Tag Archives: OHIM

General Assembly Adopts Text on Global Health Coverage Day, Urges Greater Recognition of Link between Global Well Being, Foreign Policy

The General Assembly, acting without a vote, today adopted two resolutions related to the nexus of global health and foreign policy, with one designating 12 December as the annual “International Universal Health Coverage Day” and the other calling for a major summit to be held on the issue in 2019.

Virachai Plasai (Thailand) introduced the draft resolutions titled “International Universal Health Coverage Day” (document A/72/L.27) and “Global Health and foreign policy: addressing the health of the most vulnerable for an inclusive society” (document A/72/L.28) at the meeting’s outset.  Speaking on behalf of the core members of the Foreign Policy and Global Health Initiative — namely, Brazil, France, Indonesia, Norway, Senegal, South Africa and his own country — he said the annual resolution aimed to advocate for greater recognition of the interdependence and intrinsic links between global health and foreign policy.  This year’s version furthered those goals while also reaffirming the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s commitment to “leave no one behind”.

“In order to respond effectively to health‑related challenges, the international community needs to cooperate and take an inclusive, holistic and people‑centred approach on health issues,” he said, emphasizing that health was not only a precondition for but also an outcome and indicator of all three dimensions of sustainable development.  Presently, millions of people died every day from diseases that could have been prevented or cured due to limited or no access to quality health services and affordable, effective medicines.

Against that backdrop, he said the text on “Global health and foreign policy” underscored the importance of ensuring good health for all people at all ages.  That included sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and he also spotlighted the health needs of indigenous peoples, refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants.  In addition, the resolution would have the Assembly convene a high‑level meeting in 2019 on universal health coverage, as its co‑sponsors felt it was time to bring such critical discussions to New York.  Meanwhile, he said, the second draft resolution proposed to designate 12 December as “International Universal Health Coverage Day”, to be commemorated annually by Member States and relevant parties in line with their national priorities.

Fathmath Razana (Maldives), drawing attention to the strides her country had made due to increased investments in its health sectors, said its average life expectancy had increased from 47 years of age in 1977 to 78 today.  Maternal mortality rates had fallen, contagious diseases were under control, and Maldives became the first nation in the World Health Organization (WHO)’s Southeast Asia region to be verified malaria‑free.  While such gains had allowed her nation to emerge from the least developed country category, she said it nevertheless continued to experience similar challenges as other small island developing States in the provision of health services and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.  It required significant further investments, including through private sector partnerships and in the form of international cooperation.

Several speakers explained their delegations’ positions following the adoption of the drafts on “International Universal Health Coverage Day” and “Global Health and foreign policy”, with the latter orally corrected.  Regarding that text, the representative of the Russian Federation said ensuring general coverage for health and medical care, preventing emergency situations and protecting the health of women and children were all essential.  Outlining his Government’s efforts to increase its numbers of specialized doctors, improve practical training and raise the profile of the medical profession, he spotlighted a recent Moscow conference on combating tuberculosis and urged further efforts to protect the most vulnerable.  His country therefore fully endorsed the consensus on both resolutions.

The United States’ representative, also speaking in explanation of position on the “Global Health and foreign policy” text, said each country had its own development priorities and must work towards implementing the 2030 Agenda in accordance with them.  While recognizing the importance of access to affordable, safe and effective medicines, she expressed regret over the inclusion of unacceptable language on the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade‑Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  The strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights incentivized the creation and distribution of lifesaving medicines.

Turning to operative paragraph 12 of that text, she said that while the United States remained committed to the principles laid out in the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, that document did not create new international rights, including any right to abortion.  “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance,” she said.  She also did not support the inclusion of references to the development of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.

The representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See, on the same resolution, voiced concern over attempts to “shift the balance of the text” through the inclusion of controversial language that had not been agreed upon.  Access to abortion was not considered part of the right to health, he said, adding that human rights were derived from the concept of inherent human dignity and the right to life.  In addition, the Holy See viewed the concept of gender not as a psychological or social construction but as one based on biology.

Before the Assembly for that discussion was a note by the Secretary‑General transmitting the Report of the Global Health Crises Task Force (document A/72/113) and another transmitting the report of the Director General of the WHO, the Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Secretary‑General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the immediate actions of the High-level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth (document A/72/378).

The General Assembly will reconvene at a date and time to be announced.

Opening speech at the European Culture Forum, Milan – Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament

(check against delivery)

I should like to thank Commissioner Tibor Navracsics for organising this Forum. It provides a rare opportunity to exchange views and compare experiences in relation to this vital sector.  

As an Italian, I am delighted that Milan should have been chosen to host the event marking the official start of the European Year of Cultural Heritage.

We are in a city which has great symbolic significance, where the culture and creativity of the past nurture the living culture of the present.

The history of Milan mirrors that of our continent. For three millennia, it has been a trading centre, a melting pot of peoples, ideas and cultures. It stands at a crossroads: people and goods which have crossed the Alps, passed by the great lakes and travelled the northern Italian plain reach the Mediterranean from here. It is a bridge between North and South, between East and West.

Here, business, innovation and creativity have always been inseparable. Patrons, artists, entrepreneurs, artisans and scholars have been instrumental in ensuring that Milan has remained open at all times to the new, to the future.

Milan has always attracted talented people, one being Leonardo da Vinci, the man who embodied the very essence of the Renaissance, of genius, of versatility. He was a consummate artist, but also an experimenter and inventor, whose interests spanned architecture, science and engineering. He was an industrial designer before the concept even existed.

Milan Cathedral, and its Fabbrica, which has remained active down the centuries and which we will visit tomorrow with Commissioner Navracsics, is another symbol of unceasing dynamism.

This makes Milan one of the capitals of culture, of design, of fashion and of luxury goods. It is a model for the European way of life which is the envy of the whole world. Milan is living proof that history, creativity and innovation are vital to an internationally competitive and successful EU.

We are the continent with half of the UNESCO world heritage sites. Europe is still leading in several sectors of the cultural and creative industries. Wherever you go in the world, Europe is a synonym for style, know-how and beauty.

This is our leadership. A leadership which cannot be delocalised and which has to serve as our springboard for political and economic renewal.

Culture and creativity as factors for growth and job creation

Digitalisation, robotics, 3D printing and artificial intelligence are wreaking drastic changes in our working and private lives. We are in the throes of an industrial revolution in which the new jobs being created are not enough to offset those being lost by people who have been replaced by machines and technologies.

Recent research suggests that around half of all human activities could be replaced by automated processes. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, 54 million jobs will be at risk in the next few years alone.

The Union must steer this process of change, by investing more in training and by focusing on sectors in which manual labour and creativity will remain essential. I am thinking of tourism, design, the digitalisation of cultural sites, luxury goods and high-end craft products.

Cultural heritage and European creativity can be key factors in generating growth and jobs.

By adopting the Ehler-Morgano report on A coherent EU policy for the cultural and creative industries, the European Parliament issued a clear call to tap the potential of this sector.

The cultural and creative industries employ 12 million people, 7.5% of the EU workforce, and generate a turnover of EUR 509 billion. The sectors which draw most on intellectual property account for one-quarter of those jobs and one-third of that turnover.

Authors, artists and designers are the main sources of that creativity, which spills over massively into other sectors and contributes to the excellence of European products.

Let’s take luxury goods as an example: it is a market worth EUR 1000 billion in which Europe is the leader, accounting for 70% of production. 

Some 62% of the luxury goods manufactured in Europe are sold abroad and they make up 10% of the EU’s total exports.

Synergies between tourism and the cultural and creative industries

Synergies between the cultural and creative industries and tourism are another key engine for growth.

Already today, tourism accounts for 10% of EU GDP and 10% of jobs in the Union. Between now and 2030, the number of visitors to Europe will double, from 1 to 2 billion.

Europe can cater for the travel interests of this new emerging class, many of whom are Asians, by exploiting its historical heritage, its way of life and its creativity. The aim is to consolidate our leading position, by increasing the number of tourists who come to Europe from the current figure of 550 million to 700 million by 2020. Over the next 10 years, we can create up to 5 million jobs.

Manufacturing excellence and the creative industries attract tourism, in the same way that tourism fosters exports. This goes for clothing, cheese and wine just as much as for cars, luxury hotels and the audiovisual sector. People in China who buy our high-quality products or watch films set in Europe will be encouraged to visit our continent.

2018 will also be the Year of EU-China Tourism, another opportunity we must not waste. The official launch, which I will have the pleasure of attending, will take place in Venice on 19 January 2018, in the presence of the Chinese Prime Minister. It is a prime example of cultural diplomacy and will generate growth and lead to closer cooperation with China.

The digital revolution – opportunities and challenges

The digital revolution is opening up unprecedented possibilities: three-dimensional virtual tours of museums and cathedrals; ‘journeys through time’ or ‘augmented reality experiences’ at archaeological sites; new kinds of online booking and shopping services; and the availability of audiovisual products on demand. By 2020, 20% of purchases of branded goods will be made online.

Political governance of this revolution is essential. Economic opportunities and new freedoms for consumers and firms must not be allowed to degenerate into a free-for-all, and they must not serve to legitimise the piracy which enables people to enrich themselves at the expense of those who create content.

The rules must be the same for all businesses, whether they operate online or offline. Digital platforms must not be above the law. Like other firms, they must be accountable, pay taxes, guarantee transparency and safeguard social rights, minors, security, consumers and intellectual property.

The market for pirated and counterfeit goods is continuing to grow, thanks in no small part to the web. Anyone who visits platforms in order to enjoy, free of charge, audiovisual content and artistic images, read the news or find information about hotels and restaurants is lining the pockets of the web giants. They are earning billions through advertising, the provision of intermediary services and the mining of personal data, and their coffers swell whenever people click on their pages in search of content created by others.

Those who once touted themselves as champions of freedom and innovation are now acting like the feudal lords who, in the Middle Ages, imposed tolls on anyone who used the roads they controlled from their castles.

The dominant positions which many platforms enjoy in the areas of commerce, bookings, the provision of news and online advertising – positions made possible by regulatory disparities – are suffocating SMIs and creativity.

Music rights holders receive more in royalties from bars with a few dozen customers than from the people who make their works available to millions of people on the internet. Amazon has sent small publishing houses to the wall. Google and Facebook use news reports and content to sell advertising, without offering the journalists concerned proper remuneration in return.

The web giants create very few jobs in Europe, and pay derisory amounts of tax, avoiding most of what would be an annual bill of roughly EUR 20 billion. In Italy, they pay just EUR 11.7 million.

The digital single market is the main driving force behind the cultural and creative industries. It makes it possible to disseminate content and branded products and to launch start-ups.

It is essential that this market safeguard the work done by product and fashion designers and creators of songs, TV series, films, articles and books. If we fail to protect creativity, investment will dwindle, with disastrous consequences for Europe’s competitiveness.

The most recent European legislation on copyright dates back to 2001, to a time before the web giants existed.

Commissioners Bieńkowska and Gabriel are working to complete the digital market, and Parliament is calling for measures to promote creativity and equal conditions for everyone.

Attracting investment

The cultural and creative industries face a series of obstacles which are stifling their potential. Access to finance, for example, especially for SMEs, remains a problem.

The European Year of Cultural Heritage will also be the year in which we discuss the next multiannual budget.

If we are to revitalise the Union and provide our citizens with answers, then we need a budget that reflects their priorities. Investment in education and culture must be increased.

Other sources of financing can be found, without asking the public to make further sacrifices, by collecting taxes from those who are currently not paying them – starting with web platforms.

At the same time, existing sources of funding need to be used more effectively. EU regional funds, in synergy with Horizon 2020, the European Fund for Strategic Investments and the European Investment Bank, can be used to provide the guarantees needed to back projects in the fields of culture and creativity. This could contribute, for example, to the rediscovery, harnessing and digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage – with a corresponding increase in visitor numbers and jobs.

It is also vital to invest more in skills and training. There is a shortage of museum managers, skilled chefs, digital experts, cultural mediators, designers and programmers, but also of the manual skills needed to produce high-end goods.

Conclusion

Awareness of our own identity is the foundation for a strong and open Europe, one which does not just accept diversity, but regards it as an asset. Being Italian means being European. We have no need for new barriers or borders or parochial nationalism.

Drawing on our deep-rooted faith in humankind, we rose out of the ashes of war and put the freedom and dignity of the individual at the centre of our European project.

Our identity is one born on the shores of the Mediterranean and it has been shaped by openness to exchanges of all kinds – of goods, of ideas and of culture. It has Judeo-Christian roots, and was forged in abbeys and universities, during the Humanist period, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The European Year of Cultural Heritage, of which the European Parliament has been a strong advocate, offers an opportunity to rediscover and promote that identity and bring the Union closer to its peoples.

Even more than our economy, culture is the glue which holds Europe together, and culture must be the starting point for our efforts to revitalise our Union.

Opening speech at the European Culture Forum, Milan – Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament

(check against delivery)

I should like to thank Commissioner Tibor Navracsics for organising this Forum. It provides a rare opportunity to exchange views and compare experiences in relation to this vital sector.  

As an Italian, I am delighted that Milan should have been chosen to host the event marking the official start of the European Year of Cultural Heritage.

We are in a city which has great symbolic significance, where the culture and creativity of the past nurture the living culture of the present.

The history of Milan mirrors that of our continent. For three millennia, it has been a trading centre, a melting pot of peoples, ideas and cultures. It stands at a crossroads: people and goods which have crossed the Alps, passed by the great lakes and travelled the northern Italian plain reach the Mediterranean from here. It is a bridge between North and South, between East and West.

Here, business, innovation and creativity have always been inseparable. Patrons, artists, entrepreneurs, artisans and scholars have been instrumental in ensuring that Milan has remained open at all times to the new, to the future.

Milan has always attracted talented people, one being Leonardo da Vinci, the man who embodied the very essence of the Renaissance, of genius, of versatility. He was a consummate artist, but also an experimenter and inventor, whose interests spanned architecture, science and engineering. He was an industrial designer before the concept even existed.

Milan Cathedral, and its Fabbrica, which has remained active down the centuries and which we will visit tomorrow with Commissioner Navracsics, is another symbol of unceasing dynamism.

This makes Milan one of the capitals of culture, of design, of fashion and of luxury goods. It is a model for the European way of life which is the envy of the whole world. Milan is living proof that history, creativity and innovation are vital to an internationally competitive and successful EU.

We are the continent with half of the UNESCO world heritage sites. Europe is still leading in several sectors of the cultural and creative industries. Wherever you go in the world, Europe is a synonym for style, know-how and beauty.

This is our leadership. A leadership which cannot be delocalised and which has to serve as our springboard for political and economic renewal.

Culture and creativity as factors for growth and job creation

Digitalisation, robotics, 3D printing and artificial intelligence are wreaking drastic changes in our working and private lives. We are in the throes of an industrial revolution in which the new jobs being created are not enough to offset those being lost by people who have been replaced by machines and technologies.

Recent research suggests that around half of all human activities could be replaced by automated processes. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, 54 million jobs will be at risk in the next few years alone.

The Union must steer this process of change, by investing more in training and by focusing on sectors in which manual labour and creativity will remain essential. I am thinking of tourism, design, the digitalisation of cultural sites, luxury goods and high-end craft products.

Cultural heritage and European creativity can be key factors in generating growth and jobs.

By adopting the Ehler-Morgano report on A coherent EU policy for the cultural and creative industries, the European Parliament issued a clear call to tap the potential of this sector.

The cultural and creative industries employ 12 million people, 7.5% of the EU workforce, and generate a turnover of EUR 509 billion. The sectors which draw most on intellectual property account for one-quarter of those jobs and one-third of that turnover.

Authors, artists and designers are the main sources of that creativity, which spills over massively into other sectors and contributes to the excellence of European products.

Let’s take luxury goods as an example: it is a market worth EUR 1000 billion in which Europe is the leader, accounting for 70% of production. 

Some 62% of the luxury goods manufactured in Europe are sold abroad and they make up 10% of the EU’s total exports.

Synergies between tourism and the cultural and creative industries

Synergies between the cultural and creative industries and tourism are another key engine for growth.

Already today, tourism accounts for 10% of EU GDP and 10% of jobs in the Union. Between now and 2030, the number of visitors to Europe will double, from 1 to 2 billion.

Europe can cater for the travel interests of this new emerging class, many of whom are Asians, by exploiting its historical heritage, its way of life and its creativity. The aim is to consolidate our leading position, by increasing the number of tourists who come to Europe from the current figure of 550 million to 700 million by 2020. Over the next 10 years, we can create up to 5 million jobs.

Manufacturing excellence and the creative industries attract tourism, in the same way that tourism fosters exports. This goes for clothing, cheese and wine just as much as for cars, luxury hotels and the audiovisual sector. People in China who buy our high-quality products or watch films set in Europe will be encouraged to visit our continent.

2018 will also be the Year of EU-China Tourism, another opportunity we must not waste. The official launch, which I will have the pleasure of attending, will take place in Venice on 19 January 2018, in the presence of the Chinese Prime Minister. It is a prime example of cultural diplomacy and will generate growth and lead to closer cooperation with China.

The digital revolution – opportunities and challenges

The digital revolution is opening up unprecedented possibilities: three-dimensional virtual tours of museums and cathedrals; ‘journeys through time’ or ‘augmented reality experiences’ at archaeological sites; new kinds of online booking and shopping services; and the availability of audiovisual products on demand. By 2020, 20% of purchases of branded goods will be made online.

Political governance of this revolution is essential. Economic opportunities and new freedoms for consumers and firms must not be allowed to degenerate into a free-for-all, and they must not serve to legitimise the piracy which enables people to enrich themselves at the expense of those who create content.

The rules must be the same for all businesses, whether they operate online or offline. Digital platforms must not be above the law. Like other firms, they must be accountable, pay taxes, guarantee transparency and safeguard social rights, minors, security, consumers and intellectual property.

The market for pirated and counterfeit goods is continuing to grow, thanks in no small part to the web. Anyone who visits platforms in order to enjoy, free of charge, audiovisual content and artistic images, read the news or find information about hotels and restaurants is lining the pockets of the web giants. They are earning billions through advertising, the provision of intermediary services and the mining of personal data, and their coffers swell whenever people click on their pages in search of content created by others.

Those who once touted themselves as champions of freedom and innovation are now acting like the feudal lords who, in the Middle Ages, imposed tolls on anyone who used the roads they controlled from their castles.

The dominant positions which many platforms enjoy in the areas of commerce, bookings, the provision of news and online advertising – positions made possible by regulatory disparities – are suffocating SMIs and creativity.

Music rights holders receive more in royalties from bars with a few dozen customers than from the people who make their works available to millions of people on the internet. Amazon has sent small publishing houses to the wall. Google and Facebook use news reports and content to sell advertising, without offering the journalists concerned proper remuneration in return.

The web giants create very few jobs in Europe, and pay derisory amounts of tax, avoiding most of what would be an annual bill of roughly EUR 20 billion. In Italy, they pay just EUR 11.7 million.

The digital single market is the main driving force behind the cultural and creative industries. It makes it possible to disseminate content and branded products and to launch start-ups.

It is essential that this market safeguard the work done by product and fashion designers and creators of songs, TV series, films, articles and books. If we fail to protect creativity, investment will dwindle, with disastrous consequences for Europe’s competitiveness.

The most recent European legislation on copyright dates back to 2001, to a time before the web giants existed.

Commissioners Bieńkowska and Gabriel are working to complete the digital market, and Parliament is calling for measures to promote creativity and equal conditions for everyone.

Attracting investment

The cultural and creative industries face a series of obstacles which are stifling their potential. Access to finance, for example, especially for SMEs, remains a problem.

The European Year of Cultural Heritage will also be the year in which we discuss the next multiannual budget.

If we are to revitalise the Union and provide our citizens with answers, then we need a budget that reflects their priorities. Investment in education and culture must be increased.

Other sources of financing can be found, without asking the public to make further sacrifices, by collecting taxes from those who are currently not paying them – starting with web platforms.

At the same time, existing sources of funding need to be used more effectively. EU regional funds, in synergy with Horizon 2020, the European Fund for Strategic Investments and the European Investment Bank, can be used to provide the guarantees needed to back projects in the fields of culture and creativity. This could contribute, for example, to the rediscovery, harnessing and digitisation of Europe’s cultural heritage – with a corresponding increase in visitor numbers and jobs.

It is also vital to invest more in skills and training. There is a shortage of museum managers, skilled chefs, digital experts, cultural mediators, designers and programmers, but also of the manual skills needed to produce high-end goods.

Conclusion

Awareness of our own identity is the foundation for a strong and open Europe, one which does not just accept diversity, but regards it as an asset. Being Italian means being European. We have no need for new barriers or borders or parochial nationalism.

Drawing on our deep-rooted faith in humankind, we rose out of the ashes of war and put the freedom and dignity of the individual at the centre of our European project.

Our identity is one born on the shores of the Mediterranean and it has been shaped by openness to exchanges of all kinds – of goods, of ideas and of culture. It has Judeo-Christian roots, and was forged in abbeys and universities, during the Humanist period, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The European Year of Cultural Heritage, of which the European Parliament has been a strong advocate, offers an opportunity to rediscover and promote that identity and bring the Union closer to its peoples.

Even more than our economy, culture is the glue which holds Europe together, and culture must be the starting point for our efforts to revitalise our Union.

Concluding Session, Second Committee Passes 14 Draft Resolutions, Including Texts on Macroeconomic Policy, Trade Liberalization

The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) today concluded its work for the main part of the General Assembly’s seventy‑second session, approving 14 draft resolutions including texts on macroeconomic policy questions.

A draft on “international trade and development” (document A/C.2/72/L.17/Rev.1) would have the Assembly promote a universal, rules-based, open, transparent, predictable, inclusive, non‑discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as promote meaningful trade liberalization.

By further terms, the text would have the Assembly urge the international community to support measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures.

The representative of the United States said his country was unable to join consensus, as such trade measures would be inconsistent with the basic principles of the WTO.  Each State reserved the sovereign right to determine how to conduct trade with other countries and by passing the resolution, he said the Assembly would limit the ability of States to respond effectively to threats against democracy, human rights, peace and security.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

Switzerland’s delegate, who supported the resolution, expressed regret that a vote was needed as his country believed in strengthening the multilateral system on consensus.

Similarly, a text on “international financial system and development” (document A/C.2/72/L.19/Rev.1) would have the Assembly resolve to strengthen the coherence and consistency of multilateral financial, investment, trade and development policy and environment institutions and platforms.

By further terms, it would have the Assembly call for the completion of the fifteenth general review of quotas of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including a new quota formula.

The representative of the United States said he did not join consensus on the resolution.  He stated that limited concessional resources should be allocated with reference to income and credit worthiness.  Regarding unilateral economic measures, he said economic sanctions could be considered appropriate and useful alternatives to use of force.

The draft was then approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

The Committee also took action on the draft “commodities” (document A/C.2/72/L.9/Rev.1) which would have the international community address the factors that created structural barriers to international trade, impeded diversification and limited access to financial services, particularly for developing countries.

Similarly, it would also call upon all relevant stakeholders to address the issue of the low industrialization and diversification of the economies of some commodity-dependent developing countries.

The representative of the United States said the resolution inappropriately called on international institutions to take actions beyond their scope.  Similarly, he was unable to support language which would commit to reduce food imports and promoted a “blanket” call to address trade and market mispricing.

The Committee then adopted the resolution by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria’s representative said she voted in favour of those three drafts, as she supported coherence among global trade policies and regional and bilateral initiatives that promoted a progressive trade agenda and economic development, especially in developing countries.

Also speaking today were representatives of the Russian Federation, Canada, Norway and Venezuela, as well as the Holy See.

Other texts the Committee approved focused on information and communications technologies for development; sustainable development; implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements and on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development; globalization and interdependence; countries in special situations; eradication of poverty; South‑South cooperation; and the programme of work of the Second Committee for the seventy‑third session of the General Assembly.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) first took up a draft on “information and communications technologies for development” (document A/C.2/72/L.66).

ABDELLAH LARHMAID (Morocco) presented the text as orally revised.  The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

After the approval, the representative of the United States expressed concern about language on technology transfer which could undermine intellectual property rights.

The Committee then withdrew a text on the same topic.

Next, it turned to a text on “international trade and development” (document A/C.2/72/L.17/Rev.1).

The representative of the United States said much of the trade-related language in the outcome document of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development had been overtaken by ongoing work and negotiations.  Such language contained in the draft text was therefore immaterial.

Furthermore, he said his country would be unable to join consensus, as matters on international trade and development were the responsibility of the World Trade Organization (WTO).  As such, he would not accept the General Assembly’s statement on economic, financial or trade measures.  Noting that such measures were inconsistent with the basic principles of the WTO, he said each State reserved the sovereign right to determine how to conduct trade with other countries.  By passing the resolution, the Assembly would limit the ability of States to respond effectively to threats against democracy, human rights, peace and security.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

The delegate of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she voted in favour of the draft, as it supported coherence among global trade policies and regional and bilateral initiatives that would promote a progressive trade agenda and economic development, especially in developing countries.

The representative of Switzerland said his country supported the draft, however he expressed regret that a vote was needed, as his State believed in strengthening the multilateral system on consensus.

The Committee then took up a draft on “international financial system and development” (document A/C.2/72/L.19/Rev.1).

The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation of vote, highlighted his concerns regarding references to scaling up international cooperation on tax matters and attempts to prescribe appropriate characteristics of international systems that were independent of the United Nations system.

Regarding concessions, he said following through on recommendations in the text would not be financially sustainable and limited concessional resources should be allocated with references to income and credit worthiness.  On illicit financial flows, he opposed its inclusion as a term with no agreed-upon international definition.  Concerning unilateral economic measures, he said sanctions could be considered appropriate and useful alternatives to use of force.

The draft was then approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

The delegate of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she voted in favour of the resolution, as it fostered coherence in trade policies for the advancement of economic development, particularly in developing countries.

The Committee next took up a text on “commodities” (document A/C.2/72/L.9/Rev.1), putting it to a recorded vote.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States said the resolution made obsolete references to the world’s economic and financial crisis.  The text also inappropriately called on international institutions to take actions beyond the scope of what it should address.  His country was concerned by language in the draft committing to reduce food imports and hoped to hold further discussions with the African Union on that issue.  Adding that it was also unable to support a “blanket” call regarding trade and mispricing, he said the resolution should include the effects of exchange rates and unfavourable business practices.  His country was also unable to join consensus with language that undermined the work of the WTO or attempted to shape its agenda.

The Committee then adopted the resolution by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

Speaking after the vote, the delegate of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said her group had voted in favour of the resolution, as it attached great importance to strengthening the multilateral trading system.  Only such a system fostered coherence across the globe as well as the independence of its members.

Next, it turned to a draft on “follow-up to and implementation of the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway and the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States” (document A/C.2/72/L.48).

The representative of Barbados thanked delegations for their work on the text.

The Committee then approved the resolution as orally revised without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

It then took up a text on “protection of global climate for present and future generations of humankind” (document A/C.2/72/L.69).

The Committee approved the draft without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

The representative of the United States said it had joined consensus, but was continuing to develop policies on climate change.  The United States had communicated to the United Nations that it planned to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.  International agreements regarding climate change did not change that decision, although his country was continuing to work with others on that important issue.

The Committee then turned to a draft on “implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conferences on Human Settlements and on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development and strengthening of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN‑Habitat)” (document A/C.2/72/L.67).

The delegate of Zambia made amendments to the draft.

The Committee then approved the draft as orally revised without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

The Committee next took up a text on “role of the United Nations in promoting development in the context of globalization and interdependence” (document A/C.2/72/L.11/Rev.1).

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States expressed her concern around references to the WTO and the need to strengthen cooperation between that organization and others, both of which were outside the responsibility of the United Nations.  She also objected to language that would unfairly promote State ownership or the deprivation of resources without compensation.  Her country supported efforts to fight unfair trade practices, such as forced technology transfers and other distortions of markets.  Therefore, the United States would not join in consensus.

Furthermore, she expressed disappointment that such efforts would promote “stale” commitments against protectionism.  She said the United Nations was not a forum for regional trade agreements or negotiations.  She additionally opposed language which would undermine intellectual property rights.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions.

The delegate of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it voted in favour of the resolution, as it supported a progressive trade agenda and economic development, especially for developing countries.  As such, she agreed with the language contained in the resolution.

The Committee then turned to a draft on “culture and sustainable development” (document A/C.2/72/L.13/Rev.1).

The representative of the United States expressed concern around references on the repatriation of cultural property without clarifications on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Similarly, her country was unable to join consensus on references to cultural appropriation and support to consolidate cultures and cultural industries.  It also opposed any language which would undermine intellectual property rights.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 181 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with no abstentions.

Following that, it took up a text on “follow-up to the second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries” (document A/C.2/72/L.62).

The Committee adopted the draft as revised without a vote.

Speaking after the approval, the representative of the United States expressed concern around language on climate change.  He said he remained “confused” by references on technical and capacity-building assistance.  In reviewing the demand for assistance, he said he was not aware of any needs to enhance technical or capacity-building assistance.

Similarly, he said his country opposed any language which undermined intellectual property rights.  Noting the Aid for Trade initiative, he said development partners had not effectively implemented that outcome and that his country did not agree that the special needs listed in the text were considered necessary for its effective implementation.  Similarly, he expressed concern that measures by the General Assembly were unnecessary as such matters were the responsibility of WTO.

