Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-324"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.15.2-324"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to give my response to the comments made and the questions asked.
The Commission welcomes the majority of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and congratulates Mr Zimmerling, the rapporteur, on this dedication to achieving agreement and the way in which he has been able to gain consensus on the most important questions, particularly that of the time limit, which is, in Amendments Nos 11 and 15, brought down to four years in total, made up of a two-year transitional period and two-year transposition period. This seems to be a reasonable period to enable the profession to adapt to the change and for national authorities to introduce the necessary changes in regulations.
The second important issue is that of the total amount, which is removed in Amendment No 7. However, this amendment can be only partially approved. The Commission believes that to divide royalties into five portions, as set out in the common position, remains more effective than the proposed method, since it avoids possible loss of sales, especially in the highest portion of the sale price. The third and final issue is that of the threshold, which Amendment No 6 brings back down to EUR 1 000 or, in other words, to the Commission’s original proposal. I repeat, this amendment can be only partially approved since the Commission is not in a position to agree with you and make the threshold compulsory. The Commission believes that, on a national level, the abolition of the right to resale below this threshold cannot be justified due to the internal market. In some Member States, this may put artists at a disadvantage, in contrast to the situation prior to harmonisation. Amendment No 4 and the part of Amendment No 7 which relates to this issue should also be rejected for the same reasons.
To sum up, Mr President, the Commission is able to approve Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and is able to approve Amendment Nos 6 and 7 only in part for the reasons mentioned previously. The Commission is able to approve Amendment No 9 as a recital and not as an article. However, the Commission is unable to approve Amendment No 4, which relates to the compulsory aspect of the threshold, or Amendment No 8, since the distinction made between heirs who are able to benefit from the right of resale is not the same as the concept of ownership of this right and arises solely from national law. A similar amendment was rejected at first reading. Furthermore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 10 for the reason that to draw up and maintain a list of third countries where the right of resale is in force would create practical problems and would not enhance legal security."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples