Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-16-Speech-3-580-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110216.18.3-580-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I will try to be extremely brief.
First, regarding the question asked by the Earl of Dartmouth, in a case involving the infringement of intellectual property rights, including patents in third countries, it is appropriate that the operators concerned have recourse to the available enforcement means, including legal proceedings if necessary, as this is a case between two private firms.
In the specific case of Avon Protection, it would be appropriate for your constituent first to seek redress for the alleged infringement of the patent via the existing legal framework in Korea. Should the available enforcement in Korea not be fair or expeditious enough, then the Commission could look into the matter.
Regarding the remarks made by Mr Jadot, the initial draft of the Korean legislation would have forced EU car makers to reduce the CO
emissions of their cars twice as much as Korean car makers. This was mainly because the proposed emission cuts were not proportional, but highly progressive, depending on the level of emissions of the respective cars. Consequently, despite being responsible for only a small share of car sales in Korea – 3% in 2009 – and therefore of total CO
car emissions in Korea, EU car makers would have been asked to contribute disproportionately. Their average emissions reduction between 2009 and 2015 would have been 23%, compared with just 10% for their Korean counterparts, which account for 95% of total car sales in Korea. Such burden sharing would not have been fair, and that is why we discussed it with the Korean counterpart.
Finally, I would like to thank everybody involved in this legislative process – the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the Commission rapporteurs, the Chair of the INTA Committee, the Council and my own staff at the Commission – for what, I would say, is a very good example of what the ratification procedure should be under the Treaty of Lisbon."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples