Заседание окончателен a6-0073/2007



страница4/4
Дата06.08.2017
Размер439.5 Kb.
#27376
ТипДоклад
1   2   3   4

Justification
Article 8 of the Charter declares that 'Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her', and 'Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.' The directive aims to protect the rights and freedoms of persons with respect to the processing of personal data by laying down guidelines determining when this processing is lawful.

PROCEDURE





Title

The amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights

References

COM(2006)0168 – C6 0233/2005 – 2005/0127(COD)

Committee responsible

JURI

Opinion by
Date announced in plenary

LIBE

6.9.2005


Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary




Drafts(wo)man
Date appointed

Rainer Wieland

13.10.2005



Previous drafts(wo)man




Discussed in committee

6.11.2006

11.12.2006










Date adopted

11.12.2006

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:



23

17

0



Members present for the final vote

Edit Bauer, Johannes Blokland, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Fausto Correia, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Adeline Hazan, Ewa Klamt, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Sarah Ludford, Edith Mastenbroek, Hartmut Nassauer, Martine Roure, Luciana Sbarbati, Inger Segelström, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Manfred Weber, Stefano Zappalà, Tatjana Ždanoka

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Richard Corbett, Panayiotis Demetriou, Camiel Eurlings, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Sophia in 't Veld, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Bill Newton Dunn, Hubert Pirker, Marie-Line Reynaud, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Rainer Wieland

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Kartika Tamara Liotard

Comments (available in one language only)




PROCEDURE




Title

Criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights

References

COM(2006)0168 - COM(2005)0276 - C6-0233/2005 - 2005/0127(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

26.4.2006

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary



JURI

6.9.2005


Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary



ITRE

6.9.2005


IMCO

6.9.2005


LIBE

6.9.2005





Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision



IMCO

21.11.2005












Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed



Nicola Zingaretti

15.9.2005









Discussed in committee

28.11.2005

12.9.2006

20.11.2006

27.2.2007




20.3.2007










Date adopted

20.3.2007










Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:



22

3

3



Members present for the final vote

Carlo Casini, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Cristian Dumitrescu, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Hans-Peter Mayer, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Rainer Wieland, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Mogens N.J. Camre, Janelly Fourtou, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Eva Lichtenberger, Arlene McCarthy, Michel Rocard, Gabriele Stauner, József Szájer, Jacques Toubon, Nicola Zingaretti

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Toine Manders, Umberto Guidoni

Date tabled

23.3.2007



1 Все още непубликувано в ОВ.

1 The Court of Justice (cf. Judgment of 21 September 1989, Case C-68/88, Commission v Republic of Greece) traditionally only authorises the so-called assimilation method, in accordance with which the Community legislation may provide that domestic criminal provisions designed to protect certain national interests should apply also to protect the corresponding Community interests, thus combining the two sets of provisions in a new piece of legislation establishing a criminal offence. This means that Community law may establish that certain types of conduct should be regarded as a criminal offence, but must not encroach on the Member States' competence with regard to prescribing and applying penalties in practice.

1 Council framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583.

3 Cf. Article 250(2) of the ECT: 'as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of the Community Act.' We consider that this power to alter proposals includes the power to withdraw them; cf. the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 22 March 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the legislature (2005/2214(INI)).

1 COM(2005)0696.

2 Cf. paragraph 142 of Bekanntmachung der Neufassung des Patentgesetzes (PatG) of 16 December 1980.

3 Cf. Articles 147 and 149 of the Patentgesetz 1970, as amended by the federal law no I 143.

4 Cf. section 57 of the Danish Patents Act No 479 of 20 December 1967.

1 Cf. Article 273 of the Criminal Code, as amended by organic law No 10/1995 of 23 November 1995.

2 Cf. Article L. 615-14 of the Intellectual Property Code of 26 January 1990 as subsequently amended.

3 Cf. Article 329/D of the Criminal Code.

4 Cf. Articles 473 and 474 of the Criminal Code, which punish the offences of counterfeiting, altering or using the distinctive signs of creative works or industrial products and introducing into the State and marketing products with false signs, and Article 475, which provides for the supplementary penalty of publication of the judgment or judicial decision.

5 Cf. Article 45 of the Dutch Patent Act (Rijksoctrooiwet) of 1910 and Article 79(1) of the Dutch Patent Act (Rijksoctrooiwet) of 1995.

6 Cf. Articles 261 and 262 of the Industrial Property Code (decree law no 16/95 of 24 January 1995 as subsequently amended).

7 This primacy, of course, arises from the requirement that national judges apply Community law in full, and consequently disregard any domestic law that conflicts with it, whether it was passed before or after the Community law in question (cf. Court of Justice, judgment of 9 March 1978, Case 106/77, Simmenthal, in ECJ reports 1978, p. 629, point 24).

8 648 votes to 14, with 18 abstentions.

1 Not yet published in OJ.

1 Not yet published in OJ.

RR\659982BG.doc


PE 378.855v02-00

BG BG



Сподели с приятели:
1   2   3   4




©obuch.info 2024
отнасят до администрацията

    Начална страница