Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-148"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
". Mr President, honourable Members, I am grateful to you for the many valuable and important comments and suggestions made in this debate, and I would like to say something about a few of them. The Commission’s view on the limitation of the directive’s scope solely to matters over which the Community has power is that this is essential if cases are to be covered both by Community law and by the laws of the Member States, for, if that were not to happen, the transposition of the directive could well meet with considerable difficulties in this area in which Community and domestic law are closely enmeshed, and the danger might arise of the public not knowing which law actually applied, thus compromising the rule of law. The Commission takes the view that all types of intellectual property rights merit the protection of the criminal law, and so it is in favour of patents being included, without, however, any intention that this should present any political obstacle to the transposition of the directive. While the Commission can accept the removal of patents from the scope of the directive, it does reject any amendment along the lines of Amendment 1 that might revive the debate about Community power over criminal law measures relating to patents. With the exception of that of legal personality, the Commission has dispensed with definitions on the grounds of their superfluity or of their potential for legal uncertainty, and therefore prefers to give the Member States a free hand, allowing them to take decisions in accordance with their own laws and in the light of the measures they have already taken."@en1
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples