WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. The Convention and the principle of non-discrimination.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Constitution, anti-discriminatory measure, drafting of EU law, equal treatment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/91

Will not the Union stress again, in particular for the benefit of the French Government, that the Turin to
Lyons section constitutes a priority where completion of Corridor V is concerned, as the Member of the
Commission responsible for transport has repeatedly stated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The French Government has not yet officially adopted a position on the Lyon-Turin project. The Ministry
of Economic Affairs and Finance and the Ministry of Transport have carried out an audit at its request.
This was followed by a debate in the National Assembly and the French Senate in May 2003. On the basis
of the conclusions of the audit and the debate, the French Government will take a decision in the autumn
on the priority it intends to give the project. Against this background, the Commission has emphasised on
several occasions, in Parliament as well as to the French authorities, the major importance of the Lyon-
Turin project in restoring the modal balance of traffic on a strategic route which will enable western and
eastern Europe to be linked across the Alps and Italy. The support given takes the form of a significant
financial contribution amounting to EUR 100 million for the period 2001-2006 (cid:1) under the budget for
the trans-European networks (cid:1) for the studies programme.

In addition, the Lyon-Turin project is one of the projects covered by the scope of the Commission
proposal to increase to 20 % the rate of co-funding for which cross-border rail projects crossing natural
barriers could be eligible under the budget for the trans-European networks (TEN). The proposal (cid:1) which
was amended (1) following the vote on first reading in Parliament in July 2002 (cid:1) is still languishing before
the Council, and it is not possible to anticipate when the 20 % rate will become effective.

(1) COM(2003) 38 final.

(2004/C 65 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: The Convention and the principle of non-discrimination

What is the view of the Commission on the inclusion of the principle of non-discrimination in the future
constitution of the EU in the framework of the work of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission feels that, in general terms, the principle of non-discrimination has been satisfactorily
incorporated in the draft EU constitution drawn up by the Convention.

It would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the following points in particular:

(cid:1) Article I-2 (Union’s values) includes equality as one of the Union’s fundamental values;

(cid:1) Article I-3 (Union’s objectives), which states that the Union’s aim is to promote its values, combat
social exclusion and discrimination, promote social justice and protection, equality between women
and men, and solidarity between generations;

(cid:1) Article I-4 (Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination), which prohibits any discrimination on

grounds of nationality;

(cid:1) The inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the draft constitution, which contains a title on

equality;

C 65 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

(cid:1) Articles III-1, III-4 and III-5, which reproduce Articles 3(2), 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty;

(cid:1) Article III-1a, which provides that, in defining and implementing its policies, the Union shall aim to

combat all forms of discrimination.

However, the Commission regrets that the Convention did not subject Article III-5 in its entirety to
qualified-majority voting. Maintaining the unanimity requirement in paragraph 1 of this article will create a
significant obstacle in future to the adoption of the measures needed to combat discrimination based on
sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Moreover, the Commission is disappointed that racism and xenophobia are not included in the areas of
crime listed in Article III-167 of Section 4 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Part III) of the draft
constitution. It is a pity that this vital aspect of Union activity is becoming less visible and suffers from
having no clear legal basis when these deplorable phenomena are still rife in both the present and the
future Member States.

(2004/C 65 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1794/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Software patents

In recent research undertaken on the subject (1), it has been argued that a patent system may interfere with
competition and innovation. This argument relies on the notion that innovation is both ‘sequential’
(i.e. each invention builds upon its predecessor) and ‘complementary’ (i.e. a diversity of innovators raises
the chances of discovery). This argument therefore goes against the traditional reasoning for a patent
system.

Does the Commission in any way agree with the argument? How does the Commission respond to it in
relation to the Community patent?

(1) Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, July 2002, Harvard University and

MIT.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the research referred to by James Bessen and Eric Maskin. The authors of the
paper argue that sequentiality and complementarity are characteristics of industries such as those for
computer software and hardware. This may indeed be the case, but in no way does it go ‘against the
traditional reasoning’ behind patent systems. In fact, sequentiality and complementarity are, to a greater or
lesser extent, characteristics of all innovation, although the degree of interdependence between inventions
varies considerably between sectors.

The Commission welcomes all research which contributes to the debate on the scope and utility of patent
protection, particularly in high technology sectors. The work by Bessen and Maskin in this field is indeed
highly interesting and the model that the authors develop in their paper is undoubtedly elegant and
sophisticated. However, like all models of this kind, there are simplifications involved, and caution has to
be exercised in applying the results of such work to the real world.

Following an extended period of consultation and reflection, the Commission came to the conclusion that
in the field of software inventions, insufficient grounds had been shown to justify either a significant
extension, or restriction, of the scope of what should be regarded as patentable. In particular, there was
little hard evidence of the interfering effect which patents are alleged by some to have on innovation. This
is why the proposal for a directive on computer-implemented inventions involves harmonisation and