Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-02-Speech-1-103-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120702.19.1-103-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I welcome the positive views from the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on our proposal. Jürgen Creutzmann deserves special thanks for his hard work on this report.
Protecting intellectual property rights is a must in our knowledge-based economy. We tabled a comprehensive IPR strategy a year ago and put emphasis on enforcement. In view of your debates and reflections on the proposal, I would like to convey three messages.
Firstly, let me stress that there are no rights without enforcement. Legislators who have granted intellectual property rights and customs are well placed to enforce them. The Commission therefore sees no reason to exclude
any type of IPR infringement from the scope of the regulation.
Secondly, the reverse should also hold true, namely: no enforcement without rights. How IPR projection relates to the freedom of transit and justified derogations should be addressed in the substantive laws where IPR are established and not when discussing the competence of enforcement authorities. A reverse burden of proof on the final destination of the goods in transit does not feature in current substantive law, so if, following your proposal, customs were to detain goods, they would eventually have to let them go, as there would be no evidence of infringement in the EU.
I am well aware of the constraints expressed on medicines in transit. Plainly speaking, there was a problem, and we have dealt with it by involving stakeholders, engaging constructively with international partners and proposing revised legislation. I would therefore caution against any last minute amendments which disregard the efforts made and might have unexpected consequences.
As regards the destruction of goods in cases of alleged complex infringements such as patents, the Commission maintains that goods should never be destroyed without legal proceedings unless there is the express agreement of the parties concerned.
This leads me to my third message, namely, that we need to follow a practical and reasonable approach. To deal effectively with massive flows of small consignments, we need a definition and procedure that works in practice. The definition is not straightforward and would need to evolve with new trends. The threshold should therefore be better defined in a delegated act. A reasonable approach means that customs should detain goods only where there is adequate evidence. ‘Reasonable’ also means that operators deserve to be heard in advance when customs decide to detain goods.
In conclusion, by equipping customs with tools to ensure the strong, reasonable and practicable enforcement of well-established intellectual property rights, I hope the EU will continue to set the gold standard at international level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples