16. GiventhatrenewablesareastatedpriorityoftheEUasawhole,cannotenvisagethatthesupports
tothoseenergysourcescouldbelimitedintimeorinextentbyaDirective,whilenoCO 2energytaxisin
place, while direct and indirect subsidies to traditional energy sources continue, despite the current Elec-tricity Directive, while the White Paper targets have not been met, fair access is not guaranteed, andunbundlingisnotcomplete;
17. Considersthat,sinceitisnotpossibletoanticipatehowrenewableenergieswilldevelop,inparticu-
larthedevelopmentrateandcontributionofsolarpower,whichiscurrentlyquiteuncompetitive,itisnotpossible to set any specific deadline for ending supports to all renewable sources, which would probablyhavetheeffectofendingtheirdevelopmentatsomecrucial pointinthefuture;
18. Considers that renewable energies should be clearly defined as those energies which renew them-
selvesindefinitely,andthereforeshouldnotincludemunicipalincinerationorpeat,butmayincludebiogasand geothermal, as per the White paper on Renewables; a separate article is required in any Directivewhich should exclude large hydro in general, since it is normally already economically viable, possiblywithsomeverylimitedexceptionsfornewerinstallationsortherestorationofolderones;
19. Believes that,sincemuchofthepotentialfortheexploitationofrenewable energy sourcesistobe
found in rural areas, any future directive should promote the use of renewable energy sources in suchareas; believes this would help to revitalise economic activity in the most isolated areas, advantage could
be taken of resources which have so far remained unused and improvements to the quality of supply
(which inmanysuchareasisdeficient)couldbespeededup;
20. CallsontheCommissiontoreportonthesituationregarding fairaccesstothegridforrenewables
in its widest interpretation, in all Member States and trans-boundary, and to incorporate rules based onbest possible practice into any Directive, bearing in mind the special conditions under which renewablesoperate;
21. Considers that, to ensure economic operation at the pioneer stage and thus to allow renewable
energy resources to be put on the market on a broad front, a suspension of transport tariffs should beprovidedfor,fromthestart-upstageuntilcommercialmaturity;
22. Calls on the Commission to submit to the Council and the European Parliament a draft directive
supplementing the one relating to the internal electricity market and establishing both priority rules foraccess to electricity produced by means of a renewable energy source and a financial framework forshared-cost Communityintervention in respect of research into, and the promotionof, renewable energysources;
23. InstructsitsPresidenttoforwardthisresolutiontotheCommissionandCouncilandtheParliaments
oftheMemberStates.
9. Decision of the Patents Office on the cloning of human beings
B5-0288, 0291, 0293, 0299 and 0301/2000
European Parliament resolution on the decision by the European Patent Office with regard to
patent No EP 695 351 granted on 8 December 1999.
The European Parliament,
0dash having regard to patent EP 695 351 of 8 December 1999 relating to the genetic manipulation of
humancellsandembryos,‘mistakenly’grantedbytheEuropeanPatentOffice(EPO),
0dash having regard to European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal
protectionofbiotechnologicalinventions,29.12.2000 EN C378/95 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities
Thursday 30 March 2000
0dash having regard toitsresolutionsof16March 1989ontheethical andlegalproblemsofgenetic engi-
neering(1)andartificialinsemination ‘in vivo’and ‘in vitro’(2)andof12March1997(3)and15January
1998(4)onthecloningofhumanbeings,
0dash havingregardtothe1973EuropeanPatentConvention(EPC),inparticularArticle53(a)thereofwhich
precludespatentingofinventionscontraryto ‘ordre public’ormorality,
A. whereasthegranting ofpatentEP695351hasraisedgreatpublicconcern,
B. whereasthesaidpatentembraceswithinitsdescriptioninparagraph0011‘allanimalcells,especially
of mammalian species, including human cells’ and Claim 48 of the patent is for the use of such‘animal cells’ to produce an embryo enabling germline transmission of the selectable marker(forexampleaherpesvirusoranantibioticresistancegene),
C. whereastheEPOhassoughttoexcusethegrantingofthispatentonthegroundsofasimpleerrorin
the wording andinterpretation ofClaim48buthasseriouslymisledthe public by notrevealing that
Description 0011 expressly applies the claimed invention to human cells and that it has clearlygrantedapatentfortheproductionandpossiblecloningofgenetically modifiedhumanembryos,
D. whereasthegrantingofthepatentisincompatiblewithpublicmoralityandinbreachoftheEuropean
andnationalpatentlegislationinforceintheEuropeanUnion,
E. whereas Directive 98/44/EC prohibits the patenting of the human body at the various stages of its
formationanddevelopmentandofthesimplediscoveryofoneofitselementsincludingthesequenceorpartialsequence ofageneinitsnaturalenvironment,
F. whereas there is no provision within the EPC or the operating rules of the EPOto amend or revoke
apatentonitsowninitiative; whereas there mustbeeffective legal safeguardstoallowpatentstobe
revoked ex officioin the case of manifest mistakes in the application of the Convention, without the
needforrecoursetolegalchallengebythirdparties,
G. whereas the possibilities of opposing the effects of the patent, within the nine-month deadline, have
notyetbeenexhausted,
H. whereastheabsenceofaCommunitypatentisashortcominginpatentlegislation,I. whereas the public must be fully informed and the Union must play a leading role in promoting
publicdebate;whereastheEPOisabodyactingasbothjudgeandjurywhosepowersandproceduresmustbereviewed,
1. Isdeeplyshockedatthegranting ofapatenttotheUniversity ofEdinburgh, which includesatech-
nique forthe genetic modificationofthe germ line ofhuman embryosandofthe embryosthemselves, apatent on isolation, selection, and propagation of animal and transgenic stem cells, which could be usedforthecloningofhumanbeings;
2. Undertakes to file without delay an objection to patent number EP 695 351 if legally possible, and
callsontheotherinstitutionsoftheEuropeanUnionandMemberStategovernmentstodolikewise;
3. NotestheregretexpressedbytheEPOandexpectstheprocedureopposingthegrantingofthepatent
tobeprocessedspeedilysothatthepatentcanberevokedassoonaspossible;
(1) OJC96,17.4.1989,p.165.
(2) OJC96,17.4.1989,p.171.
(3) OJC115,14.4.1997,p.92.
(4) OJC34,2.2.1998,p.164.C378/96 EN29.12.2000 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities
Thursday 30 March 2000
4. Underlines its fundamental position regarding the application of biotechnology on human beings,
especially the refusal of interventions in the human germ line, the refusal ofcloning of the human beingin all phases of its development and the refusal of research on human embryos, which destroys theembryo;
5. Reaffirmsthatnoconsiderationofresearch,andstilllessofprofit,canbeallowedtooverridethatof
the dignityofhumanlife,andcallsforthisprinciple tobewrittenintotheTreaty onEuropean Unionin
thefuture;
6. Calls on the Commission to establish clearly and categorically that Directive 98/44/EC on the legal
protectionofbiotechnologicalinventionsrulesoutthepatentingofhumanbeingsandpartsofthehumanbody, and manipulation of the genome and the cloning of the human being in all phases of its develop-ment, and that only an invention based on an element isolated from the human body or otherwise pro-ducedbymeansofatechnicalprocess,whichissusceptibleofindustrialapplication,isnotexcludedfrompatentability,even where thestructure ofthatelementisidenticaltothatofanaturalelement,given thatthe rights conferred by the patent do not extend to the human body and its elements in their natural
environment;
7. Requests swift implementation of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions into national law and asks national legislators to recognise the limits fixed by the Community0dash in particular regarding the ethically motivated limitation of the granting of patents 0dash as a minimumstandard;
8. CallsontheCommissiontotakeallnecessarymeasurestoremoveanyambiguityinEuropeanpatent
legislationandtocloseanyloopholethatexistsassoonaspossible;
9. DemandsareviewoftheoperationsoftheEPOtoensurethatitbecomespubliclyaccountableinthe
exercise of its functions, and to amend its operating rules to provide for it revoking a patent on its owninitiative;
10. Calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals to ensure the participation of Parliament in
respectofethicalmattersrelatingtobiotechnology;
11. CallsontheEPOtoensurethatallexistingpatentsandpatentapplicationsinEuropedonotviolate
theprinciple ofnon-patentabilityofhumans,theirgenesorcellsintheirnaturalenvironmentandhumanembryos;
12. CallsontheEuropeanUnionandtheMemberStatestoadoptthemeasuresrequiredtoensurethat
thehumangenetic codeisfreelyavailableforresearch throughouttheworld;
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European
PatentOfficeandthegovernmentsoftheMemberStates.29.12.2000 EN C378/97 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities
Thursday 30 March 2000