EU's new Russia sanctions to target the energy sector and banks
The European Commission on Tuesday proposed an 18th package of sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, aimed at Moscow's energy revenues, its banks and its military industry.
The new package proposes banning transactions with Russia's Nord Stream gas pipelines, as well as banks that engage in sanctions circumvention.
"Russia's goal is not peace, it is to impose the rule of might ... strength is the only language that Russia will understand," Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told a press conference.
The Commission proposes adding 22 more Russian banks to its list and broadening restrictions on them beyond a removal from SWIFT, a global financial messaging system, to a full transaction ban. It also proposes expanding the scope to banks from third countries, and lists the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), as well as its subsidiaries and wider network.
Kirill Dmitriev, head of the RDIF, said von der Leyen's statements reflected "the EU's desire to prolong the conflict in Ukraine and its strong dissatisfaction with RDIF's efforts to restore relations between Russia and the United States".
He said in a statement that the RDIF was also actively supporting European companies that have a presence in Russia.
The Commission has also proposed lowering the Group of Seven nations (G7) price cap on Russian crude oil to $45 a barrel, from $60 a barrel, in a bid to cut Russia's energy revenues.
Von der Leyen said that the oil price cap will be discussed at a G7 leaders meeting in Canada next week.
"My assumption is that we do that together as the G7. We started that as G7, it was successful as a measure from the G7, and I want to continue this measure as G7," she said.
The proposal also lists more vessels that make up Russia's shadow fleet, taking the total to more than 400 ships, and oil trading companies. The Commission has also proposed a ban on imports of refined products produced from Russian oil.
'In this way, we want to prevent that some of the Russian crude oil reaches the EU market through the back door,' von der Leyen said.
EU countries will start debating the proposal this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
Telangana BC hearings end with AP MLA's Kalinga caste plea
Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh MLA from Amadalavalasa constituency, Kuna Ravi Kumar, requested the Telangana Backward Classes Commission to include the Kalinga caste in the BC community. The Commission conducted a public hearing on its final day regarding the inclusion of 26 castes omitted from the Telangana BC caste list after the formation of the Telangana state. The hearing was attended by BC Commission Chairman G Niranjan and Members Rapolu Jayaprakash, Bala Lakshmi Rangu, Deputy Director U Srinivasa Rao, Special Officer G Satish Kumar, and Research Officer G Lakshminarayana. During the hearing, the Commission examined 64 representations. Overall, the Commission examined 133 representations over the three-day hearing. Representatives from the Pondara, Settibalija, Koppulavelama, Polnativelama, and Kalinga castes appeared before the Commission and requested that their castes be included in the Telangana BC list. Kuna Ravi Kumar represented on behalf of the Kalinga caste. Conversely, representatives of various castes belonging to the Telangana BC 'A' group appealed to the Commission not to reinstate the 26 omitted castes.
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, 'go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results'. ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. 'What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods,' TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. 'It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap,' he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. 'When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee,' she told the court. 'The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment,' she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
