WRITTEN QUESTION P-2825/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Postponement of national implementing provisions with regard to Directive 98/44/EC on the granting of patents on living organisms until the Court of Justice has ruled on an action to have it declared null and void.
Date: 2000-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European patent, application of EU law, genetically modified organism

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/225

status of the new Member States as Member States with a derogation, the implications of which are listed
in Article 122(3) (ex Article 109k) of the EC Treaty. On becoming members of the Community the
applicant countries will become subject to the procedures of the EC Treaty (especially Articles 104 (cid:129)
ex Article 104c (cid:129) and 122) and of the stability and growth pact.

(2001/C 89 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2825/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Postponement of national

implementing provisions with regard to Directive 98/44/EC on the
granting of patents on living organisms until the Court of Justice has ruled on an action to have it
declared null and void

1.
Is the Commission aware that the national parliaments of various Member States (the Netherlands,
France, Germany and Italy) have expressed serious concerns about the implementation of Directive 98/44/
EC (1) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, with particular regard to those sections which
would enable undertakings to acquire ownership rights in respect of genetically modified plants and
animals, and that, on 14 June 2000, the Netherlands Second Chamber decided to ask the President of the
European Court of Justice immediately to suspend implementation of the Directive until such time as the
Court had given its ruling on an earlier action to have it declared null and void, an action supported by the
Italian Republic?

2.
Given that, on 25 July 2000, the President of the Court rejected the request submitted by the
Netherlands and Italy, what is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the implications if, prior to the final Court ruling
expected in 2002, patents were granted to undertakings on the basis of national implementing provisions
and such patents were subsequently declared null and void by the Court? In that event, would the national
government be liable for any claims for compensation, or would such claims have to be settled by the
European Union?

3. What possibilities do the Member States have to prevent patents from being granted before the Court
has delivered its final ruling so that there would be no possibility of claims for compensation arising?

4. What possibilities do the Member States have of postponing the introduction of the implementing
provisions required of them until the Court of Justice has ruled on the action to have the Directive
declared null and void, and what possibilities may be granted to them in this particular instance, should
they not be authorised to postpone that introduction? What is the Commission doing to broaden the
possibility of postponement, where necessary?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

1.
The Commission is aware that concern has been expressed about certain aspects of Directive 98/44/
EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions (1) ((cid:145)the directive(cid:146)). This, as the Honourable Member mentions, has led the Netherlands to bring
an action before the Court of justice seeking annulment of the directive. The Netherlands is supported in
this action by Italy. It is also true that, more recently, the Netherlands asked the Court to suspend
implementation of the directive pending its decision in the main case. On 25 July 2000, this request for
interim measures was rejected by the President of the Court.

One of the grounds for rejection of the Netherlands(cid:146) request was the fact that, given the time
2.
generally taken by national patent offices for examining patent applications,
it was unlikely that any
patents would be granted under the directive before the date of the Court(cid:146)s judgment in the main case
referred to above. The President of the Court also noted that the Netherlands has legal mechanisms which
it could use when granting such patents in order to prevent any damage being caused. Thus, conditions
could be attached to the grant which would make it clear that its validity depended on the legality of
the directive being upheld. It therefore seems vary unlikely that any question of claims for compensation
could arise.

C 89 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

3. and 4. Member States are under an obligation to implement the directive on time. They cannot
therefore postpone the introduction of the necessary legislation. However, as noted above, it normally
takes national patent offices quite some time to examine patent applications. The Court(cid:146)s judgment in the
main case is therefore likely to intervene before any patents are finally granted under the directive.
Moreover, in terms of Community law, it is open to any Member State to make the grant of such a patent
conditional on the validity of the directive being upheld.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2950/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Subject: Compliance with public procurement legislation

for

two public procurement directives

The proposals
that were published in May this year
(COM(2000) 0275 and COM(2000) 0276, recently amended by subsequent corrigenda, seek to simplify
legislation in the area of public procurement. There is, however, evidence to suggest that non-compliance
with current legislation in this area is widespread. Whilst the Commission has previously acknowledged
that such problems exist, neither of the proposals fully addresses this issue.

What action is the Commission planning to take in order to enhance compliance with public procurement
legislation. Does it foresee the possibility of appropriate amendments being made to the proposals
currently under consideration?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2000)

As stated by the Honourable Member, the Commission has realised that there is a need to increase
compliance with the current Community rules on public procurement. However, the Commission also
believes that non-compliance is to a large extent caused by a lack of knowledge and understanding of the
rules. It therefore sees the effort of clarification and simplification of the provisions, which is one of the
main characteristics of the two proposals (1) it has presented to the Parliament and the Council, as a means
which should enhance compliance with the rules.

The reasons for this are several. On the one hand, the requirements for contracting authorities and entities
will be easier to understand, and, on the other, the Commission will be able to focus more intensively on
the enforcement of clear rules. A further advantage in this respect is that interested parties, participants or
potential participants in specific award procedures, will be able to pursue their rights better at national or
Community level.

(1) COM(2000) 275 final COM(2000) 276 final.

(2001/C 89 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3056/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Ending of support for indigenous breeds in Portugal

(22 September 2000)

Support for indigenous breeds has played a key role in preserving endangered species, thereby helping to
improve the quality of meat production and enhance its image in the eyes of consumers. The aid has done
a great deal to revitalise the agricultural sector in certain less favoured regions in Portugal(cid:146)s rural heartland.