EU's Von der Leyen announces 500 mln euro package to lure top researchers to Europe
'We are choosing to put research and innovation, science and technology, at the heart of our economy. We are choosing to be the continent where universities are pillars of our societies and our way of life,' she added.
She also said she wanted EU-member states to invest 3% of gross domestic product in research and development by 2030.
Last month, Macron and Von der Leyen said they would be looking to invite scientists and researchers from the world over to Europe, at a time when Trump's administration is threatening to cut federal funding for Harvard and other U.S. universities.
In April, France also launched the 'Choose France for Science' platform, operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR), which enables universities, schools, and research organisations to apply for co-funding from the government to host researchers.
($1 = 0.8825 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA feels the squeeze in dispute with WTO over citrus regulatory measures
Since 2023, South African citrus growers have had to spend almost R4bn per year to comply with the additional European Union import restrictions. South Africa's citrus industry is its largest agricultural export industry, and the country is the world's second-largest exporter of citrus fruit. The European Union (EU) has consistently accounted for approximately 40% of South Africa's exports, amounting to around 64-68 million 15kg cartons annually, primarily during Europe's off-season. Since 2023, citrus growers have had to spend almost R4-billion per year to comply with the additional EU import restrictions. Required cold storage upgrades and intensified inspection and certification requirements have especially affected smaller farmers, who account for more than one-third of South Africa's citrus exports. The reason for the new restrictions? Plant health rules targeting two threats — the false codling moth (FCM) and citrus black spot (CBS), a fungal disease — which the EU claims pose a risk of introduction and spread to European citrus. South Africa sees something else: regulatory measures that appear to lack sufficient scientific justification, impose disproportionate compliance requirements and place strain on a key export sector. What sparked the citrus challenge, and where are we now? In April 2022, the EU intensified CBS-related import conditions, and in June 2022 introduced temporary emergency measures for FCM, followed by permanent measures, replacing the previously accepted systems approach with rigid cold treatment protocols. The temporary FCM rules applied even to shipments already in transit, resulting in dozens of South African citrus containers being stopped at EU ports. For exporters already facing rising costs, inspection delays, and regulatory uncertainty, this escalation marked a turning point, prompting South Africa, on 27 July 2022, to initiate its first-ever World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute over the FCM rules. A second challenge followed in April 2024 over CBS. Consultations have failed to resolve either dispute. At South Africa's request, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body agreed to establish panels to hear both cases, though panellists have yet to be appointed. South Africa does not challenge the goal of plant health, but questions whether the EU's specific measures comply with its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), particularly on scientific justification, transparency and non-discrimination. Are these measures really about plant health? Under the SPS Agreement, import restrictions must be science-based, proportionate and non-discriminatory. South Africa argues that the EU's measures fail this test, while the EU maintains they are justified by risk assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Much of the underlying scientific data come from South African researchers, and parties recognise the existence of FCM and CBS. However, South Africa contends that the regulatory response was disproportionate to the established risk, raising legal concerns under WTO law First, while there have been documented FCM larvae interceptions, the EU's measures appear more trade-restrictive than necessary. South Africa's enhanced systems approach achieves high pest freedom, yet the EU imposed additional rigid cold treatment requirements. Less trade-restrictive options, like recognising pest-free zones or tailoring measures to seasonal conditions, were not adopted, and the lack of specific recommendations for stricter measures in the EU's risk assessment further weakens the case for escalation. In the CBS case, the scientific debate over whether fruit without leaves poses a viable pathway for fungal spread remains unresolved. Second, the EU has not applied its protection levels consistently. In the FCM case, Israel was removed from the regulation's scope without explanation. In the CBS case, Brazil, Uruguay and Zimbabwe received temporary exemptions from certain conditions that continued to apply to South Africa, despite comparable risk profiles. Third, the structure and timing of the measures raise concern that they may function as disguised trade restrictions, prohibited under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. Three indicators support this view. First, in the CBS case, South African citrus imports face stricter controls than domestic produce, despite reported trace detections of Phyllosticta citricarpa (the CBS pathogen) in southern Europe, including Italy and Portugal, which the EFSA has not confirmed as evidence of establishment. Second, in the FCM case, mandatory cold treatment was imposed despite very low interception rates and no direct recommendation from EFSA for such measures. Third, both sets of restrictions took effect during the European off-season, when South African citrus enters the EU market. Spain, the EU's dominant citrus producer, has a clear interest in limiting counter-seasonal competition. These patterns suggest that the measures, though formally justified on phytosanitary grounds, may in substance serve to protect EU producers from external competition. A bigger picture: Global trade rules and reciprocal risks The citrus disputes raise broader questions about the credibility and functionality of global trade rules. When precautionary plant health measures are not regularly reviewed, grounded in updated evidence and consistently applied, they risk becoming persistent barriers to trade, especially for developing countries. The WTO's SPS Agreement was designed to strike a balance between biosecurity and trade facilitation. But in practice, powerful economies may impose and export contested rules with limited scrutiny. Moldova, for example, recently adopted citrus import rules aligned with EU standards, illustrating how contested regulatory approaches can extend their influence beyond the EU itself. Meanwhile, the United States has introduced new citrus tariffs, placing further pressure on South Africa's exporters and its regional neighbours, including Zimbabwe and Eswatini. In this context, securing stable and rules-based market access to the EU is not merely a legal concern; it is a strategic priority. Yet, legal assertiveness comes with risks. As South Africa challenges the EU citrus measures, it must also maintain credibility across other sectors, including in poultry, where its import restrictions and disease control measures have drawn criticism from trading partners. What needs to change and why it matters beyond citrus Resolving disputes like these does not require weakening plant health standards, but rather clarifying legal obligations: What constitutes sufficient evidence? When do precautionary measures require review? How should consistency be assessed across comparable risk scenarios? Ensuring that SPS measures do not become disguised trade barriers demands transparency in risk assessment, the consistent application of WTO obligations, and equal treatment of similarly situated exporters. For African exporters, the citrus disputes test whether global trade rules can meaningfully constrain discriminatory or opaque measures, and whether legal tools can support more inclusive market access. If international trade rules are to retain their legitimacy, they must protect plant health, without becoming barriers dressed in scientific clothing. DM Franziska Sucker is an associate professor at the School of Law and co-assistant dean (Postgraduate Affairs) at the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand. Biandri Joubert is a lecturer at the Wits School of Law.
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Competition Commission and international banks to square off in ConCourt over rand price-fixing accusations
The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. The Constitutional Court is due to hear four days of legal argument in a matter involving the Competition Commission and more than two dozen banks from across the world, which the commission has accused of 'the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. Three cases, one brought by the commission and the other two brought by the French bank BNP Paribas and US-based Credit Suisse Securities, have been combined into a single massive hearing at which the court will determine whether all or some of the banks should be held liable for colluding. Years of legal battles The case has its origin in a 2017 referral by the Competition Commission to the Competition Tribunal, in which the commission alleged that international traders were using the Bloomberg instant messaging service to discuss the pricing of the US dollar to rand exchange rate. The commission eventually included 28 banks in its case referral. 'The traders shared competitively sensitive information and made arrangements to assist each other by coordinating their trading activities. The traders would regularly agree on the bid-offer spread or spot rate for buying and selling of the USD/ZAR currency paid,' said the commission. The traders would also make arrangements to manipulate the bid-offer prices on the Reuters trading platform by agreeing on the order of transacting, withholding their trades, or posting 'fake bids and offers', said Makgale Mohlala, the manager of the cartels division of the Competition Commission, in an affidavit before the ConCourt. Various banks filed appeals and exceptions to the case, alleging that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to refer the case. The Competition Appeal Court heard the matters and found that the commission had no jurisdiction with regard to 17 of the international banks. Just four international banks were retained in the case: BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse Securities, JPMorgan Chase and Co, and HSBC Bank PLC. South African banks Standard Bank, Nedbank Limited and FirstRand Bank Limited had also appealed against the initial referral, but the court dismissed their cases. 'Single overarching conspiracy' Mohlala said the commission 'cannot accept this outcome in a case involving the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The commission had said that there was a 'single overarching conspiracy' among the banks. 'The manipulation impacted on the exchange rate of the South African rand, which in turn affected various parts of the South African economy — including imports and exports, foreign direct investment, public and private debt, companies' balance sheets, with the attendant implications for the prices of goods and services and financial assets,' said Mohlala. The commission also alleges that the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) erred in several conclusions of its judgment, saying it created new requirements for jurisdiction and contradicted itself. No constitutional issue Some of the banks that were listed in the initial complaint have opposed the commission's application, criticising the way the commission handled the initial complaint and subsequent litigation. Standard Bank of South Africa is among these, saying the commission ignored important information when formulating its complaint. In an affidavit, Ian Sinton, the former general counsel and current consultant for Standard Bank, said the bank was opposing the commission because 'there is no constitutional issue implicated' and 'it is not in the interests of justice' that leave to appeal be granted. He claimed that the bank had raised several factual issues during the Competition Tribunal phase that were ignored. 'Numerous opportunities have been afforded to the commission to plead a sustainable case against [Standard Bank], and it has failed to do so. Contrary to its obligation of impartiality imposed by section 20 of the Competition Act, the commission has shut its mind to relevant information furnished to it by Standard Bank, including easily verifiable facts which dispose of the case,' said Stinton in court papers. The bank also argues that the commission didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute it because the alleged misconduct did not take place in its local office. 