EPC Special Collection: Moldavan Elections, 29 November 2014. Collection of papers recently published by the European Policy Centre on the economic, social and political situation in Moldova

In time for the Moldovan elections on 30 November, this special collection combines the latest publications written by EPC experts and partner organisations on Moldova to provide the essential background reading to the Moldova-EU-Russia nexus. This package covers issues from trade exports, to elections, to the geostrategic position of Moldova.

EPC Special Collection. Juncker’s Investment Package: essential background reading, 27 November 2014. Collection of papers recently published by the European Policy Centre reflecting on current social, political and economic affairs

This special collection combines the latest publications written by our experts on Europe's investment future. In chronological order, this package follows the developments of how European investment has been dealt with, and what would be needed to make for a more ambitious plan.

2002 Parliamentary elections in Ukraine: Events, results and consequences; Ukraine's Parliamentary system after the elections. OSW Study 8/2003

2002 elections: On 31 March 2002, parliamentary elections were held in Ukraine. As expected, they were a major success for the centrist-rightist coalition focused around former Prime Minister Viktor Yuschenko. The communists emerged significantly weaker from the vote, and the "party of power" achieved a poor result. Yet, due to the mixed electoral law (half of the deputies were elected in single-mandate districts), the latter block, firmly supported by President Leonid Kuchma, resulted as the main force in Parliament. The results of particular parties and blocks were as follows: Viktor Yuschenko's Block received 23.57% of votes and 112 seats, the Communist Party of Ukraine - 19.98% of votes and 66 seats, the "For One Ukraine" block - 11.77% of votes and 101 seats, Yulia Tymoshenko's Block - 7.26% of votes and 22 seats, the Socialist Party of Ukraine - 6.87% of votes and 22 seats, and the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united) - 6.27% of votes and 24 seats. This shows how the mixed electoral regulations favour "For One Ukraine" and act against Yuschenko's block. One should note, however, that the latter gained the support of less than one quarter of voters. After the election: The dominant force in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada, elected in March 2002, are the deputies of "One Ukraine", a fraction of the pro-presidential centre. "One Ukraine" has refused to admit any of the opposition's representatives (either from the right or left wings) into the parliament's presidium, but has accepted opposition-appointed heads of many parliamentary commissions. Viktor Yuschenko's "Our Ukraine", which has been the largest parliamentary fraction since June, attempted to proclaim itself the centre of the parliamentary majority, but its policy was awkward and inconsistent, and the main success of this club was that it didn't break up. Viktor Yuschenko's moves have been particularly incoherent and they undermined the image of Yuschenko as Ukraine's future leader, created throughout the course of the electoral campaign. In autumn, the main oligarchic groups and their representative fractions ("One Ukraine", which proved to be a useless instrument, was dissolved in June), reached a compromise with the president. It was agreed that the new prime minister should be a Donetsk clan representative (Viktor Yanukovych), and that the Dnipropetrovsk clan should appoint the president of the National Bank of Ukraine (this position went to Serhij Tihipko). The Kyiv clan obtained the President's Administration (Viktor Medvedchuk was appointed in spring) and a considerable number of parliamentary commissions. The president's interests in the government are to be protected by Mykola Azarov, former Head of the State Tax Administration. This compromise "package" was designed to secure the shares of the main oligarchic clans in the power and the president's strong position as mediator.

Economic policies in the EU at a turning point. EuropEos Commentary No. 8/28 March 2011

Culminating an almost unprecedented tour de force of Council meetings in various formations, the European Council reached agreement on a comprehensive economic policy package on March 24-25th that effectively completes the economic arm of economic and monetary union (EMU) and, if consistently applied, holds out the promise of ending stagnation and dismal employment performance throughout the European Union.

European Neighbourhood Policy Package - Conclusions for the Eastern Partners. OSW Commentary No. 78, 2012-05-25

In 2011 the European Union began a process aimed at reforming its policy on the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood. The change in circumstances in neighbouring countries following the Arab Spring, along with the lack of significant progress regarding Eastern Europe’s integration with the EU, formed the main driving force behind this process. The prime objective of the changes to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was the need to introduce new incentives for partner countries to modernise and integrate more closely with the EU Another aim was to increase the flexibility of EU instruments (by adapting them to the specific context of each partner state). One year later, on 15 May 2012, the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy published the European Neighbourhood Policy Package which reported on the progress made in the implementation of the ENP over the preceding year and set out the aims and Action Plans for 20131. An analysis of the outcomes of changes made to the EU policy towards Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus suggests that the aim of the revision was aimed more at addressing the changing political landscape in the region rather than at the implementation of a substantial reform of the neighbourhood policy. The ENP is largely based on bureaucratic procedures (the negotiation of bilateral agreements, the implementation of support programmes). These have only a limited capacity to bring about lasting change in the region, as has been exemplified by the deterioration of democratic standards in a number of countries; this was highlighted in EU’s own reports. This problem is particularly clear in the case of Ukraine; until recently it was seen as the leader of European integration but is now raising much concern due to a deterioration in the state of democracy there. EU instruments have a limited influence on the situation in Eastern Partnership countries and the region’s significance on the EU’s agenda is falling (the priority is now given to counteracting the economic crisis, and prominence in the neighbourhood policy has been given to the Southern Mediterranean). In response to this EU policy on Eastern Europe will focus to a larger extent on technical and sectoral cooperation.

Economic Development, Trade and Investment in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries: An Agenda towards a Sustainable Transition. MEDPRO Policy Paper No. 4, February 2013

This policy paper spells out the policy recommendations that emerge from a series of detailed studies undertaken for MEDPRO Work Package 5 on “Economic development, trade and investment” and presents detailed recommendations for the SEMCs and the EU in the areas of macroeconomic management, trade, investment, private sector development and privatisation, and sectoral policies.

Mutual Recognition: economic and regulatory logic in goods and services. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 24/June 2012

Mutual recognition is one of the most appreciated innovations of the EU. The idea is that one can pursue market integration, indeed "deep' market integration, while respecting 'diversity' amongst the participating countries. Put differently, in pursuing 'free movement' for goods, mutual recognition facilitates free movement by disciplining the nature and scope of 'regulatory barriers', whilst allowing some degree of regulatory discretion for EU Member States. This BEER paper attempts to explain the rationale and logic of mutual recognition in the EU internal goods market, its working in actual practice for about three decades now, culminating in a qualitative cost/benefit analysis and its recent improvement in terms of 'governance' in the so-called New Legislative Framework (first denoted as the 2008 Goods package) thereby ameliorating the benefits/costs ratio. For new (in contrast to existing) national regulation, the intrusive EU procedure to impose mutual recognition is presented as well, with basic data so as to show its critical importance to keep the internal goods market free. All this is complemented by a short summary of the scant economic literature on mutual recognition. Subsequently, the analysis is extended to the internal market for services. This is done in two steps, first by reminding the debate on the origin principle (which goes further than mutual recognition EU-style) and how mutual recognition works under the horizontal services directive. This is followed by a short section on how mutual recognition works in vertical (i.e. sectoral) services markets.

The Schengen Governance Package-another missed opportunity?. IES Policy Brief Issue 2015/1, February 2015

The Schengen Area of free movement is considered to be one of the most substantial and, in the eyes of many, most successful achievements of European integration. In 2014, the ‘Schengen Governance Package’, which alters the rules of the Schengen co-operation, came into force. It is a response to conflict among Member States in maintaining the common zone of freedom of movement. This Policy Brief aims to analyse how this package was developed and to assess whether it represents a suitable response to the conflict and difficulties within the Schengen agreement. The Brief argues that the Governance Package only touches on one part of the problem, namely border controls, whereas it does not deal with solidarity and burden-sharing and hence represents another missed opportunity to improve cooperation in the Schengen Area.

Too good to be true? A quick assessment of the EC’s new Better Regulation Package. CEPS Special Report No. 108/May 2015

On 19 May 2015, the European Commission published a very comprehensive, ambitious and innovative Better Regulation package, which contains new guidelines on various phases of the policy cycle and various documents setting out the rules and functioning of entirely new consultation platforms and a new body in charge of regulatory scrutiny. This Special Report presents some initial impressions on the content of this remarkable set of new documents, which will shape the way in which EU policies will be prepared, shaped, monitored and evaluated in the years to come.

The Schengen governance package - another missed opportunity? IES Policy Brief Issue 2015/1 February 2015

The Schengen Area of free movement is considered to be one of the most substantial and, in the eyes of many, most successful achievements of European integration. In 2014, the ‘Schengen Governance Package’, which alters the rules of the Schengen co-operation, came into force. It is a response to conflict among Member States in maintaining the common zone of freedom of movement. This Policy Brief aims to analyse how this package was developed and to assess whether it represents a suitable response to the conflict and difficulties within the Schengen agreement. The Brief argues that the Governance Package only touches on one part of the problem, namely border controls, whereas it does not deal with solidarity and burden-sharing and hence represents another missed opportunity to improve cooperation in the Schengen Area.

The Better Regulation Package: Creating better regulations, but for what kind of EU politics?. European Policy Brief No. 39, October 2015

Back in July 2015, we acknowledged the priorities established by the Luxembourg presidency, topped by ambitious cross-sectoral dossier of Better Regulation and the Interinstitutional Agreement negociations. We investigated these issues through the lens of their “A Union for the Citizens” pledge. With four months left, this promise to EU citizens still has much to deliver if it is to meet expectations. This paper is a mid-term look at the advances made with these dossiers.

International Conference on Safety and Innovation in Food Packaging (InSIPack) 2016: book of abstracts

The aim of the conference is to bring together academia and industry to discuss the safety of food packaging as well as the development of new food packaging materials, including active, intelligent and nano concepts. Bio-based materials will be also discussed due to be a growing area of food packaging. Topics: Food Safety & Quality (Physical and chemical hazards: measurement and assessment; Biological hazards: risk and prevention; Mathematical modelling of risk assessment; Evaluation of food spoilage, food quality and shelf life; Food packaging laws and regulations; Food package interactions: migration measurement methods, models and food safety risk assessment; Food Packaging innovation (Active and intelligent packaging; Nano-packaging; New packaging materials and material development; Bio based and edible packaging; Food package testing; Sustainable food contact materials; Recycling and Life Cycle Assessment).

User's manual for the CAL-3D user convenience package. Volume II - program listings. Final technical report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Instructor training institute for NHTSA curriculum package: emergency medical technician-dispatcher. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

The development and application of automated and remote control telemetry for drinking water package plants : cooperative research and development agreement with George H. Drysdale & Associates, Inc..

Mode of access: Internet.