Psychology of optimism
Psychology of optimism

The Forgotten Holocaust of Gypsies

At the beginning of the third millennium, in the 21st century, we could not say that Gypsies in Europe live more comfortably and feel more comfortable. However, based on the optimism typical of the psychology of the Roma ethnic group, we should not deny the number of successes achieved by the EU Member States, supported by the non-governmental sector and civil society.

This philosophy of joy is the most important heritage and treasure of the Gypsies, this national trait can become a major contribution to their integration and full inclusion in society. This is also what the widespread crisis over the situation applied by the governments of some European Union member states to the illegally staying Roma.

It is time to increase the sensitivity to the problems of this ethnic community in society, by promoting and emphasizing their specific features, customs, arts and crafts, as well as recalling difficult moments for this ethnic group in world history.

It would be appropriate to recall the period of World War II with the issuance of the most anti-Gypsy (as well as the most anti-Jewish) laws and persecutions. In 1935, two anti-Gypsy laws were passed in Germany, supplementing the racist laws of 1933 to preserve the purity of the German race. They deprived Gypsies of their civil rights and forbade the marriage of Germans to Jews or Gypsies. This is the infamous “Law for the Preservation of German Blood”. However, the National Socialists did not rely solely on legislation, and in 1937 the castration of Gypsies began. Nazi propaganda proudly notes that 99% of Gypsy boys under the age of 14 have been castrated. In 1938, another anti-Gypsy law was passed, in which a special section was devoted to the “Gypsy threat.” The police were obliged to categorize all gypsies and semi-gypsies from the age of six onwards and to catechize them, which made it much easier for them to be sent to concentration camps later. An amendment to the same law of 1943 de facto and de jure deprived German survivors of German citizenship, on the pretext that they would most likely leave the German Reich after the war. In 1939, 30,000 gypsies were gathered to settle in Poland. These were almost all Roma living in the Third Reich. Only 3,000 Germans left for Poland and approx. 6,000 Austrian gypsies and another 3,000 Austrian gypsies were imprisoned in concentration camps, such as the gypsy camp Laskendbach, whose recruitment began in 1940. In less than two years, between the winter of 1943 and the summer of 1944, 22,258 Gypsies were deported to the Birkenau camp. Large groups of this ethnic group have also been exterminated in Buchenwald and Dachau. They were the preferred material for scientific experiments with poisonous gases and medical experiments. The same was done with the gypsies in Italy, and the most famous specialized concentration camp for them was on the island of Sardinia. More than two-thirds of the Polish Gypsies were exterminated, and the total number before the war was about 35,000. Statistics, accurate in German, show suffocation in the gas chambers of more than a thousand gypsies a day in 1943-44. On September 28, 1944, 800 gypsies alone were killed, including 105 boys between the ages of 9 and 14.

However, the Gypsies – these preachers of optimism – never stopped believing in the future, in life, and even in those monstrous conditions they continued to give birth to children – in 1943 alone in the Birkenau camp 361 gypsies were born, sucked with breast milk and the cruel lesson of history. Authors such as Yonel Rotaru estimate that about 3.5 million people died in the genocide against gypsies during World War II. The numbers are staggering, but let them remind us of the tragedy of the Gypsies, who today are for the most part European citizens but are still considered by some to be the “white negroes of Europe“.

Only Bulgaria (incl. Nazi Germany-allied government of Tsar Boris III and prime minister Bogdan Filov) testified to the strength of civil society and during the Second World War saved from deportation and annihilation in fascist concentration camps, in addition to its subjects of Jewish origin. 48,000) and their Gypsies (ca. 147,000) regardless of whether they profess Islam or Orthodox Christianity, and in both ethnic minorities at the end of the war the statistics showed an increase, instead of a decrease and annihilation, as in other European countries.

Russian prisoners recorded audio stories for their children
Russian prisoners recorded audio stories for their children

The action “Audiobooks for convicted children” was held in Russian penal colonies. In different regions, those serving sentences read the works on record, so that the files would then be handed over to their families. The project was timed to coincide with Children’s Day, which is celebrated on June 1.

Thus, in the correctional colony No. 33 in Saratov, one of the first participants in the action was a 29-year-old convict, who will be released only three years later. He has a five-year-old son and a nine-year-old daughter. Father wrote down verses for them from the collection “Smehodron” by the Saratov poet Yevgeny Grachev, reports “Vzglyad-info”.

And in the local correctional colony No. 10, a convict, in whose family a child with special needs is growing up, said that he had already received a response. His wife shared the baby’s joyful reaction to his dad’s voice. According to psychologists of the Federal Penitentiary Service, the sound of the native voice has a positive effect on the emotional sphere of the child. This is how he feels the presence of his father or mother in his life.

“Profile” said that now the society is discussing another innovation that will help the socialization of prisoners – the idea of ​​replacing the vacancies left by migrants with them. The Ministry of Justice has already positively assessed such a proposal by the FSIN. It turned out that almost 180,000 convicts have the right to replace imprisonment with correctional labor, but only 8,000 such jobs have been created in the country.

The idea of ​​replacing labor migrants with prisoners approved by the Ministry of Justice

According to the Minister of Justice of Russia Konstantin Chuichenko, he positively assesses the initiative proposed by the Federal Penitentiary Service to involve prisoners in work instead of labor migrants. He recalled that today almost 180 thousand convicts have the right to replace imprisonment with correctional labor, but the country has created places for only 8 thousand people. “I think this idea of ​​replacing migrant labor is correct. It is possible to create correctional centers at large construction sites, at large facilities, and citizens serving sentences, as a rule, have the necessary qualifications to perform this work,” Chuichenko told reporters in Khabarovsk …

As Interfax clarifies, the minister added that Russia is interested in large investment projects, where the number of persons serving sentences in the form of correctional labor will be at least a thousand people. According to him, there are no such people now, and the number, as a rule, is about 100 people.

“Profile” wrote about the proposal of the Federal Penitentiary Service to use prisoners for work in Russia instead of labor migrants. The head of the department, Alexander Kalashnikov, is confident that the labor of prisoners can be used more actively in the country. He noted that all prisoners will be provided with a dormitory or apartment, as well as conditions for living with their families. In addition, they will receive a salary for their work, added the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service.

“This idea is absurd in the 21st century” – about who foreign agents are in Russia (2)
“This idea is absurd in the 21st century” – about who foreign agents are in Russia (2)

Yekaterinburg lawyer Yulia Fedotova explained who can be included in this list

3. What does this mean?

This means that those who fall under the characteristics of a foreign agent (individuals, legal entities, non-profit organizations, public organizations) are obliged to voluntarily surrender to the Ministry of Justice (it is he who deals with all regulation in this area) by submitting an application for inclusion in the relevant register, and doom themselves for a huge amount of strange paperwork, reports and other obscure actions.

An individual, for example, is obliged to indicate the presence of a status when applying to state bodies, local governments, public associations, educational organizations. Such a person cannot be appointed to positions in state bodies and local self-government bodies and is obliged to provide each post on Facebook with an indication that the information has been disseminated by a foreign agent.

NGOs and public organizations are required to submit tons of reports and also indicate everywhere that they are foreign agents on any materials distributed.

The media, when mentioning foreign agents, distributing their materials, are also obliged to indicate that the person / NPO / legal entity belongs to foreign agents.

4. Responsibility

Provided for criminal and administrative.

If an individual “does not surrender” to the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Justice somehow learns about the transfer of 5 hryvnias to him, the person faces an administrative fine of 30,000 to 50,000 rubles. For failure to indicate their status on Facebook – from 10,000 to 30,000 rubles with or without confiscation of the subject of an administrative offense. That is, they may well take away your smartphone, from which you write posts (Art. 19.7.5-4 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

For the dissemination of information about / from foreign agents in the media without a corresponding indication, a fine is also provided for – for citizens in the amount of 2,000 to 2,500 rubles; for officials – from 4000 to 5000 rubles; for legal entities – from 40,000 to 50,000 rubles (amendments signed by the president, part 2.4 of article 13.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation).

For non-notification of their activities, NCOs also face a fine – from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles, for disseminating information without marking – from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles with confiscation of the subject of an administrative offense (Article 19.34 of the Administrative Code).

A foreign media outlet-foreign agent can also be fined from 500,000 rubles to 5,000,000 rubles in case of “gross” violations.

In the event of repeated commission of offenses in this area, criminal liability is already provided for foreign agents and heads of organizations under Art. 330.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Individuals face up to 5 years in prison, the rest – up to 2 years.

5. Summary

The legislation on foreign agents was written by someone who hates humanity very much. In addition to the fragmentation of norms, finding them in different acts, cumbersomeness, indigestibility, I can also note the absolute absurdity. The very idea of ​​the formation of foreign agents is absurd, since in the 21st century, in a transparent world with the Internet, it is actually aimed at prohibiting any contact, exchange of experience, information and assistance with other countries.

Read part one:

László Pesty reports on the campaign “EU Minority Lives Matter”
László Pesty reports on the campaign “EU Minority Lives Matter”

Friday 30 of April, the Press Club Brussels Europe will be hosting in their premises, a press conference organized by László Pesty, who is the head of the campaign for the European Citizens Initiative SIGNITEUROPE.COM., also known as “EU Minority Lives Matter”.

According to their statements, “In the European Union, there are about 50 million people who belong to a national minority. Their lands are the national regions we, the civil organizers of the initiative stand for“.

The campaign has collected so far more than 1.150.000 online signatures, reaching the needed thresholds in 10 member states, making it “one of the most successful of its kind, ten days before the deadline of May 7th”.

The EU has seen 76 such citizens’ initiatives but only 6 of them have successfully met the conditions: one million signatures and 7 countries, and SIGNITEUROPE.COM, making it the 3rd most succesful of this type of initiatives.

László Pesty, a well known Hungarian filmmaker, is head of campaign, and he will be present in the Brussels Press Club. It will be a report on the current status of the petition, and to answer all questions. László Pesty takes the floor in Brussels deliberately at the same moment the plenary session of the European Parliament is taking place in Brussels.

Moreover, just a few days before the deadline of the petition,  he also wants to be present himself in the heart of Europe, for a final effort in collecting the required threshold of signatures in Belgium.

Where will the conference be?

The press conference will take place at 11:00 at the premises of the Press Club Brussels Europe, and can be followed from their conference room where Pesty will answer questions, or via the Press Club TV youtube channel.
Join the press conference on line via
For more informarion: Yvonne Mester +36 306990938

Open letter to the European Parliament: Call out the EU Council on its rule of law hypocrisy ǀ View
Open letter to the European Parliament: Call out the EU Council on its rule of law hypocrisy ǀ View

A few weeks ago, the European Council appointed the European prosecutors who will be part of the European Public Prosecution Office (EPPO). Some might remember the controversy surrounding the appointment of its Chief Prosecutor last year. The Council appointed an independent panel to evaluate the candidates but, under pressure from the Romanian government, initially planned on choosing a different candidate other than Romanian prosecutor Laura Codruța Kövesi who was preferred as its first choice. Ultimately, the European Parliament shielded the procedure from national interference and the independent panel prevailed in their choice.

The Council has now done the opposite with respect to the selection of the European Prosecutors who will work under the guidance of the Chief Prosecutor. With respect to the candidates of three member states Belgium, Bulgaria, and Portugal, the Council has decided to choose a candidate other than the one recommended by the independent panel, all without providing any reasons as to why it has done so and without its deliberation being made public. This strikes a blow at the credibility of the independence of the EPPO and the rule of law in the European Union.

The Council Regulation which set up the EPPO put in place a set of institutional guarantees aimed at safeguarding its independence. These include an impartial and independent selection process for the European prosecutors, guided by criteria of fairness and competence. Under the Regulation, member states are only permitted to nominate three candidates for a position (without any order of preference) with the selection and appointment to be done by the Council with the support of an independent panel that reviews and ranks the candidates.

Respect for the integrity of this procedure is crucial to protect trust in the independence of the EPPO. One of the reasons for the selection to be done at the European – and not national – level is because these prosecutors, while part of the EPPO, will have significant powers in regard to the investigations to be conducted in their member states of origin. They cannot owe their appointment to their national governments. The way the decision of the Council in appointing the new prosecutors was taken clearly undermines this objective.

It is true that the Council is not legally bound by the ranking made by the independent panel. But the Council must, at least, provide the reasons for when it opts for a different candidate. The independent panel provided reasons for its ranking. The Council cannot change this ranking without any explanation. In the absence of these reasons, a shadow is cast over the selection made by the Council, diminishing the trust of European citizens in the independence of the prosecutors.

The absence of reasons, as well as the total lack of transparency, also makes it impossible for EU citizens and other EU bodies (in particular the European Parliament) to effectively scrutinise the selection made by the Council.

The suspicion (based on the statements made by some national governments critical of its decision) is that the Council simply replaced the preferences of the independent committee by those expressed by the national governments of the candidates. This undermines the intent of the Council Regulation for the selection to be done at the European level. As stated, the Regulation did not even authorise member states to express a preference for any of the three candidates of their nationality. EU law expressly differentiates instances when the power of appointment is conferred on member states acting together or, as in this instance, it is vested in the Council, a Union institution acting on behalf of the rule of law and governed by the rule of law.

By undermining the role of the independent committee without providing any reasons to do so, the Council undermined the credibility and the independence of the EPPO. This is reinforced by the absolute lack of transparency and the strong suspicion that the choice was ultimately placed in the hands of the national governments of the different candidates. This is the exact opposite of the rule of law that the European Union claims to protect.

It is also contrary to what the EPPO stands for. It is for this reason that we call upon the European Parliament – whose own authority in this matter is also at stake, having helped to set up the independent committee – to seek the annulment of the Council decision before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Union cannot claim to be a defender of the rule of law if its own Prosecution Office is born in violation of such rule of law.


  • Alberto Alemanno, Professor, HEC, Paris
  • Andrea Simmoncini, Dean, Law School, Universitá de Firenze
  • Dimitry Kochenov, Professor, Groningen University Law School
  • Dominique Ritling, Professor, Strasbourg University Law School
  • Federico Fabrinni, Professor and Director Law Research Center, Dublin City University
  • Harm Schepel, Director of Law Programmes, Brussels School of International Studies, University of Kent
  • Laurent Pech, Head of the Law Department, Middlesex University, London
  • Loic Azoulai, Professor, Sciences Po, Paris University
  • Kalypso Nicolaides, Professor, Oxford University and School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute
  • Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor, Princeton University
  • Miguel Poiares Maduro, Professor, Global Law School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa and School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute
  • Oreste Pollicini, Law School, Universitá Bocconi
  • Paul Craig, Professor, Oxford University
  • Sébastien Platon, Professor of Public Law, University of Bordeaux
  • Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz, Professor and Director of the Department of European and Comparative Law, University of Gdańsk
Protests must be nonviolent; governments must respect rights, pope says
Protests must be nonviolent; governments must respect rights, pope says

Vatican City — Expressing his concern about demonstrations taking place in many countries around the world, Pope Francis appealed for nonviolence, dialogue and the guarantee of civil rights.

“In these weeks, we are witnessing numerous popular protests all over the world — in many places — expressing the increasing unrest of civil society in the face of particularly critical political and social situations,” the pope said Sept. 13 after reciting the Angelus prayer.

“While I urge the demonstrators to present their demands peacefully, without giving in to the temptation of aggression and violence,” he said, “I appeal to all those with public and governmental responsibilities to listen to the voice of their fellow citizens and to meet their just aspirations, ensuring full respect for human rights and civil liberties.”

The pope did not mention any specific city or country. However, two days earlier he had dispatched his foreign minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher, to Minsk, Belarus, to show his closeness to the people and his support of the local church.

Thousands of people have been demonstrating daily since President Alexander Lukashenko, in power already for 26 years, claimed Aug. 9 that he had won reelection again. Hundreds of people have been arrested, and the country’s main opposition leaders have been forced into exile.

Pope Francis also may have had in mind the ongoing protests in the United States over police brutality and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, and more than a year of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

In areas where there are protests, the pope asked Catholic communities, and especially their pastors, “to work for dialogue — always in favor of dialogue — and in favor of reconciliation.”

Also after his recitation of the Angelus, the pope spoke to visitors in St. Peter’s Square about the fires Sept. 9 that destroyed the Moria refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, displacing some 12,000 asylum-seekers and, as the pope said, leaving them “without a shelter, even a precarious one.”

“I still remember my visit there” in 2016, he said, and the appeal he, Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Orthodox Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens made to other European governments and citizens “to do our part toward giving migrants, refugees and asylum seekers a humane and dignified welcome in Europe.”

Liechtenstein brings an Inter-State case against the Czech Republic
Liechtenstein brings an Inter-State case against the Czech Republic

On 19 August 2020 the Government of Liechtenstein lodged an inter-State application against the Czech Republic under Article 33 (Inter-State cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging breaches of the rights of its citizens in property cases.

The case concerns the Government of Liechtenstein’s complaint under several Articles of the Convention about the respondent State’s classification of Liechtenstein citizens as persons with German nationality for the purposes of applying the Decrees of the President of Republic of 1945 (also known as the Beneš decrees), which, among other things, confiscated property belonging to all ethnic Germans and Hungarians after the Second World War.

In its application the Government of Liechtenstein alleges violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, as well as of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with the other Articles.

The Government of Liechtenstein refers in its complaints to two sets of proceedings concerning property in the Czech Republic, one set against the Prince of Liechtenstein Foundation, which inherited all the property owned by the late Prince Franz Josef II, and one set concerning 33 individual cases brought by Liechtenstein nationals, including the head of state, Prince Hans-Adam II.

The Czech Republic has asserted ownership to the property in the cases. According to the Government of Liechtenstein, one of the cases was concluded in favour of the Czech State in a decision of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of February 2020.

For a Q&A on inter-State cases please click here:

Spanish human rights attorney writes to Von der Leyen on planned violations of fundamental health rights
Spanish human rights attorney writes to Von der Leyen on planned violations of fundamental health rights

A Spanish consumers association Atty Luis de Miguel Ortega, with a coalition of other associations, has written the President of the European Commission requesting urgent response and adjustment to the law in different health issues related to the current situation of pandemic, saying that:

This institutional behavior, together with the evident collusion with philanthropic-looking pharmaceutical research, production and distribution entities, not only affects the freedom of the market but also the essential rights of citizens and consumers who are left out of the slightest decision.

At the end of the letter (which can be found below the article) request Von der Leyen the following.

1) Have associations by persons in the procedure of the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relative to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicines for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease.

2) These associations are considered an interested party and their legitimacy and direct interest are recognized.

3) The file or, where appropriate, all the information related to said modification that is legitimately accessible to interested persons is transferred to us.

4) It is considered announced that if this claim is not answered within the deadline, a claim will be filed with the Court of Justice of the EU, as established in the provisions that regulate access to said jurisdiction. However, the European Commission requires acknowledgment of receipt stating the corresponding deadlines and resources.


To: European Commission – President Mrs. Ursula Von der Leyen – Vice President Ms. Věra Jourová Values ​​and Transparency – Commissioner Mrs. Stella Kyriakides Health and Food Safety European Commission / Secretary General B – 1049 Brussels / BELGIUM

Mr. Luis de Miguel Ortega, as Attorney and in the name and representation of the associations indicated above [Association SCABELUM of Consumers], appears in a timely manner and respectfully SAYS:


That the associations mentioned in this writing, watch over the interests of consumers, especially their health rights and are concerned about the consequences that any reduction in guarantees for human health and the environment may have for the citizens they represent.

Proposing the release and use of genetically modified organisms without guaranteeing the safety of the environment and citizens, seems a crazy idea when not directly terrifying in a context of biological risk that may not only not obtain the adequate response, but may also further aggravate the situation.

The precautionary principle is established to avoid unnecessary risks and has been a doctrinal constant over the years, and in this sense it should be remembered that the seriousness of a situation, by itself, cannot be a reason for a reduction in guarantees and caution as proposed by the Commission.

It is also proposed in a confusing way, without explaining the true object of such modification, which is none other than experimentation with vaccines resulting from genetic engineering, as an experiment for use in the population, without guaranteeing safety -without causing harm-, efficacy – achieving a concrete and measurable objective- and efficiency -at a reasonable cost-.

Throughout the health crisis, there has been a lack of data transparency and an obsession to conduct experiments on human beings, avoid possible responses and treatments, and insist on a vaccine for which there is no prior experience or guarantee.

Real and effective treatments such as artemisia, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide or vitamin C in high doses, have been banned, reviled, censored and even persecuted, pretending that the objective of the institutions and states was not life, the health and safety of its citizens, but a strange business that we fail to understand.

This institutional behavior, together with the evident collusion with philanthropic-looking pharmaceutical research, production and distribution entities, not only affects the freedom of the market but also the essential rights of citizens and consumers who are left out of the slightest decision.


That this part has studied in detail the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relating to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicinal products for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (Text with EEA relevance).

That said modification affects the following Directives that we have studied:

Directive 2009/41 / CE, relative to the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms.

Directive 2001/18 / CE, on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.

Directive 2001/20 / CE, on clinical trials (Directive 2001/18 / CE and Directive 2009/41 / CE).

Directive 2001/83 / EC (Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004).

REGULATION (EU) No 536/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of April 16, 2014 on clinical trials of medicinal products for human use, and by which Directive 2001/20 / EC is repealed (Text relevant to the purposes of the EEA )


What we have studied in detail:

“ Coordinated EU action to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2020 on coordinated action by the Union to combat the COVID – 19 pandemic and its consequences (2020/2616 (RSP)). “


” European Parliament resolution on the European Union’s public health strategy after COVID-19 (2020/2691 (RSP))”


Having regard to the TFEU, the Commission’s Internal Regulations [C (2000) 3614], the CODE OF GOOD ADMINISTRATIVE CONDUCT FOR THE STAFF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union ( 1-5-2019) and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (1-1-2020), we understand that there are reasons to appear before that commission.


That the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL regarding the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicinal products for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease, affects:

1) DIRECTIVE 2011/83 / EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of October 25, 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13 / EEC and Directive 1999/44 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 85/577 / EEC of the Council and Directive 97/7 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) are repealed.

2) DIRECTIVE 2004/35 / CE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of April 21, 2004 on environmental liability in relation to the prevention and repair of environmental damage.

3) The TFEU, in its articles:

Article 11 (ex Article 6 TEC) The requirements of environmental protection must be integrated into the definition and implementation of Union policies and actions, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.

Article 12 (ex Article 153 (2) TEC) When defining and implementing other Union policies and actions, consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account.

Article 15 (ex Article 255 TEC) 1. In order to promote good governance and to guarantee the participation of civil society, the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union shall act with the greatest possible respect for the principle of openness.

3. Every citizen of the Union, as well as every natural or legal person who resides or has its registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to access the documents of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union, whatever their support. , in accordance with the principles and conditions to be established in accordance with this section.

Article 101 (former Article 81 TEC) 1. All agreements between companies, decisions of associations of companies and concerted practices that may affect trade between Member States and that have as their object or purpose shall be prohibited. The effect of preventing, restricting or distorting the game of competition within the internal market.

Article 102 (former Article 82 TEC) It shall be incompatible with the internal market and, insofar as it may affect trade between Member States, the abusive exploitation, by one or more companies, of a dominant position in the internal market or a substantial part of it.

Article 107 (former Article 87 TEC) 1. Unless the Treaties provide otherwise, the aid granted by the States or through State funds shall be incompatible with the internal market, insofar as they affect trade between Member States. in any way, that distort or threaten to distort competition, favoring certain companies or productions.

Article 191 (ex Article 174 TEC) 1. Union policy in the field of the environment shall contribute to achieving the following objectives: – the conservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

– the protection of people’s health,

– the prudent and rational use of natural resources, – the promotion of measures at international level to deal with regional or global environmental problems. and in particular to fight against climate change.

2. Union policy in the field of the environment shall aim to achieve a high level of protection, bearing in mind the diversity of situations existing in the different regions of the Union. It will be based on the principles of precaution and preventive action, on the principle of correcting attacks on the environment, preferably at the source itself, and on the principle that the polluter pays. In this context, the harmonization measures necessary to meet environmental protection requirements will include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause authorizing Member States to adopt, for non-economic environmental reasons, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure.

3. In drawing up its policy in the area of ​​the environment, the Union shall take into account:

– the scientific and technical data available,

– environmental conditions in the various regions.

– the benefits and burdens that may result from action or lack of action,

– the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.

4. Within the framework of their respective competences, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and competent international organizations. The modalities of the Union’s cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the latter and interested third parties. The preceding paragraph shall be understood without prejudice to the competence of the member states to negotiate in international institutions and to conclude international agreements.

4) It also affects the rights included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000 / C 364/01)

CHAPTER I on dignity, arts 1, 2 and 3

CHAPTER III on equality, arts. 24, 25 and 26

CHAPTER IV on solidarity, arts. 35, 37 and 38

CHAPTER V on citizenship, arts. 41 and 42


The Court of Justice of the European Union shall control the legality of legislative acts, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank that are not recommendations or opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament and of the European Council intended to produce legal effects against third parties. It will also control the legality of the acts of the organs or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects against third parties.

Any natural or legal person may file an appeal, under the conditions set forth in the first and second paragraphs, against the acts of which it is the recipient or that affect it directly and individually and against the regulatory acts that affect it directly and that do not include measures of execution.

The appeals provided for in this article must be filed within a period of two months from, depending on the case, of the publication of the act, of its notification to the appellant or, in the absence thereof, from the day the appellant had knowledge of the same.

In the event that, in violation of the Treaties, the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank abstain from acting, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to declare such violation. This article shall apply, under the same conditions, to the organs and agencies of the Union that refrain from making a pronouncement.

Any natural or legal person may appeal a complaint to the Court, under the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, because one of the institutions, or one of the organs or agencies of the Union, has not directed an act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

Based on all the above, the signatory associations request:

1) Have associations by persons in the procedure of the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL relative to the performance of clinical trials and the supply of medicines for human use that contain genetically modified organisms or are composed of these organisms, intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease.

2) These associations are considered an interested party and their legitimacy and direct interest are recognized.

3) The file or, where appropriate, all the information related to said modification that is legitimately accessible to interested persons is transferred to us.

4) It is considered announced that if this claim is not answered within the deadline, a claim will be filed with the Court of Justice of the EU, as established in the provisions that regulate access to said jurisdiction. However, the European Commission requires acknowledgment of receipt stating the corresponding deadlines and resources.

In Burgos on July 25, 2020

Original publication can be found at:

Turkmen Court Sentences Brothers Eldor and Sanjarbek Saburov to Two Years in Prison
Turkmen Court Sentences Brothers Eldor and Sanjarbek Saburov to Two Years in Prison

On August 6, 2020, a Turkmen court sentenced Brothers Eldor and Sanjarbek Saburov to two years in prison for their conscientious objection to military service. The siblings are 21 and 25 years old, respectively. The court refused the brothers’ request to appeal. This is the second time both were convicted for their neutrality.

In 2016, Brother Sanjarbek Saburov respectfully refused to be drafted into the army. Subsequently, he was convicted and sentenced to two years of probation.

The following year, Sanjarbek’s younger brother, Eldor, also refused to participate in military service. He was sentenced to two years of correctional labor with 20 percent of his wages garnished by the State.

According to Turkmen law, conscientious objectors can be criminally charged a second time if they continue to refuse military service. In April 2020, the military recruiting office again summoned the brothers to enlist. Both brothers refused to be drafted. They were criminally prosecuted, which resulted in their imprisonment.

Beyond the emotional toll, imprisonment will cause acute hardship for the brothers’ parents. Their father suffers from chronic back pain, which impairs his ability to work. His sons support the family by growing cotton. Now that they have been imprisoned, their parents will no longer have the financial support they need. Instead, the parents will now have to care for their sons’ needs in prison.

Turkmenistan does not offer alternative civilian service. Consequently, young brothers who refuse military service on the grounds of conscientious objection face one to four years in prison. Including the Saburov brothers, there are ten young Witnesses in prison in Turkmenistan for their neutrality.

We know Jehovah will bless our young brothers in Turkmenistan for their courageous stand. May each of them recall Jehovah’s promise to King Asa: “You, be strong and do not become discouraged, for your activity will be rewarded.”

Attempted Discriminating Law on religions in Ukraine
Attempted Discriminating Law on religions in Ukraine

Law on sects. The Ukrainian Association of Religious Studies is responding to the bill

21 July, 16:59

The NGO «Ukrainian Association of Researchers of Religion» in view of the attempt by officials to develop a discriminatory law against religious diversity and freedom wrote a letter to mobilize the government, politicians, and civil society of Ukraine and Europe to stop this law being worked on and approved.

Find below translation of the letter.

Letter of Appeal

The information space of Ukraine was lately disturbed by the news regarding the fact the Verkhovna Rada (Parlament) Committee on issues of social policy and protection of veterans’ rights develops a bill on destructive religious organizations’ activities. That was declared by Galina Tretyakova, the Chairman of the committee, as reported by Public TV, i.e. This news was also spread by other media.

Such declarations of government officials are a cause for experts on religions concern. Representatives of minority religions react particularly distinctly to this, being for a reason concerned with criterion approaches to the definition of “dangerous cults \ sects” and the negative public response, suspicious or opposed attitude, etc. that will be seeded in the public sphere because of the negative connotations of the term “totalitarian sect”. For decades, Ukrainian scholars on religions have performed significant efforts to exclude this term from the public sphere, since its recognition is incorrect within the secular multi-confessional state, and, practically, equals a manifestation of “hate speech” and a motive for discord on a confessional basis. We definitely would like to recall, such “initiatives” have already emerged in the history of independent Ukraine. Moreover, every time such “initiatives” were subdued, since the laws directed to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, always lead to the totalitarianization of the country, waiver democratic processes, as well as an introduction to the European world of civilization.

The temptation to control the spiritual world of citizens, and centrally determine in what and how one has to believe, and then establish in an authoritarian way, which faith is correct, and which one is “Dangerous” or “Harmful”, is inherent in post-totalitarian societies. Such approaches, which establish a mono-ideological dictate, mark any worldview alternative to the dominant ideology as harmful and destructive. Ones seek to restrict particular options of democratic procedures and the legal system that breathe weakly, as well as if the authorities are inexperienced in guaranteeing freedoms and human rights.

Analogous reproduction of the terminology of the proposed bill rooting to the Russian discourse is surprising, furthermore, it may be recognized as a conscious or unconscious imitation of the practices of the aggressor country, that has occupied the Crimea and parts of Luhansk and Donetsk regions. The aforementioned territories occupied by Russian troops and mercenaries are being introduced with shameful practices of repression against dissidents, in particular following the guise of religious or denominational belonging to the «wrong» ones.

Unquestionably, society requires set safeguards against the abuse of mercantile or arbitrary persons, who seek private profit or pleasure of the sick ambitions satisfaction, subordinating the will and property of others. However, such fuses should be created regarding the notion of ‘damage’, furthermore, considered as a cause of potential criminal or administrative liability of individuals or groups of individuals, who committed a crime (fraud, seizure of another’s property, illegal deprivation of liberty, slave labor, crimes committed against the person, including minority representatives, etc.) or offence. It should be taken for granted there is a Criminal Code of Ukraine, as well as a list of laws of Ukraine, intended to regulate the criminal proceedings order, regardless of their nature. Thus, the brand “totalitarian sect” is a pretext for inciting interfaith hatred in Ukraine as in a secular state and a multi-religious society, the motivation for information harassment, etc. Similar rhetoric in the legislature initiatives shall lead to a real confrontation in interfaith relations, to the provocation of exclusivist and antisocial sentiments among the representatives of denominations minority.

Proposals and calls presented by some “intellectuals” for a “healthy religious climate” as one from the arguments for the adoption of such prohibitive laws indicate a disposition to doubt the expediency of the very fact of lasting for 30 years religious freedom in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, we believe the common sense will encourage government officials to realize, the secular state holds no legal grounds to determine “correctness” or “wrongness” of confessional doctrine, as well as to determine, which religious organization is a “sect” (branch). One concept is still quite justifiably applied in Ukrainian legislation, i.e., the religious organization, the concept, completely embracing the diversity of religious structures.

Therefore, we are to inform the forthcoming bill on “totalitarian sects” is dangerous in its consequences as it provokes mistrust and religious/confessional hatred in multi-religious community, thus initiating the “search for witches/enemies” in the field, where it is better recommended to preserve mutual respect and mutual understanding. The aforementioned threatens to violate the relatively moderate religious situation in Ukraine. Similar legislative initiatives, instead of approval ideas of interfaith solidarity, and the dialogue amid religions, are compelling enough to rush Ukraine into the abyss chaos.

President of the NGO «Ukrainian Association of Researchers of Religion»
Doctor of Philosophy
Honored Scientist of Ukraine

Professor Anatolii Kolodnyi Source: УРЕ