'The commission made out no case at all linking the activities of the Johannesburg branch to any cause of action, and so the deficiencies in alleging subject matter jurisdiction remain exactly as before,' said the bank through its lawyer Martin Versfeld. The lawyer for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Shawn van der Meulen, has criticised the commission for raising new legal issues that were not brought up during the initial appeal. JPMorgan Chase has also criticised the commission's decision to approach the ConCourt, saying the case 'does not legitimately raise a constitutional issue'. Banks appeal Two of the banks whose tribunal referral was ruled as valid, BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse Securities, have launched their own cases. BNP alleges that the commission has not properly pleaded its revised case. 'By failing to properly plead its case, the commission has fallen short of the requirements imposed on it by the CAC. This raises a constitutional issue in that this court is called on to decide whether the rule of law, enshrined in section 1 of the Constitution, can accommodate a situation in which the commission can exercise its prosecutorial powers in contravention of an order of the CAC, which binds the commission,' said Rudolph Labuschagne, BNP's attorney. Credit Suisse Securities has also taken issue with how the commission initiated its investigation. The commission 'exceeded [its] statutory power and thereby violated the principles of legality and the rule of law. These are quintessential constitutional matters,' said Paul Cleland, the attorney for Credit Suisse Securities. Credit Suisse also takes issue with the appeal decision, saying the CAC failed 'to treat like parties alike in the same proceedings — for no good reason whatsoever'. It believes it should have got an exception, like several other international banks. The bank says this action is 'patently arbitrary and irrational'. 'The CAC order violates the right to equal treatment before the law under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, which 'entitles everybody, at the very least, to equal treatment by our courts of law'.' Due to the similarity of issues being dealt with, the ConCourt has combined all three cases into one hearing. Argument will be heard from 19-22 August. DM
Eyewitness News
9 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
European leaders to join Zelensky in US for Ukraine talks with Trump
European leaders will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his visit to Washington on Monday seeking an end to Moscow's invasion, after President Donald Trump dropped his push for a ceasefire following an Alaska summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, more than three years after the Kremlin ordered the invasion, had been one of Trump's core demands before the summit, to which Ukraine and its European allies were not invited. But after the meeting yielded no breakthrough, Trump ruled out an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine -- a move that would appear to favour Putin, who has long argued for negotiations on a final peace deal. Ukraine and its European allies have criticised Putin's stance as a way to buy time and press Russia's battlefield advances. The leaders heading to Washington on Monday to try and bend Trump's ear on the matter include German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Ahead of the visit, von der Leyen said on X she would welcome Zelensky for a meeting in Brussels on Sunday which other European leaders would join by video, before accompanying the Ukrainian leader on his US trip at his "request" and with "other European leaders". The German government, which confirmed Merz was going, said it would try to emphasise "interest in a swift peace agreement in Ukraine". Trump had briefed Zelensky and European leaders on his flight back from Alaska to Washington, saying afterwards that "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement which would end the war". Ceasefire agreements "often times do not hold up," Trump argued on his Truth Social platform. But Zelensky has appeared unconvinced by the change of tack, saying on Saturday that it "complicates the situation". If Moscow lacks "the will to carry out a simple order to stop the strikes, it may take a lot of effort to get Russia to have the will to implement (something) far greater -- peaceful coexistence with its neighbours for decades," he said on social media. European leaders for their part have expressed unease over Trump's outreach to Putin from the outset. 'HARSH REALITY' Trump expressed support during his call with Zelensky and European leaders for a proposal by Putin to take full control of two eastern Ukrainian regions that Russia largely controls in exchange for freezing the frontline in two others, an official briefed on the talks told AFP. Putin "de facto demands that Ukraine leave Donbas," an area consisting of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine, the source said. In exchange, Russian forces would halt their offensive in the Black Sea port region of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in southern Ukraine, where the main cities are still under Ukrainian control. Several months into its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia in September 2022 claimed to have annexed all four Ukrainian regions even though its troops still do not fully control any of them. "The Ukrainian president refused to leave Donbas," the source said. Trump notably also said the United States was prepared to provide Ukraine security guarantees, an assurance Merz hailed as "significant progress". But there was a scathing assessment of the summit outcome from the European Union's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, who accused Putin of seeking to "drag out negotiations" with no commitment to end the bloodshed. "The harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war any time soon," Kallas said. ZELENSKY BACK IN WHITE HOUSE The diplomatic focus now switches to Zelensky's talks at the White House on Monday with the European leaders in tow. The Ukrainian president's last Oval Office visit in February ended in an extraordinary shouting match, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance publicly berating Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for US aid. In an interview with broadcaster Fox News after his sit-down with Putin, Trump had suggested that the onus was now on Zelensky to secure a peace deal as they work towards an eventual trilateral summit with Putin. "It's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump said. Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine rages on, with both Kyiv and Moscow launching attack drones at each other Sunday. In his post-summit statement in Alaska, Putin had warned Ukraine and European countries not to engage in any "behind-the-scenes intrigues" that could disrupt what he called "this emerging progress".