The delegate of the Russian Federation said the language in the resolution did not adequately reflect the agreements between States.

The Committee then turned to a draft on “women in development” (document A/C.2/72/L.65).

The representative of the United Arab Emirates made amendments to the text.

The Committee then approved the draft as orally revised without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

The observer of the Holy See stressed that women’s dignity must be respected without diverting attention from their development.  He welcomed the intention of the resolution, but expressed concern about the attempt to shift its focus from the integral development of women to other issues.  Sexual and reproductive health applied to a holistic concept of health, which did not include abortion.  Access to sexual and reproductive health should be age-appropriate in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

The representative of the United States said his country was committed to advancing the status of women and had joined consensus on the resolution.  However, he disagreed with language in the text referring to the global economic crisis, when the world was not currently in that state.  Such language detracted attention from relevant challenges facing global stability.  While agreeing that women should have equal access to health care, he stressed that his country did not recognize abortion as a method of family planning.

The representative of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said gender equality would remain at the forefront of the bloc’s efforts to ensure the rights of all women and girls.  Gender equality was of central importance in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the text of the resolution now in certain aspects better reflected that agreement.  However, the draft did not reflect the Agenda in terms of women having full power over their sexual and reproductive health.

The delegate of Canada, also speaking on behalf of New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Lichtenstein, noted that the resolution addressed women and development but some key issues had been left out.  Sexual and reproductive health had not been properly addressed on the grounds that it should be dealt with in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural).  She disagreed with that notion, as the resolution should reflect the 2030 Agenda.  The specific commitment to gender equality made in that document now seemed to be forgotten, although women still faced violence and discriminatory practices.

The representative of Norway said the promotion of women’s rights led to their empowerment.  If the international community was to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, gender equality must be at the heart of any efforts.  Progress had been made in the resolution with the inclusion of equal pay for equal value.  However, it was still necessary to heed remaining barriers to women’s equality.  The resolution did not adequately reflect sexual and reproductive rights.

The Committee then approved the draft as orally revised without a vote, withdrawing a previous text.

The Committee then took up a text on “human resources development” (document A/C.2/72/L.64), approving the draft as revised and without a vote.

The representative of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed concern around amendments to the text which did not reflect the agreements reached by States.  She called for future sessions to ensure that draft texts would be reflective of agreements reached during negotiations.

The delegate of the United States said each State had an interest in boosting its economic performance and should always be done in a manner consistent with international rules and regulations.  He expressed concern around language which would undermine intellectual property rights.  He also concurred with the European Union’s statement concerning the language in the draft text.

The representative of Canada also expressed concern around amendments to the text.  She said there was no clear rationale for such changes and she would not consider the amendments to be the basis for future negotiations.

The delegate of Israel joined consensus on the resolution, but expressed disappointment that the zero draft contained politicized text and undermined the rights and obligations of States.  She expressed objection to the inclusion of such language.

The Committee then withdrew a previous text on the same topic.

Following that, it turned to a text on “South‑South cooperation for development” (document A/C.2/72/L.68).

The Committee approved the draft without a vote.

The representative of the United States joined consensus on the resolution.  He said his country had supported South‑South cooperation and voiced concerns around wrongdoings.  Accordingly, he called upon the Secretary-General and senior managers to remedy and strengthen management oversight.  He noted steps were taken, but some States’ resistance to address issues in a forthright way undermined collective oversight responsibility.  He therefore called for a comprehensive review of entities involved in South‑South cooperation work.  Additionally, he opposed language that would promote technology transfer that was not voluntary or on agreed-upon terms.

The Committee withdrew a previous text on the same topic.

The representative of Venezuela said her country presented its misgivings, reservations and points of clarification in the document “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.  Regarding all the resolutions which were approved, she once again expressed her reservations to those references.

The Committee next took up a text titled “revitalization of the work of the General Assembly” (document A/C.2/72/L.70).

SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia), Committee Chair, said that of the 42 proposals approved, 12 were agreed upon by a recorded vote and that a large majority of the drafts were approved by consensus.

The Committee then approved the draft programme of work without a vote.

THOMAS GASS, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter‑Agency Affairs, noted remaining challenges on global financial, economic and sustainable development.  He said the United Nations was mobilizing resources to guarantee that the mandates which emanated from the session would be fulfilled.  He also highlighted the successes of the side events of the Committee and the annual joint meeting with the Economic and Social Council.

In closing, the Committee Chair said that, for the first time since 2000, the Committee concluded its substantive work in November.  He expressed gratitude to the delegates and extended congratulations to all States on the conclusion of the session.

Daily News 29 / 11 / 2017

Intellectual property: Protecting Europe’s know-howand innovation leadership 

The Commission today presents measures to ensure that intellectual property rights (IPR) are well protected, thereby encouraging European companies, in particular SMEs and start-ups, to invest in innovation and creativity. Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Jobs, Growth Investment and Competitiveness, said: “Europe’s economic growth and competitiveness largely depends on our many entrepreneurs investing in new ideas and knowledge. This package improves the application and enforcement of intellectual property rights and encourages investment in technology and product development in Europe.” Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska, responsible for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, added: “Today we boost our collective ability to catch the ‘big fish’ behind fake goods and pirated content which harm our companies, our jobs, our health and safety. We are also placing Europe as a global leader with a patent licensing system conducive to the roll-out of the Internet of Things from smartphones to connected cars.” Today’s initiatives will make it easier to act efficiently against breaches of IPR, facilitate cross-border litigation, and tackle the fact that 5% of goods imported into the EU (worth €85 billion) are counterfeited or pirated. When it comes to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), the Commission encourages fair and balanced licensing negotiations which ensure that companies are rewarded for their innovation while allowing also others to build on this technology to generate new innovative products and services. Vice-President Katainen and Commissioner Bieńkowska will hold a press conference following the College meeting which will be broadcasted live here. A press release, a MEMO and three factsheets (on Intellectual Property Rights, and Why IPRs matter, and on SEPs) are available. (For more information: Lucia Caudet – Tel.: + 32 229 56182; Maud Noyon – Tel.: +32 229 80379; Victoria von Hammerstein – Tel.: +32 229 55040)

L’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation- Présentation des orientations de la Commission pour une politique agricole commune flexible, juste et durable

Le collège des commissaires a adopté aujourd’hui les orientations de la Commission pour simplifier et moderniser la politique agricole commune (PAC) dont les principaux objectifs demeurent le soutien aux agriculteurs et le développement d’une agriculture durable et verte. L’initiative phare présentée dans la Communication, intitulée “l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation”, consiste à renforcer les compétences des États membres en matière de choix et de modalités d’affectation des ressources de la PAC afin d’atteindre des objectifs communs ambitieux dans les domaines de l’environnement, de la lutte contre le changement climatique et de la durabilité. Jyrki Katainen, vice-président chargé de l’emploi, de la croissance, de l’investissement et de la compétitivité, a déclaré: «La politique agricole commune nous accompagne depuis1962. Nous devons veiller, d’une part, à ce qu’elle continue de fournir aux consommateurs des denréesalimentaires saines et de qualité tout en créant des emplois et de la croissance dans les zones rurales,et, d’autre part, à ce qu’elle évolue parallèlement aux autres politiques.“. Phil Hogan, commissaire pour l’agriculture et le développement rural, a dit: «La Communication publiée aujourd’hui apporte l’assurance que la politique agricole commune permettra la réalisation d’objectifs nouveaux et émergents, tels que la promotion d’un secteur agricole intelligent et résilient, le renforcement de la protection de l’environnement et de l’action en faveur du climat et la consolidation du tissu socio-économique dans les zones rurales.” La structure actuelle à deux piliers sera maintenue, mais l’approche plus simple et plus flexible qui est prévue comprendra les mesures  précises visant à permettre la réalisation des objectifs convenus au niveau de l’UE. Chaque pays de l’UE élaborera ensuite son propre plan stratégique – qui sera approuvé par la Commission – dans lequel il indiquera comment il envisage d’atteindre les objectifs. Les propositions législatives mettant en œuvre les objectifs définis dans la Communication seront présentées par la Commission avant l’été 2018, après la proposition du cadre financier pluriannuel. La Communication sur “l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation” est en ligne. Un communiqué de presse ainsi qu’un mémo seront disponibles en ligne dans toutes les langues au début de la conférence de presse du Vice-Président Katainen et du Commissaire Hogan (aux alentours de 12h45) sera retransmise en direct sur EbS. (Pour plus d’informations: Daniel Rosario – Tel.: +32 229 56185; Clémence Robin – Tel: +32 229 52509)

Brexit: European Commission proposes legislative amendments for the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from London

The European Commission has today made two legislative proposals to amend the founding Regulations of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the European Banking Authority (EBA). This follows last week’s agreement in the margins of the General Affairs Council (Article 50 format) to move the EMA and the EBA from London to Amsterdam and Paris, respectively. The Commission is acting swiftly in order to provide legal certainty and clarity, ensuring that both Agencies can continue to function smoothly and without disruption beyond March 2019. Under the ordinary legislative procedure, the co-legislators (the European Parliament and the Council) are expected to give priority to the handling of these legislative proposals. (full press release available here) (For more information: Margaritis Schinas: +32 229 60524; Mina Andreeva – Tel.: +32 229-91382, Daniel Ferrie – Tel.: +32 229 86500)

 

Commission proposes to extend Single Resolution Board Chair’s term of office

The European Commission has today proposed to extend the mandate of Ms Elke König, Chair of the Single Resolution Board (SRB), for five years as of 24 December 2017. Ms König, a German national, was appointed Chair of the SRB at the end of 2014 for an initial period of three years. Ms König, a former President of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, has spent all her career in the financial and insurance sector. In 2010 and 2011, Ms König was a member of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in London. Today’s decision follows a hearing of the SRB Board’s plenary session on 10 October 2017. The proposal will now be transmitted to the European Parliament for approval, and the Council will also be informed. Following that approval, the Council would have to adopt an implementing decision to extend the mandate (For more information: Alexander Winterstein – Tel.: +32 229 93265; Andreana Stankova – Tel.: +32 229 57857)

64 millions d’euros du fonds de Cohésion pour un environnement mieux protégé en Croatie

Le Fonds de Cohésion de l’UE investit 64,3 millions d’euros dans des infrastructures de gestion de l’eau dans l’agglomération de Varaždin, au Nord du pays. “Ce projet est un nouvel exemple concret de la valeur ajoutée d’une Union européenne qui se soucie de l’environnement et de la santé de ses citoyens,” a commenté la Commissaire à la politique régionale Corina Crețu. Plus de 200 km d’égout et 108 postes de pompages vont être construits dans le cadre de ce projet financé par l’UE, qui contribuera à protéger l’environnement et assurer un accès à une eau plus saine pour près de 95 000 personnes.  Les travaux devraient être achevés à l’automne 2021. (Pour plus d’informations:Johannes Bahrke – Tel.: +32 229 58615; Sophie Dupin de Saint-Cyr – Tel.: +32 229 56169)

Better rail connections in Sicily thanks to Cohesion policy investments

Over €105 million from the European Regional Development Fund is invested in the modernisation of the Messina-Palermo railway line, on the section between the Fiumetorto train station and the village of Ogliastrillo. The EU-funded project covers the doubling of the tracks, for enhanced safety and reduced travel time between the two Sicilian cities. Commissioner for Regional Policy Corina Creţu commented: “This project will give a boost to tourism, shorten travel time and promote clean mobility in this beautiful region; that is EU money well spent.” TheMessina-Palermo line is an important section of the Italian national and regional transport plan, and it is also part of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corridor of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), stretching from Finland and Sweden in the North to the southern Italian ports and Malta in the South. Works should be completed in December 2019. (For more information: Johannes Bahrke – Tel .: +32 229 58615, Sophie Dupin from Saint-Cyr – Tel .: +32 229 56169)

EU delivering on climate commitments through enhanced global partnerships

To cooperate more closely with major economies to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change and on environmentally-friendly practices more broadly, the European Union has launched new strategic partnerships. These include a programme co-financed by the EU’s Partnership Instrument (worth €20 million) and co-financed by the German International Climate Initiative with €5 million) to advance bilateral cooperation on climate change and contribute to improved public awareness. In addition, and following the 14th EU – India Summit which reinforced the strategic importance of India as a key partner of the European Union in the fields of climate action, environment, climate change and urbanisation, the EU is also launching a programme entitled “Business Support to the EU-India Policy Dialogues”, worth €3.8 million, to develop the EU – India partnership further by promoting sustainable energy, urbanisation and environmentally friendly practices, with technical solutions from EU businesses. This will also contribute to an increased and diversified presence of EU companies in the Indian market. See the full press release here. (For more information:Maja Kocijančič – Tel.: +32 229 86570; Adam Kaznowski – Tel.: +32 229 89359)

State aid: Commission approves €3.1 million investment aid for CO2 transport infrastructure in The Netherlands

The European Commission has approved, under EU State aid rules, Dutch plans to grant €3.1 million of public support to the company OCAP CO2 B, for the construction of CO2 transport infrastructure in PrimA4a, in the Greenport of Aalsmeer. This measure is expected to reduce 21 kilotonnes of CO2 emissions per year. In particular, the infrastructure will transport waste CO2 (e.g. from Shell) to greenhouses in the PrimA4a horticulture area, which need CO2 for their crop growth. Currently, these greenhouses produce their own CO2 using heating systems such as cogeneration systems or gas fired boilers. In summer, when heating is not needed, the greenhouses nevertheless use their heating systems for the sole purpose of CO2 generation. Thanks to this measure, greenhouses in future will be able to use excess waste CO2 instead. This will benefit the environment by reducing the use of primary energy sources to produce CO2. The Commission assessed and approved the measure by applying principles set out under the Commission’s 2014 Guidelines on State aid for Environmental protection and Energy. More information on today’s decision will be available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number SA.48816. (For more information: Ricardo Cardoso – Tel.: +32 229 80100; Yizhou Ren – Tel.: +32 229 94889)

Concentrations: la Commission autorise l’acquisition du contrôle conjoint d’ADTIM par DIF et CDC

La Commission européenne a approuvé, en vertu du règlement européen sur les concentrations, l’acquisition du contrôle en commun de la société ADTIM basée en France, par les sociétés DIF Management Holding B.V. (“DIF”) basée aux Pays Bas, et la Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (“CDC”) basée en France. ADTIM est une société délégataire de service public d’un organisme public local français (Syndicat mixte Ardèche Drôme Numérique) qui fournit des services de télécommunications. DIF est un gestionnaire de fonds indépendant qui investit dans des projets d’infrastructure à long terme liés au capital-investissement. CDC est un établissement public français à statut juridique spécial, exerçant des activités d’intérêt général, dont la gestion de fonds privés. La Commission a conclu que l’acquisition envisagée ne soulèverait pas de problème de concurrence compte tenu de son impact très limité sur la structure du marché. L’opération a été examinée dans le cadre de la procédure simplifiée du contrôle des concentrations. De plus amples informations sont disponibles sur le site internet concurrence de la Commission, dans le registre public des affaires sous le numéro d’affaire M.8602. (Pour plus d’informations: Ricardo Cardoso – Tel.: +32 229 80100; Maria Sarantopoulou – Tel.: +32 229 13740)

 

Mergers: Commission clears acquisition of Curaeos Holding by EQT

The European Commission has approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the acquisition of Curaeos Holding B.V. of the Netherlands by EQT Fund Management S.à.r.l. of Luxembourg. Curaeos Holding is an international dental services provider which owns dental clinics, dental labs and a dental products distribution business. It also operates a migraine clinic in Germany. EQT is an investment fund making investments primarily in Northern and Continental Europe. The Commission concluded that the proposed acquisition would raise no competition concerns because EQT is not engaged in any business activity related to Curaeos Holding’s business. The transaction was examined under the simplified merger review procedure. More information is available on the Commission’s competition website, in the public case register under the case number M.8698.  (For more information: Ricardo Cardoso – Tel.: +32 229 80100; Maria Sarantopoulou – Tel.: +32 229 13740)

Concentrations: la Commission autorise l’acquisition de Maersk Olie og Gas par Total

La Commission européenne a approuvé, en vertu du règlement européen sur les concentrations, l’acquisition de la société danoise Maersk Olie og Gas A/S par l’entreprise française Total S.A. Maersk Olie og Gas est présente dans les secteurs de l’exploration, la production et le négoce de pétrole brut et de gaz naturel. Total est un producteur et fournisseur international d’énergie, intégré et présent dans tous les secteurs de l’industrie pétrolière et gazière. La Commission a conclu que l’ operation envisagée ne soulèverait pas de problème de concurrence du fait de la faiblesse relative des parts de marchés combinées à l’issue de l’opération. L’operation a été examinée dans le cadre de la procédure simplifiée de contrôle des concentrations. De plus amples informations sont disponibles sur le site internet concurrence de la Commission, dans le registre public des affaires sous le numéro d’affaire M.8662. (Pour plus d’informations: Ricardo Cardoso – Tel.: +32 229 80100; Maria Sarantopoulou – Tel.: +32 229 13740)

Eurostat: Household energy prices in the EU down compared with 2016

In the European Union (EU), household electricity prices slightly decreased (-0.5%) on average between the first half of 2016 and the first half of 2017 to stand at €20.4 per 100 kWh. Across the EU Member States, household electricity prices in the first half of 2017 ranged from below €10 per 100 kWh in Bulgaria to more than €30 per 100 kWh in Denmark and Germany. A press release is available here. (For more information: Lucia Caudet – Tel.: +32 229 56182; Maud Noyan – Tel.: +32 229 80379)

Upcoming events of the European Commission (ex-Top News)