WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Rules on the use of languages in connection with the Community patent

On 10 April 2002, the European Parliament rejected by a large majority Amendments 40 and 41 to the Palacio report (A5-0059/2002) on the Community patent. The purpose of these amendments was to protect citizens of the Union against discrimination on grounds of language without making any concessions with regard to the lawfulness and affordability of the Community patent. By rejecting these amendments and others with a similar purpose, the European Parliament squandered its last opportunity to advise the Council to alter the rules on the use of languages in connection with the Community patent to include all official languages of the EU. Only French, German, Spanish, Italian and English are provided for.

1. Is the existing proposal regarding the use of languages in connection with the Community patent compatible with the principle that there should be no discrimination among Community languages? If so, how does the Commission justify the exclusion of Dutch, Greek, Finnish, Portuguese, Swedish and Danish? If not, what will the Commission do to prevent discrimination against six official languages of the Community?

2. Will the Commission also ensure that such discrimination is avoided in future, even if it appears to secure ample democratic support in the European Parliament and other EU institutions thanks to cunning selection of the languages affected?

3. Does the Commission still consider it vital in this connection, as it has previously observed, that citizens of the Union should be able to read the texts adopted at Union level in their own language (see http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/role_nl.htm

5)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission would like to recall to the Honourable Member that the Commission has not proposed the adoption of a five language regime for the Community patent.

The Commission considers that the language regime implicit in its proposal for the Community patent is the right approach. With regard to the role of the European Patent Office as the examining office for Community patent applications, the existing three-language regime is considered appropriate by all Member States, all of which are Contracting Parties to the relevant Convention. The Commission considers that the European Patent Office (EPO) language regime is very pragmatic and user-friendly. It should be recalled that the system allows in principle for the initial filing of patent applications in any of the official languages of the Member States. While the application must be translated subsequently into one the working languages of the European Patent Office, this is justified by the need for the Office to be able to function efficiently. The Commission considers it crucial that the European Patent Office also carry out its future work in relation to Community patent applications similarly in a cost-efficient and reliable way.

In relation to the translation of granted Community patents, the Commission continues to believe that its proposal is appropriate, in particular in view of the objective to create a system which is cost-effective overall. In the meantime, the Council has expressed its preference for conducting further work on the basis of a scheme whereby all claims of a granted Community patent would be translated into all the official Community languages. The Commission has indicated that it might be able to accept such translation scheme on condition that an acceptable overall compromise can be reached on the Community patent, with particular reference to its jurisdictional element.

In the Commission's view the considerations concerning the availability in all Community languages of Community law or texts adopted by the Community institutions would not be applicable to Community patents granted by the European Patent Office.