The Memorial Center of the Republic of Srpska is bringing its international 'Learn About Serbian Suffering' campaign to Rome from September 7 to 13, reports NewsEurope. The initiative aims to introduce Italian and wider European audiences to the historical experience of the Serbian people and to the suffering of civilians during some of the most tragic periods of 20th-century European history.
The digital exhibition will appear on large LED screens in several central Roman locations, including Piazza della Repubblica on Via Nazionale, Castel Sant’Angelo on Lungotevere Prati, Cavour, Lungotevere Testaccio, the Trastevere area around Marconi, Monteverde, and Gianicolo, and Via Gregorio VII near the Vatican.
The campaign is founded on the belief that Serbian history should be examined beyond the political interpretations and stereotypes that have influenced parts of Western public opinion for decades.
The Serbian people have deep historical roots in Europe, including in its cultural, civilizational, and spiritual traditions. Nevertheless, much of Western European public opinion remains insufficiently familiar with their historical experience, especially with the suffering of Serbian civilians during the wars of the 20th century.
This lack of awareness is particularly evident in relation to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the conflicts of the 1990s. During that period, simplified interpretations of the role played by the Serbs became widespread in parts of Western public discourse. Complex political and historical developments were frequently reduced to a division between perpetrators and victims, while the Serbian wartime experience received limited attention. Consequently, the suffering of families who lost relatives, homes, and entire communities was often overlooked, as were the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes and ancestral lands.
The campaign seeks to respond to this omission in Europe’s collective memory.
Its purpose is not to accuse any nation, state, or society. Instead, it invites the public to consider this part of European history from a broader perspective, using archival material, documented facts, and, above all, the firsthand accounts of people who survived war, persecution, detention camps, and the loss of family members.
According to Denis Bojić, director of the Memorial Center of the Republic of Srpska (pictured), the campaign was created to bring the historical experience of the Serbian people and the suffering of Serbian civilians during different periods of the 20th century to audiences beyond the borders of the Republic of Srpska and Serbia. He said the initiative focuses on families who lost loved ones, people driven from their homes, victims of persecution and detention camps, and generations that continued their lives while carrying the consequences of those losses.
Bojić described the project as a responsibility toward both victims and future generations. He emphasized the importance of preserving their names, faces, and testimonies and making them available to people who have not yet encountered this dimension of European history. He also identified the preservation and international accessibility of this memory as one of the Memorial Center’s principal tasks.
Italy, he noted, has particular importance because it offers an opportunity to present Serbian history in one of Europe’s major centers of culture and civilization. The campaign aims to encourage a broader and more open discussion of Serbian suffering based on documentation and personal testimony.
Bojić added that the project’s objective is to ensure that Serbian victims are not remembered solely as statistics in historical accounts, but as individuals with recognizable faces and personal stories within Europe’s shared memory. In his view, preserving the memory of victims also means preserving a people’s dignity, identity, and understanding of its own history.
The decision to present the campaign in Italy, and specifically in Rome, reflects the longstanding respect among Serbs for Italian civilization and its achievements, from ancient Rome and Roman law to Italy’s broader contribution to European culture.
Rome’s historical importance and its influence on European law, institutions, and culture give the initiative additional significance. Presenting the Serbian experience in the city therefore represents an opportunity to place it within a wider European context.
The organizers also point to more recent ties that remain important in Serbian public memory. Italian KFOR units in Kosovo and Metohija contributed to the protection of the Serbian population and Orthodox cultural heritage. Their long-term role in safeguarding the Visoki Dečani Monastery and other Serbian religious sites continues to be remembered.
The organizers regard these links as a basis for strengthening relations between the two peoples. The Rome presentation is intended not only to share historical material, but also to support continued friendship and cooperation and to introduce the Serbian experience to audiences in one of Europe’s most significant cultural centers.
The Memorial Center of the Republic of Srpska was founded on May 30, 2024, following a decision by the Government of the Republic of Srpska. Its mission is to collect, document, preserve, and present testimonies concerning the suffering of the Serbian people.
