Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-243"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.10.2-243"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after many years of working towards an effective Community patent, we must make it clear that a number of issues still remain to be resolved: the language regime, the differences between the role of the national patent offices and the role of the European Patent Office, and the legal arrangements. Despite repeated invitations from the Heads of States and Government and successive European Councils, most recently the Barcelona Council, the situation has not improved.
We encountered the same problems in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market over the language issue. After lengthy debate, the committee opted for the language regime already used in the context of the Community trademark, under which applications can be filed in any of the official languages of the Community. However, the applicant has to specify a second language as well, known as the language of proceedings, which can be one of five languages – English, French, German, Italian or Spanish – the use of which he accepts as a possible language of proceedings, particularly opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings. If the application is filed in a language which is not one of these five languages, the Office will arrange to have the application translated into the language indicated by the applicant.
As I see it, this is not an ideal solution. For reasons of economy, it would have been preferable to use just one language, English. Moreover, European industry has called for this. However, that has not proved possible and so we look forward to the introduction of the Alicante model, which, although perhaps not the best solution, is the only solution possible.
As regards the legal arrangements, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposes that first instance jurisdiction should be at national level, such that appeals can be made to national courts with experience in patent cases as first instance courts for Community patent litigation, while second instance decisions would be the responsibility of the European Chamber for intellectual property. This is a compromise solution. We would have preferred one single, centralised first and second instance jurisdiction, which would have ensured greater uniformity of interpretation. However, the opposition was extremely strong on this matter too.
Lastly, assurance is given that the national patent offices will be able to continue to play an important role in the procedures for granting the Community patent.
In other words, in our opinion, the solution adopted is not completely satisfactory, but it does mean that this complex issue is closed. I believe that, in her heart of hearts, even the rapporteur, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi – whom I do, of course, congratulate on her work – shares these concerns. However, Parliament has merely a consultative role in this procedure, it is not colegislator. We therefore give the report the thumbs-up, in the hope that the Council of Ministers will be able to come to a swift agreement without hiding behind any excuses."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples