WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/01 by Dorette Corbey (PSE)and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Interpretation of Directive 98/44.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, European Patent Office, bio-ethics, biotechnology, interpretation of the law, invention, patent law

C 147 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3473/01

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2001)

Subject: Information broadcast on EuroNews

It appears that even now the EuroNews television news channel is continuing to refer to the terrorist
group ETA as a ‘separatist organisation’ in its bulletins.

In the Commission’s view,
principles and aims, especially as regards the defence of freedom and respect for human rights?

is such a description compatible with the European Union’s fundamental

Given that the EuroNews channel receives funding from the EU budget, does the Commission not believe
that the Community institutions have a duty to guard against cases where the terms employed by
EuroNews to describe a terrorist group might be construed as implicitly condoning terrorism, and that
such an approach would in no way detract from the full respect for the freedom of thought and expression
of EuroNews journalists?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-3466/01 and P-3473/01
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2002)

The Commission fully shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Members about the fact that
EuroNews has referred in its bulletins to the terrorist group ETA as a ‘separatist organisation’.

Whilst it is true that EuroNews receives funding from the Community budget, the Convention that was
signed by both EuroNews and the Commission 1 with the full support of the Parliament 1 only relates to
the co-production of a series of information programmes about the Union. As in the case of all other
media companies, the Commission respects the full editorial freedom of Euronews.

The Commission, however, at its next meeting with EuroNews 1 in which the Parliament will, as usual,
also participate 1 will draw their attention on the points raised in this question.

The Commission expresses once more its commitment against terrorism, including ETA, as symbolised by
President Prodi’s presence in public events in solidarity of the victims of terrorism and by numerous public
statements.

(2002/C 147 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/01

by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of Directive 98/44

The basic aim of Directive 98/44/EC (1) is to clarify the distinction between what may and what may not
be patented in the field of biotechnological inventions. However, the directive itself is unclear in some
respects, particularly Articles 4, 5 and 6. In one of its resolutions, the European Parliament recently
objected to the patenting of the breast cancer genes BCRA1 and BCRA2. Thus Parliament has made it clear
that it objects to excessively broad patent definitions.

Directive 98/44 is currently being transposed in the Member States. Four Member States have already
completed the process. In the Netherlands, there is a difference of opinion between the government and
parliament about the implementation of the directive.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/185

Does the Commission agree that, when implementing Directive 98/44, it is possible to:

1 expressly forbid the patenting of plants and animals as such;

1 expressly forbid the patenting of manipulated embryos;

1 make patenting conditional upon the provision of a concrete and sufficiently workable description of

the function of the sequence or partial sequence;

1 draw up a supplementary list of inventions which cannot be patented because they are contrary to

‘ordre public’ or morality?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

The Honourable Members draw the Commission’s attention to the issue of how to interpret Directive
98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
biotechnological inventions.

First of all, it should be noted that the two contested patents to which the Honourable Members refer were
issued by the European Patent Office (EPO) which is a non-Community international organisation.

However, the articles which deal with the material conditions for patentability (novelty, inventive step,
industrial application)
in the European Patent Convention have been supplemented by the EPO
Administrative Council with rules revised in 1999 which incorporate the substance of the relevant
provisions in Directive 98/44/EC. The amendment of the Implementing Regulations to the European
Patent Convention has made it possible to introduce a harmonised scheme applicable for patents covering
biotechnological
inventions, regardless of whether these are issued by the European Patent Office
(hereinafter called ‘the Office’) or the national offices.

Once the European patent has been issued by the Office, it then changes into a number of national patents
which are valid in all the countries stated in the application for a European patent. These national patents
are then subject to the same national arrangements as exist for patents issued directly by the national
offices. For the Member States, these patents will also be governed by the relevant Community provisions,
which in the case of biotechnological inventions is Directive 98/44/EC.

Thus, in practice, the national courts will be able to revoke patents covering biotechnological inventions if
these do not comply with the provisions of this Directive insofar as this is compatible with the Member
States’ obligations stemming from international conventions.

The Commission can also confirm that one of the objectives of the Directive is to clarify the rules to be
applied in the field of patent law regarding biotechnological inventions. Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Directive
98/44/EC mentioned in the question make it possible inter alia to distinguish the simple discovery which
is not patentable from the invention which may be entitled to patent protection. These clarifications are
given in the very sensitive field of biology and relate in particular to elements of the human body.

is also important

It
22 October 2001, five Member States have now implemented it (Denmark,
Kingdom, and Greece).

that with the Directive having been transposed in Greece since
Ireland, Finland, United

to point out

Finally, the Commission would like to offer the following information in response the questions asked by
the Honourable Members:

1 although plant and animal varieties are not patentable, the Directive does not rule out the patentability
of animals and plants;since processes for cloning human beings are not patentable, it is clear that
reproductive cloning cannot be covered by a patent;

C 147 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

1 with regard to elements isolated from the body, the industrial application of a sequence or a partial
sequence of a gene must be disclosed in the patent application. A mere DNA sequence without
indication of a function does not contain any technical information and is therefore not a patentable
invention. In order to comply with the industrial application criterion it is necessary, in cases where a
sequence or partial sequence is used to produce a protein or part of a protein, to specify which
protein or part of a protein is produced or what function it performs;

1 the Directive makes provision for a non-exhaustive list of inventions which should be considered as
contrary to ‘ordre public’ and morality and are thus unpatentable. It is up to each Member State to
transpose this list into national law.

(2002/C 147 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Combating discrimination

On the basis of the Community action programme to combat discrimination 2001-2006 the Directorate-
General for Employment and Social Affairs has called for the submission of proposals (VP/2001/19).
Specifically the proposals are to be for
to umbrella European level non-governmental
organisations representing and defending the rights of people exposed to discrimination’.

‘support

The main purpose is to ‘contribute to the fight against discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

The Community rightly combats multiple forms of discrimination and in the process bases itself inter alia
on Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) which rejects discrimination on the
basis of ‘race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status’.

Can the Commission confirm that the call referred to above, despite the broad definition of ‘ethnic origin’,
excludes linguistic minorities?

If so, can the Commission explain why an action programme to combat discrimination should ignore/
exclude/pass over/discriminate against 40 million members of linguistic minorities who are in some cases
subject to daily discrimination on the basis of their language? Moreover, such discrimination also occurs in
fields such as ‘employment, education, the provision of goods and services and social protection’, which
are mentioned in this very action programme.

Does the Commission believe that European citizens cannot be subject to discrimination on the basis of
their language?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The programme to combat discrimination is based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty. This Article stipulates
that the Community ‘may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’. It makes no mention of discrimination on the
basis of language. Consequently, this programme cannot cover measures to combat discrimination on the
basis of language, and the concept of discrimination on the basis of language is not covered by the
concept of discrimination based on ethnic origin in either Article 13 of the EC Treaty or Directive
2000/43/EC (1). The same applies to other international instruments (2). Consequently, the call for proposals
VP/2001/019 is not open to non-governmental organisations that defend the use of regional or minority
languages in Europe.