Trade Law

Views expressed by Alan Yanovich.¹

Washington, D.C. partner Kevin Wolf, London partner Jasper Helder and Emily Kilcrease with the Center for New American Security submitted a detailed comment to U.S. and EU export control authorities to help guide and inform efforts to rationalize U.S. and EU export controls.  It can also be a useful resource for anyone interested in the topic and wanting to understand the history and context to current export control policy issues. They note that the US-EU Joint Statement on the role and purpose of export controls “is far more significant than generally recognized because it is the first time the EU (represented by the EC) or any other US ally has stated so explicitly and publicly since the end of the Cold War an agreement with the US that export controls should be used to achieve country-specific and other policy objectives not directly related to weapons of mass destruction or conventional military items.”

Political changes: Monitor the impact of major political changes, including the U.S. presidential and congressional elections and Brexit

The results of the U.S. presidential election are historic and unanticipated, and they will have significant economic, political, legal and social implications. As the nation prepares for the Trump administration, many uncertainties remain about how the incoming administration will govern. President-elect Trump has stated that he will pursue vast changes in diverse regulatory sectors, including international trade, health care, energy and the environment. These changes are likely to reshape the legal landscape in which companies must conduct their business, both in the United States and abroad.

Swiss goods and services are valued by consumers who are ready to pay a premium for goods that are Swiss made. The current rules regulating the Swiss brand are often ignored by the market and enforcement is difficult and rare. The new Swissness legislation will strengthen the conditions under which goods and services may be labeled with “Made in Switzerland” and bear the Swiss cross. This legislation will come into force on 1 January 2017.

Wednesday, February 3, brought additional developments pertaining to the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. consistent with EU privacy law. Just one day prior, we reported on the announcement by the EU and U.S. of an agreement called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (Privacy Shield), which is intended to replace the Safe Harbor arrangements struck down by the Court of Justice of the EU in the Schrems decision. We noted that the “reaction of the Data Protection Authorities will also be watched, and important developments may come quickly.” Consistent with that advice, Working Party 29 (WP29), which includes the Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) from across the EU that conduct relevant enforcement, met on Wednesday and issued a statement affecting companies that have continued to depend on Safe Harbor to transfer data during this period while an agreement was being negotiated and reported several times to have been close at hand.

The European Union and United States announced today that they reached a new agreement, referred to as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”), to replace the Safe Harbor Agreement struck down by the European Court of Justice in the Schrems decision, which more than 4,000 companies were able to use for the transfer of personal information concerning European citizens to the United States in the course of business.

The Obama Administration announced new sanctions on Wednesday, July 17, 2014, targeting key companies in Russia’s energy, financial and defense sectors, as well as other companies, regional separatist governments, and individuals associated with the unrest in Ukraine. 

The new sanctions against Russia are the most severe so far and can be divided into two parts: (1) restrictions on certain financial transactions with four of Russia’s largest financial and energy companies, and (2) an expansion of the “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” (“SDN”) list published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to include additional entities and individuals whose property are now blocked. In addition, the EU is also likely to expand its sanctions criteria and designate additional Russian companies by the end of the month.

On April 17, 2014, U.S., EU, Russian and Ukrainian representatives endorsed an agreement outlining initial steps to deescalate tensions in Ukraine. For the moment, the agreement may temporarily stall additional U.S. and EU sanctions against Russia. However, Administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, emphasized shortly after the agreement’s announcement that the United States would be ready to impose additional sanctions against Russia if it fails to live up to the agreement. Additionally, events over the weekend, including continued resistance by pro-Russian separatists to the agreement and a deadly gun attack, may threaten the agreement and increase the possibility of additional sanctions.

The agreement’s steps specifically include:

• requiring all parties to refrain from violence
• disarming illegally armed groups
• returning all illegally seized buildings to their legitimate owners
• vacating “all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns”
• granting amnesty to protestors who cooperate with these conditions.