Photography Kungahuset.se On the picture Her Excellency Ambassador Alice Thomas Yusuf Samaan.

On the picture Gilles Tonelli Government Counsellor for External Relations and International Cooperation of the Principality of Monaco.   By Baron Henri Estramant. Former Monégasque ambassador to the Benelux countries, head of mission towards the EU and the OPCW, M Gilles Tonelli (b. 27 November 1957) succeeded M José Badia on 23 February 2015 and became once more member of Monaco’s Princely Government with the post of “Government Counsellor for External Relations and International Cooperation”, or shortly foreign minister.  Tonelli’s main mission shall concentrate in negotiating along with Andorra and San Marino an association agreement with the EU. He shall be seconded by Monaco’s Head of Government, Minister of State Michel Roger.  Gilles Tonelli served in the Princely Government between 2005 and 2006 and 2009 to 2011 as counsellor for equipment, environment and urbanisation. Between 2006 and 2009 he also held the portfolio of finances and economy. He was posted as ambassador in Brussels from 2011 to 2015 when he took over the José Badia.  New ambassador-designate for the Benelux countries and the EU is Madame Sophie Thevenoux, formerly ambassador of Monaco to France and Andorra between June 2011 and February 2015. She is the first Monégasque woman to have been appointed “government counsellor” (equivalent of minister in Monaco) in 2009 with the portfolio of finances and economy. In Paris she is due to be replaced by Madame Claude Cottalorda.   For more information:  Article of M Gilles Tonelli for DM:  https://diplomatmagazine.eu/2015/01/04/15313/ Monégasque External Relations: www.gouv.mc/Action-Gouvernementale/Monaco-a-l-International    

  Four Nobel Prize winners for Peace and WILPF speak out new peace rate as in 1915 , Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire, Leymah Gbowee and Madeleine Rees.   100 years ago, more than 1,000 women from 12 countries gathered in The Hague there to protest against the First World War and to formulate conditions for a lasting peace. From this historic conference, which Aletta Jacobs was one of the organizers, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) arise. Again in The Hague is WILPF from 27 / m April 29, 2015 at the World Forum in The Hague its 100th anniversary celebration with an international public conference. On April 25, 2015 there will be a bust of Aletta Jacobs to be unveiled at the Peace Palace in The Hague by WILPF Netherlands, as they are – wrongly – was missing. Nobel Prize winner Leymah Gbowee open the conference which – again – hundreds of women from all over the world will be present in as Colombia, Congo, Syria, Libya and Pakistan. Leyman Gbowee is the ultimate example of a woman who managed to stop a war. As a member of the Nobel Women’s Initiative, she will talk about her role and experiences in the Liberian peace movement early 2000. Her initiative to end the war ushered in a period of calm in and made ​​for free elections in 2005, won by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. After her inspiring words followed by more speakers of international stature who are also dedicated to peace, equality and justice. Including the Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire, Leymah Gbowee and Madeleine Rees as Secretary General of WILPF. And we’re not even talking about the rest of the guests list. Well over 100 speakers dealt with worldwide operations such as peace activists, academics, policy makers, among others from the UN, representatives of nation states, NGOs and experts from conflict. Also there is a market, there are exhibitions, a creativity center, a festival and a public event where the world can not but listen to the new message of peace.   The program for the conference is known and can be found via the link www.womenstopwar.org/conference-home/conference-programme    

More freedom for Member States to decide on the use of GMOs in food and feed Today, the Commission presents the results of its review regarding the decision making process for the authorization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and feed. This revision stems from the political guidelines presented to Parliament in July 2014, the grounds for which the current Commission was chosen. The review confirms the need for changes that properly reflect of the views of the general public as well as the need for national governments to have more control and freedom in deciding whether or not to allow use of EU authorized GMOs for consumption by animals (feed) or people (food). With this revision, the Commission proposes to allow Member States more freedom to restrict or ban the use of EU-authorized GMOs for food and feed. Vytenis Andriukaitis, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, said: “I am pleased to deliver on one of the important commitments taken by this Commission, reviewing the legislation on the decision-making process on GMOs. The Commission has listened to the concerns of many European citizens, reflected in the positions expressed by their national governments. Once adopted, today’s proposal will, fully in line with the principle of subsidiarity, grant Member States a greater say as regards the use of EU- authorised GMOs in food and feed on their respective territories.” The proposal adopted by the Commission today is a strong signal to citizens that Europe takes into account their concerns, concerns which may vary from country to country. The new approach aims at obtaining a balance between maintaining an EU authorization system and the freedom for Member States to make their own decisions about the use of GMOs in their territory. However, since it is of the utmost importance that a single risk management system is maintained – as this ensures an equal level of protection throughout the EU – the authorization system currently implemented, based on science and labelling regulations, will not be changed. What will change is that once a GMO is approved for use in the general public, Member States will be permitted to decide whether or not they wish to allow said GMO in their ecosystems. Member States will have to demonstrate that their opt-out procedures are compatible with European law. This includes the principles of the Internal Market as well as the International Obligations of the EU, as these principles are an integral part of the WTO. Opt-outs will be based on legitimate grounds other than those assessed at EU level, i.e. risk to human or animal health and the environment. This proposal enhances similar rights that the Member States received earlier this month thanks to Directive (EU) 2015/412 recently reached between the European Parliament and the Council. Consequently, the EU now has a consistent set of rules for the authorization of GMOs for cultivation and food and feed, taking into account the individual concerns of Member States. This legislative proposal will now be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure.

