the age of empires was in the rear view mirror, writes historian Eric Storm of Leiden University. Storm, whose speciality is the rise of nation states, has discerned a resurgence of imperial tendencies around the world and fears that the rules-based order that has dominated the decades since the second world war now appears increasingly tenuous.
In any given week, you’d expect the imminent prospect of the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire to be the big international story. And certainly, while Trump and Putin were “flooding the zone” (see last week’s round-up for the origins of this phrase) the prospects of the deal lasting beyond its first phase have become more and more uncertain.
Hamas has recently pulled back from its threat not to release any more hostages. Earlier in the week it threatened to call a halt to the hostage-prisoner exchange, claiming that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had breached the terms of the ceasefire deal. Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, responded – with Trump’s backing – saying that unless all hostages were released on Saturday, all bets were off and the IDF would resume its military operations in the Gaza Strip. Trump added that “all hell is going to break out”.
The US president has also doubled down on his idea for a redeveloped Gaza and has continued to pressure Jordan and Egypt to accept millions of Palestinian refugees. This, as you would expect, has not made the population of Gaza feel any more secure.
Nils Mallock and Jeremy Ginges, behavioural psychologists at the London School of Economics, were in the region last month and conducted a survey of Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza to get a feel for how the two populations regard each other. It makes for depressing reading.
The number of Israelis who reject the idea of a two-state solution has risen sharply since the October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas, from 46% to 62%. And roughly the same proportion of people in Gaza can now no longer envisage living side by side with Israelis. Both sides think that the other side is motivated by hatred, something which is known to make any diplomatic solution less feasible.
We also asked Scott Lucas, a Middle East specialist at University College Dublin, to assess the likelihood of the ceasefire lasting into phase two, which is when the IDF is supposed to pull out of Gaza, allowing the people there room to being to rebuild, both physically and in terms of governance.
He responded with a hollow laugh and a shake of the head, before sending us this digest of the key developments in the Middle East crisis this week.
We’ve become very used to seeing apocalyptic photos of the devastation of Gaza: the pulverised streets, choked with rubble, that make the idea of rebuilding seem so remote. But the people of Gaza also cultivated a huge amount of crops – about half the food they ate was grown there. Gazan farmers grew tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and strawberries in open fields as well as cultivating olive and citrus trees.
Geographers Lina Eklund, He Yin and Jamon Van Den Hoek have analysed satellite images across the Gaza Strip over the past 17 months to work out the scale of agricultural destruction. It makes for terrifying reading.
Based on the results of the qualifying stage competition The members of the competition committee selected 12 subjects of the Russian Federation that will continue the competition for the title of “Capital of Financial Culture”. They are Altai Krai, Bryansk Oblast, Kaliningrad Oblast, Kemerovo Oblast – Kuzbass, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Primorsky Krai, the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Stavropol Krai, Ulyanovsk Oblast, and the Chuvash Republic.
The finalists will present projects to improve financial literacy and form a financial culture, which they plan to implement in the region. The results of the competition will be announced in March 2025 at the site of the National Center “Russia”.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
