WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3341/98 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Commission Communication on Entrepreneurship
Date: 1998-11-16
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: EU programme, business activity, competitiveness, industrial counterfeiting, intellectual property, single market, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 142/122

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

(1999/C 142/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/98

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Commission Communication on Entrepreneurship

This Communication (COM(98) 222 final) sets out many laudable proposals to assist entrepreneurship in
the European Union, but a large number of new businesses will be faced with another problem which is
not referred to in the priorities − counterfeiting. Does the Commission intend to include this unfortunate
aspect of entrepreneurship in any promotional strategy to assist businesses in tackling this problem? Will
assistance, either in the form of funding or advice, be made available with a view to helping those smaller
businesses which do not have the same financial means as larger firms to tackle counterfeiting?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 1999)

While counterfeiting is not specifically mentioned in the communication ‘Fostering entrepreneurship in
Europe: priorities for the future’, the Commission is aware of the negative impact of counterfeiting on
entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness. Therefore, it has recently published a green paper on
combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market (1). This will mark the start of a wide-ranging
consultation of all the parties concerned, including businesses, the Member States and the institutions of
the Community.

This consultation aims to determine the economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy in the single market,
to assess the effectiveness of the relevant legislation and to propose a number of initiatives to improve the
situation. These initiatives could include support for private-sector monitoring, legal protection of security
and authentication devices, assessment of the penalties and other means of enforcing intellectual property
rights and the setting-up of suitable administrative co-operation arrangements between the relevant
national authorities.

As counterfeiting and piracy affect a wide variety of sectors (including computing, toys, textiles,
perfumes, compact disks, medicines, and watches), a horizontal initiative could prove a useful approach
to deal with it in a comprehensive way. For the single market this would also complement the existing
mechanism for controlling counterfeit and pirate products at the external border of the Community, and
would thereby reinforce the coherence of Community action.

Without prejudging what the outcome of the consultation process might be, actions to be undertaken by
the Commission could be of a legislative nature or consist in financial support to anti-counterfeiting
activities, in organisational or administrative measures or in facilitating measures. This could also include
assistance, either in the form of advice or funding, under certain circumstances, to small businesses.

(1) COM(98) 569 final.

(1999/C 142/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/98

by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: ICPD + 5

In the light of the forthcoming ICPD + 5 International Forum (The Hague, 8-12 February 1999), which will
review and appraise the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action five years on, could the
Commission provide information on the following issues:

1. How is the Commission preparing for the International Forum on ICPD + 5? Are any documents being

drawn up? If so, when will they be made available to Members of Parliament?