Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.9.2-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the European Union recognises that the lack of affordably priced medicines is a serious problem in many developing countries, particularly for the poorest people in these countries. We also believe that intellectual property rights are essential for encouraging creativity and innovation. In our opinion, they also encourage investment in research and the development of new medicines.
According to the information available to us, none of the WTO members have yet requested a debate on reducing the term of patents. The patent term is currently set at 20 years and further negotiation of the agreement would be needed in order to change this requirement. The same is true with regard to the idea of a moratorium on possible trade disputes, which is not permitted under the current agreement.
We therefore maintain the position that we have held in this matter, to the satisfaction, I believe, of most of the parties involved, which is to find an appropriate balance between the interests of the patent holder and public health concerns. We shall continue to discuss this issue in a constructive manner. The TRIPs Council will be holding further meetings in July and September. It is, of course, rather premature to issue an opinion on the content of the decisions that come out of these meetings but, whatever those decisions are, rest assured, Mrs Sandbæk, that the Commission is committed to finding the right balance between these two objectives – namely, to acknowledge inventors’ rights and to provide access to essential medicines – and we will continue to be committed to this over the coming months.
The TRIPs agreement, a WTO agreement on intellectual property, should not, therefore, be a barrier it should be part of the solution that you are looking for. Criticism of this agreement is generally based on the fact that it would limit the political options in developing countries in the area of public health.
Our position focuses, in the main, on one key point. We believe that the agreement allows WTO members sufficient scope to put in place an intellectual property regime that is able to meet their concerns in terms of public health. Our belief is that it is up to the WTO members, within the Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Council), to interpret this degree of flexibility, rather than leaving this up to a panel.
That is why the European Union has already been working for some time in order to reach a consensus between the WTO members instead of leaving the way open to legal disputes. This is also why we supported the request from African countries to bring up the question of access to medicines at the WTO. This debate took place at the last Council meeting held on 20 June 2001.
We presented a document, which summed up our views on some of the provisions of the agreement, such as Article 31, for example, which does not specify the grounds for issuing a compulsory licence. We believe that these concerns regarding public health can, legitimately, be considered as good grounds for granting a compulsory licence.
Another issue is that of respecting procedural restrictions. On this point, we think the procedure provides enough flexibility in cases of national emergencies and that the current rate of HIV/AIDS infection in some developing countries constitutes this type of emergency and that intellectual property can also be lifted if a patent is required in cases of public non-commercial use.
Our position on this point is, therefore, constructive. We are committed to protecting intellectual property, which is an important stimulus, but we also believe that this must and can be achieved within the existing legal framework, as long as it is clarified in order to take account of urgent public health situations.
To refer to the recent debate at the WTO, many developing countries, such as India, Brazil and some countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, presented a document which welcomed this debate. Like us, they stressed the need to ensure that this agreement does not compromise the rights of WTO members to draw up and implement health policies designed to safeguard public health.
This group of countries also stressed that the use of compulsory licensing was a crucial instrument for putting in place these public health policies and giving wider access to medicines. Lastly, they believed it was necessary to look into extending temporary provisions to implement this agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples