WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/02 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The situation regarding the new EU regulation on patents.
Date: 2002-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU industrial policy, European patent, drafting of EU law, industrial property, innovation

C 192 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

to electromagnetic waves above 10 GHz. It is not considered an appropriate measure for the frequencies in
which cordless and mobile phones operate (between 0,4 and 2 GHz).

The limits recommended include a safety factor of 50 to cover possible long-term effects in the whole
frequency range and at protecting also against as yet undocumented non-thermal effects. The level for
cordless and mobile phones was thus established at 2 Watt per kilogram (W/kg). When translated into
power density this roughly means levels of 2-10 W/square meter (m2). The level of 100 micro (µ) W/m2 is
orders of magnitude below these levels.

The Commission mandated the European Standardisation Organisations to draft Harmonised European
standards ensuring that products don’t expose the public to the limits beyond those recommended by the
Council. These standards (EN 50360 and EN 50361) have been given legal effect within the framework of
Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and
telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (3) which obliges
manufacturers to ensure that their products do not give rise to adverse effects on health when used for
their intended purpose. These standards directly allow evaluation of compliance with the SAR limits. A
report from the Parliament (STOA) has reported that on average mobile phones have SARs ranging from
0,4 to 1,4 W/kg. Cordless phones transmit at much lower power levels then mobile phones and have
correspondingly low SAR levels.

The Commission is following closely any new scientific results in the domain to react if necessary to any
new scientific evidence not taken to date into consideration. So far it has not been established that
exposure to electromagnetic fields for cordless and mobile telephones is potentially harmful to the nervous
and hormone system. As regards mobile phones,
it is important to note that the Interphone project
(supported by the Community under the 5th Framework Programme for Research (cid:1) 5FP) is a large-scale
epidemiological project involving 13 countries. The objective of the study is to determine whether mobile
telephone use increases the risk of cancer and, specifically, whether the radio frequency (RF) radiation
emitted by mobile telephones is carcinogenic. When the project results become available in 2004-2005,
consolidated conclusions can be drawn. Experiments in vitro on cells have sometimes shown biological
effects related to cancer or other diseases. However, isolated cells in culture are strongly different from
human total body. Moreover, these experiments are complex and controversial. This would tend to
indicate that if effects exist, they are not strong. They should however be well documented by the scientific
community, reason for which the Community and other organisations fund research on electromagnetic
fields. Altogether eight projects related to electromagnetic fields are being funded under 5FP.

the opinion of

Finally,
the Commission Scientific Committee on Toxicology-Ecotoxicity and the
Environment on health effects associated to the exposure to electromagnetic fields published on
30 October 2001 has confirmed for radio frequencies and microwaves the validity of
the Council
Recommendation limits. This opinion is in line with other national and international evaluation of the
scientific literature in this area.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 121.
(2) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
(3) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2003/C 192 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2836/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: The situation regarding the new EU regulation on patents

The Spanish saying ‘inventing things will only end up in tears’ is becoming a reality for those EU citizens
who have embarked on any technological or other type of invention.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/79

Confident in the knowledge that the Commission undoubtedly shares the view that EU inventors can no
longer be abandoned to their fate without assistance or significant external help, it would seem logical to
investigate the current situation as regards the Commission’s proposals on enabling EU inventors to
emerge from the obscurity to which they have been consigned through EU negligence and legislative
inertia.

EU inventors are struggling to promote the EU’s level of competitiveness in technology and other areas,
and we should support them in our common cause so as to promote our global competitiveness. When
will the Commission be able to implement a realistic and effective policy of support, and thus reverse the
in comparison with the Community’s main competitors, EU inventors are
current situation whereby,
abandoned and ignored?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

The Honourable Member touches upon a very important issue. Whatever other measures might be put in
place to assist Union inventors, their situation will not be fully satisfactory until a true Community patent
is put in place. An affordable patent valid throughout the Community, which is simple to obtain and
which offers a high level of legal certainty, would also without doubt improve the competitiveness of
European industry.

It is therefore highly regrettable that, more than two years after the Commission presented its proposal for
a Regulation on the Community patent (1 August 2000), the discussions in the Council have still not even
resulted in a common approach on the main features of the Community patent. The Commission has
worked unceasingly to facilitate the discussions within the Council, most recently by presenting a working
document on the planned Community patent
the
Competitiveness Council of November 2002 to decide its position on the main issues involved, so that
the more detailed work on the setting up of the Community patent can continue. It should be recalled that
according to the Commission’s approach, not only will the Council have to adopt the Regulation on the
Community patent, but also the European Patent Convention will have to be revised to accommodate the
Community patent, and a Community jurisdiction for handling private party litigation concerning the
validity and infringement of the Community patent will have to be set up.

jurisdiction (30 August 2002).

is now for

It

In addition, several on-going activities are designed to provide operational support to European inventors
initiative (2). Moreover,
and innovators,
within the Community’s 6th Framework Programme for Research and Development, the new rules
applicable to Community-funded projects have been developed in order to better promote the manage-
ment of knowledge and innovation, with corresponding financial support.

including the ‘IPR-Helpdesk’ service (1) and the ‘Gate2Growth’

(1) http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org.
(2) http://www.gate2growth.com.

(2003/C 192 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2000/35/EC

(9 October 2002)

In business circles the EU Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of June 2000 has been criticised as lukewarm and
insufficient.
It does, however, represent a step forward for the construction industry, even though
European Parliament recommendations are further-reaching and despite the fact that the issue of payment
delays is not explicitly addressed.

It would be logical for subcontractors in the construction industry to demand payment 30 days after the
completion of an order, in view of the fact that, in general, there is still an 180-day period between the
date of completion of an order and the date of payment.