Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-18-Speech-3-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021218.8.3-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Since the Commission tabled its proposal concerning EU patents in August 2000, the Presidency has made a significant effort to promote the work on this proposal. In recent months, the work has been concentrated on the patent system’s court-related aspects. Its starting point has been a working document submitted by the Commission in August. Following intensive discussions, the Presidency tried, at the meeting of 14 November, to reach agreement on a number of central principles for the court system as part of an overall compromise, but it was not possible to reach agreement on all the features. In spite of the lack of progress, the efforts have continued. At the meeting on 26 November, the Presidency concluded that COREPER should continue its work, giving high priority to the issue of finalising an agreement and so paving the way for a political agreement. The Presidency also concluded, however, that the Council would do its utmost to reach such an agreement in good time before the European Council’s spring summit in 2003. Against the background of an overall political agreement, the aim is to have the matter of the EC patent finalised and adopted as quickly as possible. The most important issues in the negotiations are as follows: the role of the national patent authorities; languages; costs and who is to pay these; the distribution of fees; and the whole court system in connection with the patent. It may sound simple, but it is in fact fiendishly complicated, and when I think of how many debates there have been in my own Parliament in Denmark, I can readily imagine the problem that rotating presidencies will have in getting 15 – and soon, in fact, 25 – parliaments to agree on the same rules. This must happen, however. It is absolutely crucial, so I want to thank Mr Sjöstedt for his question. We must get this matter finalised."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples