Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-02-Speech-1-025-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120702.16.1-025-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to just briefly explain the motion to postpone the debate. As you know, we held a number of rounds of negotiations with the Council about the unitary patent quite some time ago, and we reached a joint result at the end of November last year. The package consists of three parts: the patent regulation itself via the codecision procedure, the implementing regulation via the consultation procedure and a third area, consisting of an intergovernmental agreement.
We reached an agreed result and, on 2 December last year, the chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Lehne, received a letter from the Presidency of the Council containing the agreed text and a covering letter in which the Council committed to adopt exactly the enclosed text if Parliament adopted exactly what we had negotiated and agreed as well.
For seven months, nothing has happened, as the Council has failed to get its act together on another matter, namely, the issue of where the seat of the central division of the patent court should be. This issue is not within our competence, however, and accordingly we have not got involved. There were three interested parties in this dispute, and in the last week the Council has decided, in its wisdom – something about which we are all aware – that all three interested parties will be getting the nod. That is not the crucial point, however, for which reason there is clearly cause to wonder whether what we have here is something of an oriental bazaar, but that would be an unfair insult to the serious traders of oriental bazaars. The problem is that it was also agreed to interfere in Parliament’s competences and to delete something from the regulation itself, specifically, three key articles. Coreper will be meeting tomorrow morning at 09.00 and formalising what the Heads of State or Government have agreed. It plans to then present us with that new text at 10.30 so that we can hold a debate on the basis of the new text in the afternoon, followed by a vote on Wednesday. This is a blatant violation of our agreement, and I believe that this is the first time this has happened in the history of our negotiations, informal trialogues, with the Council. This is not acceptable, Mr President, and that is why we are requesting that the item be taken off the agenda.
We are moving to have the item taken off the agenda as we cannot allow what I have just outlined to happen. Should Coreper decide tomorrow to adopt what is before me now, we will still have to discuss how we can move forward with this dossier all in all. Mr President, in order to avoid any interested parties getting the wrong impression, however, I want to make it clear that this is not just about this procedural issue, it is about a fundamental content-related issue. In many people’s view – including that of the Council in the negotiations themselves in the course of the last year – the removal of the three articles that has now been decided on is a blatant violation of European law. It is important to be aware of this. They want a regulation and a regulation should regulate something. They want to take out the regulatory content, in other words, exactly the things that are supposed to be regulated. That is remarkable in itself and it is why we have to take this item off the agenda at all events."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples