Some major issues

As usual, the team of COMECE experts addressed a variety of topics in January’s issue of “Europe Infos”. Features include the editorial by Frank Turner on EU’s funding system, to topical questions regarding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the cohesion policy, Europe’s participation in the Cancun Climate Conference and the parliament debate on the delicate question of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Cohesion policy. “Every three years – writes Hervé Pierre Guillot – the European Union issues a report on economic and social cohesion, to which this year, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, has been added territorial cohesion”. “The report examines regional disparities, the contribution of the European Union, of Countries and Regions to the cohesion policy, it evaluates its impact and presents proposals to be undertaken starting in 2013”. In the article Guillot explains that “the cohesion policy is aimed at reducing the development gap between regions, thus promoting the harmonious development of EU Countries. The ongoing financial and economic crisis risks widening the gap separating “rich” and “poor” regions. The latter will try to obtain more, while the former will be increasingly less willing to give. Negotiations thus will be ever more difficult. It is the moment to take into consideration the remarks of Commissioner Johannes Hahn, in charge of regional policy, according to whom cohesion policy is not an act of charity but an investment of greater solidarity for growth and employment”.Summit of Cancun. “In the weeks prior to the Cancun conference, commentators were far from being optimistic on its outcome. The agreement reached late at night on December 10, on the part of the representatives of 193 parties in the conference is a pleasant surprise, a breath of fresh air in the midst of widespread pessimism on the debate on climate change”. “A lot of work lies ahead- said José Ignacio Garcia SJ -, As European Commissioner for Climate action Connie Hedegaar said: ‘We must all bear in mind that the road leading to a legally binding climate agreement is still long and dangerous’. But at least in Cancun, the COMECE expert said, “multilateral talks warded off the clashes”. Also the Flemish minister for the Environment, representing the EU Council’s Belgian presidency in Cancun acknowledged the intense backstage efforts: the EU worked relentlessly to reduce the differences in Cancun. The image of a Europe capable of reconciling opposite stances can serve as a source of inspiration especially if along road still lies ahead”. Bioethics. A detailed article by José Ramos Ascensão draws a balance of the situation on a series of appeals submitted by Austria to the European Court of Human Rights against two decisions prohibiting access to heterologous IVF by two mothers who had requested it. The article addresses the pronouncement of the European Court, which states, “there is no objective justification for preventing methods required by the claimants. Therefore, the prohibition has been identified as discriminating as established in Art. 14 of the European Convention (banning all forms of discrimination)”. “In reality – Ascensão said -there is more than one fundamental ethical reason and several juridical reasons supporting the prohibition of medically-assisted heterologous fertilization. This procedure, which usually entails the anonymity of the gametes donor, is a violation of the human dignity of the donors, of the couples, and most of all, of the newborn. It interferes with the child’s right to have a personal identity, the right to know and to live with his mother and father, the right to have a normal family development. The intrusion of a third party in the conjugal relationship weakens the family – especially if it is based on marriage – and thus is weakens society as a whole”. The European Court – continues the author of the article – “rejected the concerns of the Austrian government regarding, for example, the risks involved in the use of this technique for selective reproduction purposes”. The article concludes by recalling that past October 4 the question was submitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court on the request of the Austrian government. “Since similar laws have been deposited at the Grand Chamber – noted Ascensão – Croatia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey – could partially oppose the ruling, thus jeopardizing identity and diversity of European States”. The hearings before the European Court for Human Rights on this theme will take place on Wednesday, February 23.