Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.10.2-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to begin by telling you that I am satisfied with this report, which is the result of a lengthy process in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, a committee that I have had the honour to chair over much of this negotiation, in addition to being rapporteur in this particular instance.
Today we are presenting the European Parliament report on the Community patent. I have to tell you, first of all, that in this case the European Parliament only has the competence to present a report. This is the first – I do not really want to call it an anomaly – but, in short, the first issue that, from Parliament’s point of view, I would like to draw your attention to.
We are dealing with a proposal from the European Commission that dates from August 2000 – in other words, some time ago – that was accepted by the Lisbon European Council, which stressed the importance of achieving a Community patent before the end of 2001; this importance has once again been highlighted at the Barcelona European Council, and the Council was urged to adopt a political position at the Internal Market Council on 21 May.
This characterises a debate that has not been easy, because the adoption of the Community patent is not a trivial issue. This is our second attempt, and I hope and trust that this time we will have a Community patent. We need a Community patent that covers the whole EU, which will complement the European patent and national patents and will be competitive worldwide. These are the three axes that the European Commission took as a reference point and which subsequently the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market took as their starting point.
However, for us, Mr President, and above all for the reason that we only have one single report, it was crucial for the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to reach a consensus. I believe we have achieved this. I hope that tomorrow the vote in Plenary will basically support the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s position, which is a position we reached after debating and discussing for many hours the following three fundamental issues that are the key elements of this Community patent:
Firstly, the role of the national patent authorities. Without a doubt, when we have the Community patent, the role of the national patent authorities will be greatly reduced, except that we trust that they will carry out complementary work. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s report includes the possibility for national patent authorities to participate in the first phase of the negotiation of the Community patent – the research phase – provided that they can guarantee a sufficient level of quality. This is the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s first point on which consensus was reached.
Secondly, the legal question. The Commission proposal is ambitious and has no current legal basis in the Treaty, and it would be based on a provision of the Treaty of Nice that has still not entered into force, consisting of the creation of a centralised Community Court of First Instance. Therefore, Mr President, after much debate, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has adopted exactly the same approach as the European Commission, without going so far: for there still to be a national Court of First Instance, albeit with many elements that are already communitarised, and I feel that this is a possibility that the Council should follow if we are to have the patent we need.
Thirdly, with regard to the procedural languages: the intention of the Commission proposal was to uphold the European patent system, that is to say, to have three procedural languages – English, French and German. As rapporteur, and with reality in mind, given that English is much more than the language of one State of the European Union, that it is the
of research, I proposed the use of English alone. Finally, given that Parliament adovocates cultural and linguistic diversity, we reached a consensus, advocating the Alicante system, that is, to have five procedural languages. I think that in this regard also Parliament is sending an important political signal that should be considered in the Council in order that consensus can be reached. I am saying this in full knowledge of the latest news I have on the Council’s working group."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples