Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-14-Speech-1-106-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110214.14.1-106-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I will reply to your last comment, Mrs Handzlik, so as to point out, before I come to the procedure, the substance of the matters on which we have worked so hard, as has been said, with the Belgian Presidency and, over the last few weeks, with the Hungarian Presidency. If a Bulgarian, Slovak, Latvian or Portuguese company wishes to apply for a patent in its own language, it can do so under the proposal we are discussing, and the cost of the translation will be refunded.
I should like once again to thank Mr Lehne for his determination and commitment, as well as the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I should also like to thank you in advance for lending your support, on the basis of this objective proposal, to this enhanced cooperation.
If there is a dispute, the company will receive a manual translation in its own language. If, before receiving that translation, it fails to comply with the patent because it does not understand it properly, its good faith will be protected. In other words, it will not have to pay any damages.
So that we are all clear about what is being discussed here, I would like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, of what has been or will be proposed. I have proposed that a company wishing to apply for a patent may do so, including in its own language. Legal protection will be guaranteed in one of the three languages of the Munich Convention, which is part of the history of the European patents. I did not invent that convention; it has been around for a long time. There are three languages. One of the three – English, French or German – will be used to automatically guarantee legal protection throughout the EU.
Under the Belgian Presidency, we added a proposal, which will doubtless be discussed. It was to use two other languages with manual translation, in addition to one of the three languages for legal protection. Those two languages will have no legal value, but they are of great value in terms of providing information about and communicating what is included in the patent. English, for example, can be used if so desired, as can Portuguese, Latvian or Dutch, with a translation in one of the three languages. Moreover, the translation will also be free of charge – its cost will be met. The situation, then, is as follows: one of the three languages will be used for legal protection and two other languages for information and communication. I would add one last time that no European companies will be discriminated against, and that includes those located in a Member State that is not participating in enhanced cooperation.
In other words, if a Spanish company applies for a European patent, it will be able to use it without being discriminated against if Spain does not participate in enhanced cooperation straight away. That is the aim, and that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I have worked hard on this matter, as I pledged to do. I have worked on it seriously; I have not been ideological or biased, and I have taken account of all the obstacles and been anxious to make progress.
That is why I believe that the proposal is politically acceptable to the 27 Member States and financially necessary for all EU companies. Mrs Herczog made the very good point – as did Mr Harbour and others too, such as Mr Schwab – that this issue is important from an economic point of view. We need to encourage, stimulate, protect and remunerate creation and innovation. This is one of the areas in which Europe has another advantage. Let us guard that advantage; let us strengthen and protect it.
Many small businesses are no longer financially able to protect their inventions, because they do not have this European patent. And what happens? Mrs Roithová mentioned the word ‘counterfeiting’ just now. If the patent is not protected because there are not the means to protect it throughout the Union, will it be protected in two or three Member States? And will counterfeit goods be able to enter all the other Member States? Once they have entered, they are in the internal market, and jobs are destroyed and public safety and public health are put at risk. I am referring, for example, to inventions of medicines. This is an extremely serious matter, which is why we have dealt with it seriously, without being ideological but simply being anxious to make progress and to find a reasonable solution, which, I honestly believe, is acceptable.
Finally, Mr President, I should like to respond to a comment made by Mr López-Istúriz White, to whom I listened carefully, and by Mrs Lichtenberger. They said that this enhanced cooperation, which currently involves 25 of the 27 Member States, could be used to fragment the single market. I sincerely believe that no such risk exists. Why? Because we are in an altogether exceptional situation: we have a single-market law that requires unanimity.
For almost all of the other single-market regulations and laws, we have a qualified majority. In this case, we need unanimity. That is why I believe that there is no risk of fragmentation; indeed, the European Commission will be vigilant in preventing any kind of fragmentation of the single market."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples