Report of JURI Committee Meeting Discussion on EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive on 23 February 2004
JURI, Feb 23, 2004
IPR Enforcement Directive (Report Fourtou)
President: Willy Rothley (PSE)
Present: 14 MEPS
Council Representative
Commission Representative
Much audience, mainly lobbyists, mainly of rightsholder industries
Started: 15:15
Ended: 15:45
*Council* Emphasized the importance of adopting Directive at March Competitiveness Council meeting (March 11), in trilogue meetings concerns of Parliament had all been taken into account:
-Criminal sanctions in a text that is based on Commission Art. 20.3 and Recital 25
-Scope - a “balanced solution” had been found here also
-introduction of “commercial scale” limitation in articles 7, 9, 10 balanced deletion of limitations from Art. 2 -EP concerns on competiton issues, sampling, protection of witnesses had also been taken into account
-Concerning ISPs, the line they followed was to respect exceptions in E-Commerce Dir. and EUCD while closing loopholes elsewhere.
*Commission* 45 - 50 billion Euro a year are lost due to counterfeiting and piracy in the EU, action is urgently needed, therefore passing Dir. in First Reading is important. Council CP has the “appropriate balance”; focuses on the “most serious, systematically criminal cases”. Criminal sanctions unfortunately deletd by Council due to concerns of this being a third-pillar element in a first-pillar instrument. On Art. 9: Important that there is a *compulsory* right to information, as compared to TRIPS, where this is only *voluntary”.
*Lehne* (German PPE shadow): nothing to add, Council CP is balanced, hopes it will pass in First Reading.
*Thors* (ELDR, Finland): Stil many question marks, is so-called harmonisation really meaningfull? E.g. patents: some MS may include them due to definition of IPR, while some may not. Doubts that general reference to EUCD, E-Commerce Dir. is sufficient to create a balanced approach.
*McCarthy* (PSE England, shadow): Directive is mainly about counterfeiting of tangibles, which has experienced exponetial growth over last 10 years, creting massive profits and “consumer hell”. CoComm. proposal was stronger than Council CP, sorry that Criminal sanctions are gone, would have been appropriate, criticizes Berenguer and other party colleaguse for being too soft. Concerns of among others generics manufacturers are unfounded as Dir. does not apply to legitimate goods. Also doesn’t create new substantive law, tehrefore can’t change E-Commerce Dir. Consumers acting in good faith are protected; rightsholders have lobbied strngly in favour of keeping Crim. sanctions in, haven’t succeeded, but still Dir can change environment in which “piracy has flourished within hte last 10 years”. It may not be strong enough, but is a first step,
*Gebhardt* (PSE Germany): What are we talking about? Council CP not even translated (only English text), scope has been extended, by taking in industrial property rights 2 categories are mixed up with each other, consequences quite unforeseeable.
*Harbour* (PPE England): Counterfeiting inccreasingly widespread, this Directive is contrary to public presentation not mainly about commercial intersts of software industry, but it is about important brnadnames that are an incentive for criminal elements (tangibles). Counterfeiters look for weakest spot, it is there that we have to stop them by putting ion place necessary safeguards; limiting to commercial scale is okay. When getting e-mails MEPs should reply that Directive is not about Free SOftware and not even about the digital world. It should apss in First Reading.
*Fourtou* (PPE France, Rpporteur): Nothing to add, Thors and Gebhardt should read documents. Extended scope (all IPR) is in the spirit of TRIPS.
*Rothley* (PSE geramny, President): Schedule:
Debate Plenary March 8
Vote Pleanry March 9
Council Adoption March 11
He himself not d’accord with too tight schedule, blames rapporteur for bad planning, passing in First Reading is over-hasted. Calls for discretion concerning criminal sanctions; criminal law is not there to re-inforce all kinds of political desires.