WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1630/97 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. The future of patents in Europe
Date: 1997-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: European Patent Office, European industrial area, European patent, competitiveness, equal treatment, innovation, intellectual property, official language, operating cost, translation

C 45/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

The Commission has however no objection to considering greater flexibility, particularly in view of the new
anti-discrimination clause included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission is therefore open for dialogue
on the matter, in particular with the other institutions, and preliminary discussions have already been held with
the staff organisations of the Commission.

However, against a background of zero growth in staff numbers in the Commission, it is vital to continue to
recruit young people in order to avoid an ageing personnel profile.

(98/C 45/77)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/97

by Ba·rbara Du¤hrkop Du¤ hrkop (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: Increase in funds for new fisheries agreements

The EU must take action to compensate for the sacrifices which the Community fishing fleet is obliged to make if
the reductions required under the Fourth Fisheries Guidance Programme are to be achieved.

On 14 April 1997 did the Commission not ask the Council of Fisheries Ministers for an ECU 30 million increase
in the budget to enable new fisheries agreements to be negotiated with third countries?

What was the Council(cid:146)s decision?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1997)

The Commission did not make any such request at the Fisheries Council in April 1997.

In  addition  to  the  initial  appropriation  of  ECU  246  million,  this  year(cid:146)s  budget  provides  for  a  reserve  of
ECU 30 million (budget heading B0- 40) for both fishing agreements being renewed or renegotiated with third
parties in 1997 and possible new agreements.

(98/C 45/78)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1630/97

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: The future of patents in Europe

The translation of European patents is a general problem which affects all the EU countries. The European Patent
Office (EPO) is calling for the abolition of the requirement for European patents to be translated in order to
reduce  the  cost  thereof,  since  translation  (which  represents  between  20  and  25%  of  the  total  cost)  is  too
expensive. According to the EPO, this will help to ensure greater protection for innovations in Europe. Although
the question of costs is undoubtedly an important one it is by no means crucial and it does not at first sight seem
unreasonable that a patent holder should be required to bear certain costs as a quid pro quo for his monopoly.

Does the Commission not think that one way of helping to reduce the cost of patents without doing away with
translations altogether would be to set up some kind of mechanism for cutting down the length of the texts to be
translated  since  this,  combined  with  technical  progress  in  computer-aided  translation,  ought  to  result  in  a
substantial reduction in the cost of having patents translated?