European Commission objects to alleged abuse of power by Gazprom in Central and Eastern Europe. According to the European Commission, Gazprom has been involved in a number of questionable practices in the Central and Eastern European gas markets. The Commission has stated that these practices are in violation of the European Union’s competition rules, leading the Commission to send a Statement of Objections regarding Gazprom’s violations. A study by the Commission shows that Gazprom abused its dominant market position to divide the market in Central and Eastern Europe. Gazprom would prohibit its customers from re-selling gas to other countries in addition to charging unfair prices. Furthermore, the company may have abused its dominant market position by only supplying gas to wholesalers who consented to certain commitments regarding gas-related infrastructure. Currently, Gazprom has 12 weeks to respond to the Statement of Objections. Additionally, they may request a hearing in order to provide a defense against the accusations. The Commission has stated they will fully respect Gazprom’s right of defense. The Commission has also agreed not to pass any decisions until Gazprom has presented their case. The Statement of Objections in no way prejudges or predetermines the final outcome of the investigation. Margrethe Vestager, the Commissioner for competition policy in the EU, has commented, “Gas is an essential commodity in our daily life: it heats our homes, we use it for cooking and to produce electricity. Maintaining fair competition in European gas markets is therefore of utmost importance”. “All companies that operate in the European market – no matter if they are European or not – have to play by our EU rules. I am concerned that Gazprom is breaking EU antitrust rules by abusing its dominant position on EU gas markets. We find that it may have built artificial barriers preventing gas from flowing from certain Central Eastern European countries to others, hindering cross-border competition. Keeping national gas markets separate also allowed Gazprom to charge prices that we at this stage consider to be unfair. If our concerns were confirmed, Gazprom would have to face the legal consequences of its behaviour.” The Commission’s preliminary findings in the Statement of Objections Gazprom is the largest gas supplier in a number of Central and Eastern European countries. Based on its investigation, the Commission believes that Gazprom actively thwarts competition in the gas markets of eight EU countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. The Commission has discovered significant evidence supporting their claim that Gazprom applies an unfair strategy: For one thing, Gazprom enacts territorial restrictions on wholesalers and industrial customers in the aforementioned countries. These restrictions include export bans which prohibit the countries from exporting Gazprom’s gas, as well as destination clauses which require that the purchased gas only be used in a specific area. On top of this, Gazprom has refused to change the location to which gas is delivered in a number of countries. The Commission has decreed these actions prohibit free trade in the European Economic Area. The aforementioned territorial restrictions often result in higher gas prices. Gazprom is currently engaging in unfair pricing policies in the five EU countries of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Charging wholesalers prices much higher than the costs incurred, Gazprom has abused its power in pursuit of supplemental profits. Gazprom’s utilization of a price index that links their prices to the price of a basket of oil product has massively favored their own economic vitality over that of their customers. There is also ample reason to believe Gazprom is abusing its dominant market power to corner countries into accepting certain commitments and deals if they wish to receive gas. Many gas sales were contingent upon customer investments in a pipeline project promoted by Gazprom or the allowance of Gazprom more control over a pipeline. The Commission provisionally concluded that Gazprom’s practices are an abuse of its dominant market position, prohibited under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If this is indeed the case, the cross-border sale of gas has been hindered, decreasing the liquidity and efficiency of gas sales. Trade between EU countries has been disrupted due to these artificial barriers resulting in higher gas prices.

Today, 22 April 2015, Trial Chamber VI of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an oral ruling, during a status conference, rescheduling the opening of the trial in the case The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda to the second or the third week of July 2015. A specific date will be announced in due course for the trial’s commencement date, which was initially scheduled for 2 June 2015. The Chamber considered a request by the Defence to postpone the trial’s opening until 2 November 2015, which was opposed by the Prosecution and the Legal Representatives of Victims. The Chamber also considered the recent Registry’s submissions indicating that an additional period of approximately one month would be required to facilitate the holding of opening statements in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Having considered the Registry’s need for extra time, as well as all other relevant factors, and having indicated that the Chamber was not satisfied that the Defence’s submissions justify a postponement of the length requested, the Chamber decided to postpone the opening statements to the second or the third week of July 2015. This decision was issued without prejudice to the Presidency’s decision on whether they are to be held in the DRC or not, and decided that the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence shall commence provisionally on the week of 17 August 2015. Background: Bosco Ntaganda, former alleged Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Force Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo [Patriotic Force for the Liberation of Congo] (FPLC), is accused of 13 counts of war crimes (murder and attempted murder; attacking civilians; rape; sexual slavery of civilians; pillaging; displacement of civilians; attacking protected objects; destroying the enemy’s property; and rape, sexual slavery, enlistment and conscription of child soldiers under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities) and five crimes against humanity (murder and attempted murder; rape; sexual slavery; persecution; forcible transfer of population) allegedly committed in Ituri, DRC, in 2002-2003. Mr Ntaganda is in the Court’s custody. On 19 March 2015, Trial Chamber VI recommended to the Presidency of the Court that the opening statements of the trial in the Ntaganda case be held in Bunia, in the DRC. Trial Chamber VI indicated its intention of bringing the judicial work of the Court closer to the most affected communities, and its finding that it is in the interests of justice for the opening statements to be held in Bunia in the DRC. The ICC Presidency is consulting with the DRC authorities and will make a decision on this matter, in consultation with the Trial Chamber, in due course.