Oral history is central to its work. The institution gathers personal accounts from people who directly experienced war, persecution, and other forms of suffering. More than 1,500 audiovisual testimonies have so far been recorded and collected, making the project one of the largest initiatives of its kind in Southeastern Europe.
The Center seeks to ensure that these experiences are not preserved only in books, archives, or statistical records. By documenting the voices and faces of survivors, it aims to maintain a direct connection with the people who lived through these events. The testimonies are recorded in the field, archived, and incorporated into documentaries, publications, exhibitions, and educational resources.
The Memorial Center is also available to cooperate with institutions, museums, archives, researchers, and other organizations in Europe and elsewhere that work in the fields of history, oral history, and remembrance culture. The presentation in Italy forms part of a broader effort to establish links with European institutions and to make testimonies about the suffering of the Serbian people accessible to international audiences.
A European Parliament compromise on reforming the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) has opened a politically sensitive dispute over whether entire industries should be excluded from sustainable investment — with fossil fuels offered a conditional transition route while tobacco remains outside.
The revision of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, better known as SFDR, is emerging as a key political battleground over the future boundaries of sustainable finance in the European Union.
Although formally concerned with disclosure requirements and the categorisation of financial products, the dispute now goes considerably further. At stake is a fundamental question: should entire sectors be excluded from sustainable and transition finance because of the nature of their business, or should companies be judged primarily on their actual environmental performance, investment plans and capacity to transition?
That distinction has potentially significant consequences for companies, investors and access to capital.
The file is currently under consideration in the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, ECON, where a compromise has been reached between political groups ahead of the committee vote.
Under the emerging agreement, sectoral exclusions remain within the proposed framework. Tobacco cultivation and production, as well as controversial weapons, remain outside the relevant sustainable investment categories.
Fossil-fuel companies, however, have been given a potential route into the proposed transition category where specified conditions are met.
An oil or gas company may potentially demonstrate that it is directing sufficient capital towards sustainable activities and implementing a credible emissions transition. A tobacco business, however substantial its environmental improvements, would remain excluded because of the sector in which it operates.
Crucially, however, the EPP’s decision not to challenge the tobacco exclusion should not be read as an endorsement of blanket sectoral exclusions.
Markus Ferber, the EPP’s ECON coordinator, has told EU Reporter that the decision was driven by parliamentary arithmetic and the need to assemble a stable majority for the overall compromise.
In other words, the EPP did not abandon its reservations about blanket exclusions because it had become convinced that such exclusions were the right policy. It accepted the compromise because, in Ferber’s assessment, there was no realistic parliamentary majority for an alternative amendment that would have created a performance-based pathway for tobacco.
It means the tobacco exclusion survives not because the EPP has embraced the principle behind it, but because the group concluded that challenging it would jeopardise the broader compromise.
Ferber made clear that his underlying policy position remains strongly performance-based.
“Per se, EPP does not like blanket sectoral exclusions, but unfortunately it is not only the EPP’s position that determines the final outcome of negotiations and we had to strike compromises with other political groups to achieve a stable majority,” he told EU Reporter.
Asked whether sustainable-finance rules should judge companies according to the sector in which they operate or according to their measurable environmental progress, Ferber was unequivocal.
“In my view, the objective should be to finance the transition,” he said. “Hence, environmental performance and credible transition plans should matter more than the sector.”
That comment goes to the heart of the controversy surrounding tobacco.
The sector remains excluded irrespective of whether individual companies reduce emissions, restructure production, invest in Taxonomy-aligned activities or adopt measurable transition plans.
Fossil-fuel companies, by contrast, are being offered a conditional route into the transition category.
Ferber’s most significant intervention concerns why the EPP did not attempt to overturn the tobacco exclusion through an alternative compromise amendment.
Asked directly why he was not tabling such an amendment, despite previously opposing blanket exclusions affecting tobacco, Ferber replied:
“We have assessed all options for a stable majority in the Parliament and were not convinced that tabling alternative compromises would yield such a majority.”
That answer makes the political calculus unusually clear.
The tobacco exclusion was not retained because Ferber or the EPP ECON leadership had positively embraced the underlying principle. It remained because the EPP judged that there were insufficient votes to replace it while preserving the wider agreement.
The distinction matters because it changes the interpretation of the compromise.
Rather than representing an ideological conversion by the EPP towards sector-based sustainable-finance rules, it represents a tactical concession made in the context of difficult parliamentary mathematics.
Ferber reinforced that point when discussing the wider negotiations.
“I am not enthusiastic about the compromise,” he said, “but it reflects what is politically possible in light of difficult majorities and a rapporteur that has pursued a hard-left line from the beginning.”
The Parliament’s lead rapporteur on the file is Dutch Renew Europe MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy.
Ferber’s description of Gerbrandy’s approach as “hard-left” is his own political characterisation, but his remarks underline how far the SFDR revision has moved beyond a purely technical debate over disclosure rules.
The EPP has repeatedly positioned itself as an opponent of unnecessary blanket exclusions and an advocate of competitiveness, regulatory simplification and performance-based rules.
A number of centre-right amendments tabled during the ECON process sought to remove or narrow the exclusion provisions.
The material submitted to EU Reporter notes that among the amendments tabled in committee, several concerning exclusions were proposed by EPP, ECR and other centre-right lawmakers.
Asked whether significant numbers of EPP members would have preferred the exclusions to be removed or narrowed, Ferber acknowledged that different views existed within the group.
“In a large and diverse political group, you always have different positions to reconcile,” he said.
He added that EPP shadow rapporteur Luděk Niedermayer had “checked back frequently to ensure that he has sufficient backing within our group.
Luděk Niedermayer said "There were different priorities from different political groups and differences are even above different MEPs from same group. The current text reflects the agreement reached as a compromise.
Asked how much room did the EPP have to negotiate changes to Article 7, and what
concessions did the Group obtain in return for accepting the final package? he said :
"As with every file, each political group has its own priorities. For the EPP, one of the key
priorities was Article 7, where we managed to secure a text that is acceptable to the Group
and which, in my view, better reflects the nature and purpose of the transition category than
the Commission proposal."
Ferber therefore rejects the suggestion that the final compromise amounts to Niedermayer departing from an agreed EPP line.
Asked directly whether there had been a disagreement between the two men over the treatment of tobacco and sectoral exclusions, he replied:
“No, our shadow rapporteur has faithfully defended the line agreed within our group, but it has always been clear that in compromise negotiations the EPP would not get 100% of its wishes. That is the nature of a compromise.”
Niedermayer said " Maintaining a limited set of exclusions helps preserve the credibility of products marketed as sustainable without extending blanket exclusions more broadly. Furthermore, energy and utility companies are more likely to follow a credible transition pathway than the sectors mentioned above. Consistency between SFDR and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1818 under the Benchmark Regulation is also a strong argument for such an approach.
The tobacco issue exposes the central philosophical question running through the SFDR revision.
Under a blanket exclusion, the decisive question is: what does this company produce?
Under a performance-based model, the question becomes: what is this company actually doing to transition?
The distinction matters because an automatic exclusion can remove the regulatory benefit of environmental improvement.
A company that reduces emissions, changes production methods, invests heavily in renewable energy or directs substantial capital expenditure towards EU Taxonomy-aligned activities may still receive exactly the same treatment as one making no transition effort at all.
That is the fundamental criticism of blanket exclusions contained in the material examined by EU Reporter.
If an oil or gas company can potentially qualify for the transition category by demonstrating credible investment and emissions reductions, opponents of the tobacco exclusion ask why businesses in another lawful sector should not at least be permitted to make the same case.
Ferber’s own words strengthen that argument: environmental performance and credible transition plans, he says, should matter more than the sector itself.
Ferber nevertheless argued that there is a rationale for distinguishing between some industries.
“One can make an argument that energy companies engaged in fossil fuel projects today are likely to ultimately change their business model towards more sustainable projects, while a controversial weapons manufacturer is likely to still manufacture deadly weapons in the future,” he said.
“So, the transition case is weaker.”
That explanation addresses controversial weapons more directly than tobacco, however.
For tobacco, the unresolved policy question remains whether environmental transition should be assessed separately from the social and health characteristics of the product being manufactured.
That is precisely where the SFDR debate is becoming politically significant.
The issue is no longer merely whether tobacco is socially desirable. It is whether a sustainable-finance regulation should use sector identity as an automatic barrier to recognising environmental transition.
The controversy also reaches into the EPP’s wider political argument that the EU needs to move away from parts of the regulatory philosophy associated with the previous Commission and the European Green Deal.
Asked whether retaining blanket exclusions amounted to accepting part of that earlier approach, Ferber was sharply critical of the sustainable-finance framework as a whole.
“The whole sustainable finance framework is a legacy product from the previous two terms,” he said.
“In my personal view, it contains some fundamental flaws, that are difficult to change with targeted reviews of individual files.”
“We have done the best we could to fix some mistakes within the SFDR. That does not mean it is perfect. If I was given a blank slate, I would design the framework differently.”
The EPP remains sceptical of the principle behind some sectoral exclusions, yet has accepted a compromise that preserves them.
The explanation, according to its ECON coordinator, is not policy conversion but political necessity.
That is likely to become one of the most important distinctions in the debate as the file moves towards its committee vote and later parliamentary stages.
The controversy also raises questions of regulatory coherence.
The EU Taxonomy measures environmental sustainability using economic indicators including turnover, capital expenditure and operational expenditure associated with qualifying activities.
The SFDR compromise can operate differently by establishing a sectoral gateway before a company’s environmental performance is assessed.
The material examined by EU Reporter argues that this risks creating two different regulatory philosophies: the Taxonomy assesses measurable activity, while SFDR can exclude by sector identity.
That matters at a time when Brussels has promised simpler and more coherent regulation.
If transition finance is supposed to encourage companies to change behaviour, critics argue that the system needs to explain why measurable transition is sufficient for one sector but irrelevant for another.
The impact is not confined to multinational tobacco manufacturers.
European tobacco growers and processors have warned MEPs that exclusion from sustainable-finance frameworks could have consequences for agricultural communities and smaller businesses.
Ten thousands of family farms would be potentially affected, alongside thousands of SMEs, many of them located in economically vulnerable agricultural regions.
The broader economic figures advanced by industry organisations should be treated as industry estimates, but the principle being argued by growers is more straightforward.
They are not asking for tobacco automatically to be labelled sustainable.
They are asking to be allowed to demonstrate transition against objective criteria.
In that respect, the fossil-fuel derogation has become politically significant.
If Europe is prepared to recognise transition in one of the world’s most carbon-intensive sectors, tobacco industry stakeholders ask why no equivalent environmental-performance test should exist for their own.
Despite his reservations, Ferber told EU Reporter that he does not expect the compromise to be altered before the ECON vote.
“I do not anticipate any changes to the text that was agreed ahead of the vote,” he said.
The immediate political battle may therefore already have been settled.
But the wider argument is unlikely to disappear.
The SFDR revision was intended to simplify sustainable finance and make it clearer for investors.
Instead, it has exposed a fundamental policy choice over whether sustainable finance should reward measurable transition or exclude entire sectors in advance.
And in the case of tobacco, the EPP’s position is now particularly clear: the exclusion remains not because its ECON leadership endorses blanket sectoral exclusions, but because it concluded that Parliament did not contain the votes necessary to remove it without jeopardising the wider SFDR compromise.
That distinction is now stated in the introduction, given its own section, and repeated in the conclusion, so it becomes the central political takeaway rather than being buried inside the Ferber interview.
From illicit production to smuggling, the illicit tobacco trade continues to pose a serious problem for the EU, as it negatively impacts its finances, public health and security, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Although the European Commission and EU countries have made efforts to combat this global criminal phenomenon, their action is not robust enough. Illicit production across the EU is increasing, smuggling methods are getting more sophisticated, and new tobacco products are on the rise. Against this backdrop, the auditors criticise poor cross-country cooperation, which suffers from persistent gaps and lacks a concerted EU-wide approach.
The illicit tobacco trade has changed significantly in recent years. Organised crime groups have strategically relocated production from Ukraine to the EU in order to shorten supply chains and access consumers more directly. Although smuggling remains a problem, illicit manufacturing sites have been detected in almost all EU countries, and illicit production has grown across the EU. For instance, in a large-scale illicit cigarette production factory in Belgium, each machine was capable of producing around a million cigarettes per hour. In the largest illicit cigarette factory dismantled in Spain, three million packets of counterfeit cigarettes were seized, i.e. 56 times the height of Mount Everest if the cigarettes were stacked horizontally.
“The EU cannot afford to let its fight against the scourge of illicit tobacco go up in smoke,” said Petri Sarvamaa, the ECA Member leading the audit. “If we are serious about safeguarding citizens’ health, wallets and security, the Commission and member states must up their game to fight criminal activity head-on.”
The illicit tobacco trade deprives EU and member state budgets of €13 billion a year, according to the Commission’s estimate. However, this figure should be treated with caution, as it is based on external studies. The fact remains that the Commission lacks a reliable and independent EU-wide estimate of the illicit tobacco market, its structure and its economic impact, e.g. in terms of lost tax revenues. Such data, however, are crucial for determining the magnitude of the problem and designing an effective response. As it stands, the Commission’s reporting is largely based on seizures, and so does not provide a full picture of the situation.
Over the past decade, the EU and its member states have taken measures to combat the illicit tobacco trade. However, EU law is not harmonised, and member states’ efforts are uneven. For example, key production inputs such as raw tobacco and production machinery, and new types of products such as heated tobacco products and liquids for e-cigarettes, are not treated in the same way across the EU. At the same time, the EU regulatory framework gives member states a free hand in choosing counter-measures, thus leading to enforcement gaps that organised crime groups can exploit. In particular, as national control systems and enforcement approaches differ, such as in the definition of offences and the severity of penalties, this can encourage criminal activities to relocate to laxer jurisdictions. Furthermore, EU countries are inconsistent in the way they exchange information.
In the EU, responsibility for combating the illicit tobacco trade is shared between several stakeholders. However, no single entity has a clear coordinating role, meaning that initiatives are fragmented. The auditors thus call on the Commission to assume a more active role in combating the illicit trade in tobacco products.
Although overall tobacco consumption has continued to fall, the quantity of illicit tobacco products in the EU has risen in recent years. In 2023, the Commission estimated that the quantity of illicit tobacco products was 8.8 % of total cigarette consumption. Excluding cigarettes, the illicit tobacco market amounts to nearly 21 000 tonnes in the EU. According to estimates, these new products make up 13 % of the market value of tobacco products sold in the EU, and attract younger consumers.
Illicit tobacco products are very attractive for organised crime groups due to their high profitability and comparatively low risk (penalties have traditionally been light and detection rates low). Such illegal activity not only provides a significant source of income for criminals but, by offering cheaper tobacco products, also undermines efforts to reduce tobacco consumption. Ultimately, it leads to losses in terms of customs duties, value-added tax and national excise duties.
The audit assesses the effectiveness of the action taken by the Commission and the member states. The auditors carried out field visits in Belgium, Spain, Poland and Romania, and include examples of illicit manufacturing sites in their report. ECA special report 23/2026 “Combating the illicit trade in tobacco in the EU: Fragmented efforts and persistent gaps” is available in 24 EU languages on the ECA website.
The meeting of the Core Group’s migration ministers, comprising ministers from Denmark, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Greece, concluded in Copenhagen on Friday. Greece was represented by Migration and Asylum Minister Thanos Plevris. According to state-run news agency amna.gr, the ministerial meeting marked an important milestone for European migration policy, with the participating countries advancing […]
The post Migration ministers agree on Return Hubs in third countries appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
An international sports camp bringing together nearly 100 young Ukrainian athletes from ten different sports has concluded in France.
The camp was held at the initiative and with the support of Philippe Lamblin, President of the Hauts-de-France Athletics League, in partnership with the Ukrainian side. The Kyiv City State Administration, “The Future for Children” Charitable Foundation with its Olympic Dreams project, and the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine with the nationwide multisport project “Path of Champions” also contributed to the organization of the camp.
This year, the camp brought together athletes representing ten sports: rhythmic gymnastics, volleyball, judo, sport climbing, boxing, basketball, athletics, rowing, taekwondo, and floorball.
The young Ukrainian athletes had the opportunity to train in safe conditions, take part in sports and team activities, relax, and discover France. The camp programme included a mountain hike, a trip to the seaside, a visit to an oceanarium, and attendance at a football match.
“For us, it is very important to see more and more people in different countries coming together to support Ukrainian sport, with France becoming a systemic partner. Camps like this give Ukrainian children an opportunity, at least for a while, to return to a normal childhood: to train in safe conditions, make new friends, and see a world without borders,” said Anatoliy Boyko, initiator and patron of the Olympic Dreams project.
: Anatoliy Boyko, Philippe Lamblin, Olena Hovorova, Vadym Omelchenko, Yasmina Merzi
An important highlight of the programme was the official reception for the camp participants at Paris City Hall on 21 August.
The meeting was attended by Vadym Omelchenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the French Republic; Yasmina Merzi, Deputy Mayor of Paris responsible for child welfare and protection; Olena Hovorova, Deputy Head of the Kyiv City State Administration, Adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine and Olympic bronze medallist; Philippe Lamblin, President of the Hauts-de-France Athletics League; and Anatoliy Boyko, initiator and patron of the Olympic Dreams project.
The meeting at Paris City Hall provided an opportunity to thank the French partners for their support of Ukrainian athletes and to discuss the importance of international sports cooperation amid the full-scale war.
The organizers and Ukrainian partners also express their gratitude to the Hauts-de-France Athletics League, the regional prefecture, the City of Lille, the management of Parc d’Olhain, as well as all French partners and patrons who contributed to the organization of the camp.
For Olympic Dreams, a project launched in 2022, participation in such international initiatives is part of its ongoing efforts to provide Ukrainian athletes with opportunities for safe training, athletic development, and international preparation during the full-scale war.
Photos by Roman Horbun
31 August marks an important milestone for the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the centrepiece of NextGenerationEU, as member states reach the final implementation deadline for the reforms and investments set out in their national recovery and resilience plans. This is a defining moment for the EU's unprecedented common response to two major crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
As NextGenerationEU enters its final phase, the focus now turns to completing the remaining steps for a successful conclusion of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. In this context, the Commission greenlighted today Sweden's final payment request, who successfully completed 100% of its investments and reforms linked to its recovery and resilience plan, shortly after Denmark.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “NextGenerationEU helped protect our citizens and economies at a time of profound uncertainty. It accelerated the clean and digital transitions, cutting Europe's reliance on imported energy exactly when that reduction was needed most. The reforms we enabled and the resilience we have built together will continue to benefit Europe for generations to come.”
Member States have until 30 September 2026 to submit their final payment requests under the RRF, together with all supporting evidence, while the Commission will complete all payments by 31 December 2026.
NextGenerationEU supported economic activity at a critical time, helped keep unemployment at record-low levels, and accelerated strategic investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean technologies. It has also demonstrated an important lesson for Europe's future: public investment has a particularly strong impact when paired with structural reforms. Above all, NextGenerationEU has shown the strength of European unity. It proved that when Europe acts quickly, ambitiously and together, it can rise to exceptional challenges
As of today, €440 billion has been disbursed, with up to a further €133 billion to be paid by the end of 2026. The months ahead offer an opportunity to build on this momentum and deliver the full potential of NextGenerationEU.
A press release is available online.
Login