INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (8866/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Gerry Sutcliffe
MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Home Office
Thank you for your letter of 22 August 2006,[98]
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 18 October
2006.
We understand that the JHA Council of 5-6 October
agreed that discussions on the substantive provisions should continue,
notwithstanding the Court's pending judgment. How, and on what
assumptions, are discussions to proceed?
The Council Conclusions also state that "further
scrutiny is needed regarding the need for criminal measures"
to protect intellectual property rights at EU level. What further
scrutiny is envisaged?
We look forward to hearing your more detailed
views on the Article 95 legal base in due course.
We have decided to hold the proposal under scrutiny.
19 October 2006
Letter from Gerry Sutcliffe MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 19 October concerning
the proposed Intellectual Property Directive. In your letter you
raise three points that are at the heart of the Intellectual Property
debate. I will deal with each in turn.
As you say, it was agreed at the JHA Council
of 5-6 October that discussion of this instrument would resume.
You ask first about how and on what assumptions discussions would
proceed. The conclusion was that discussion of both the need and
substance would proceed at expert level without prejudice to a
final decision on the appropriate legal base. This was in the
expectation that a more definitive determination of the competency
issue may emerge in the judgment of the European Court of Justice
in the maritime pollution case.
As regards the necessity issue, and in response
to your question as to what further scrutiny is envisaged, I can
only say at this stage that we consider this issue to be of paramount
importance and will be raising it as soon as discussions resume.
The Government will make it clear that the issue can only be resolved
by way of proper systemised evaluation. On the substance, the
Presidency concluded that the dossier would be referred for further
discussions on the basis of a scope limited to those intellectual
property rights in respect of which the Community has established
rules and norms.
Our initial discussions with the incoming German
Presidency indicate that negotiations on this instrument are likely
to resume in March or April next year. They are yet to finalise
plans for dealing with the necessity issue and, although the incoming
presidency will of course acknowledge the Council mandate on scope,
it remains unclear whether discussions will resume on the basis
of a new text.
I note your reference to more detail on the
Government's views on the Article 95 legal base. Our initial view
that we are yet to be convinced that this dossier is an internal
market issue remains and we will continue to advance this view
in the renewed discussions. We also note that the proposals remain
under scrutiny. I hope this clarifies matters. We will of course
keep you informed of any significant developments, including the
progress of the arguments on the suitability of the Artilce 95
legal base.
9 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Gerry Sutcliffe
MP
Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2006,
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 29 November
2006.
We are grateful for your clarifications and
your undertaking to keep us informed of developments. We look
forward to hearing from you as regards the need for the proposed
Directive, its scope and its proposed legal base.
We note that there is a possibility of a new
text being prepared by the German Presidency and look forward
to receiving a copy of any such text in due course. In any case,
we would be grateful to hear from you following the next Working
Group meeting to discuss this proposal, which we understand is
not likely to take place before March 2007.
We have decided to hold the proposal under scrutiny.
30 November 2006
98 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 373-374. Back
| 
