Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-266"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-07-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Proposal for a regulation on a Community patent2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000705.8.3-266"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-07-05-Speech-3-2672
lpv:speaker	lp:Willy C.E.H. De Clercq2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vlaamse liberalen en democraten (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Bolkestein warmly on the initiative he has shown, the energy he has displayed and the success he has achieved in respect of the European Community patent. I would like to ask him four questions. As I understand it, some Commissioners, as well as people other than Commissioners, have problems with the proposed language system. I am not fanatical about languages, but I do wonder why there should be three languages and not five, as is the case in the Community Trademark Office. Would this cause a real problem? Secondly, the decision to convert the office in Munich into an EU agency has to be approved unanimously by fifteen governments. Is that a problem? Thirdly, on the position of the European Parliament, we do not really have much of a say. Does this mean that the European Parliament, which has worked harder than anyone else to achieve a European Community patent, will not be involved, or at least be updated in good time and on a regular basis? Finally, what is the latest on the future expansion of the Community patent?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph