Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-234"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.8.3-234"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It is correct that on 31 May 2001, the Council adopted a common position on the Community patent with the aim of furthering future discussions on this subject. With regard to the language regime used at the European Patent Office, the common position posits that it must be based on a number of principles which apply universally, including the principle of non-discrimination. In order to curb the cost of translation, further consideration must be given to the various suggestions made in this connection, including technical translation aids, without ruling out other options
.
Having regard to these guidelines, the Council recently started discussing the provisions presented in the Commission proposal for a regulation on the Community patent, as well as the other solutions which have been provided for consideration by various Member States. In any case, the honourable Member will understand that the Council is not prepared at this time to adopt a clearer position concerning this motion for a resolution, including the linguistic aspects involved, as long as the European Parliament, consulted in accordance with Article 308 of the Treaty, has not issued a recommendation on the matter.
The Council would remind the honourable MEP that the language regime of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is established by the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark. This regulation was adopted unanimously by the Council following the agreement reached at the Conference of government representatives at the level of Heads of State and Government on 29 October 1993.
Moreover, with regard to the steps taken by the Greek government in case T-120/99, the Council is taking note of the judgment pronounced in this case by the Court of First Instance. This judgment rejects the appeal, as well as the arguments, of the requesting party against the language regime of that office."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples