Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 21.02.1996
COM(96) 66 final - COD 464

Amended proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

on the legal protection of designs

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 189a(2)
of the EC Treaty)

**EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM**

**GENERAL PRESENTATION**

In January 1994, the Commission submitted to the Council and the European Parliament
proposals ("the Proposals") for a Regulation on the Community design [(1)] ("the Regulation")
and for a Directive on the legal protection of designs [(2)] ("the Directive").

The Economic and Social Committee adopted a first opinion on 6 July 1994 [(3)] and an
additional opinion on 22 February, 1995 [(4)] .

The European Parliament decided to discuss the proposal for the Directive first and to conduct
the second reading when it adopts a position on the proposal for a Regulation. Following this
decision, Parliament adopted its opinion on the Directive during its plenary session
of 9 - 13 October 1995 [(5)] .

In its opinion, Parliament followed the opinion of industries in endorsing the Commission's
initiative. This positive opinion is, however, subject to 13 amendments.

Parliament concentrated mainly on the definition of design, the requirements for protection,
the exclusion from protection of certain elements to promote interoperability of products and,
in particular, on reproduction for repair purposes. The solutions chosen to resolve these issues
are also of major importance for the future Regulation, where most material provisions must
of course be identical to those found in the Directive.

The purpose of this amended proposal is to take account of these amendments and to clarify,
where necessary, the wording of a number of provisions.

The Commission was able to adopt all amendments proposed by the European Parliament
except one, which concerned the introduction of the idea of a legal assumption of novelty in
infringement cases before national Courts. In concrete terms, the amendment stated that, in
such cases, the burden of proof on the existence of a previous and identical design should
always be assigned to the infringer. Such a provision is not appropriate in the context of the
Directive, because the latter concerns national registration procedures, and because
Member States are left free to decide whether they wish to let examining Offices establish
the novelty of a design prior to registration or not. Where Member States do have an
examining Office, such a provision would be superfluous at best, because novelty would have
been established ex officio. Furthermore, and irrespective of the existence of such Offices,
the provision would make unwarranted inroads on Member State rules on court procedure.
Both reasons render the provision undesirable in the context of the Directive.

(1) OJ No C 29, 31.1.1994, COM(93) 342 final.
(2) OJ No C 345, 23.12.1993, COM(93) 344 final.
(3) OJ NoC 388, 31.12.1994.
(4) OJNoC 110, 2.5.1995.
(i) Not yet published.

As regards one other amendment, namely that relating to the requirement of individual
character (Article 5, paragraph 1), the Commission has only with some reluctance been able
to follow Parliament, because the amendment reduces the "threshold" for protection.
Moreover, the amendment also has some bearing on the second paragraph of Article 5. This
provision, which introduced a limitation of the designs with which a comparison was to be
made when assessing the individual character of a design, was intended to alleviate the effect
of the relatively high threshold originally proposed by the Commission and to avoid a
situation where access to protection would have become unduly difficult. As the provision has
become superfluous after the lowering of the "threshold" requested by Parliament, it was
deleted in the amended proposal.

EXPLANATIONS AS TO **THE** RECITALS

The only Parliament amendment relating to the recitals is a proposal for a new recital which,
in turn, is linked to the abovementioned proposal for a provision introducing a procedural
assumption. As the Commission cannot, as mentioned above, accept that amendment, it can
only reject the recital referring to it as well.

The Commission has, on the other hand, introduced six new Recitals: Recital 12a,
which clarifies the amendment referring to the protection criteria for parts in Article 3(3),
Recitals 16a, 16b, 16c and 16d, which refer to Article 14 and, more specifically, to the
remuneration right introduced by Parliament's amendment to Article 14, and, finally,
Recital 16e, which states the grounds for the new provision relating to a right to information,
which was included in the amendment proposal as Article 16a, following an amendment by
the European Parliament.

For an explanation as to Recitals 12a, 16a, 16d and 16e, reference is made to the explanation
given in this memorandum in relation as to the Articles to which they refer. Recitals 16b
and 16c are clarified hereunder.

**Recital 16b**

This Recital clarifies one aspect in the application of the repair clause with a remuneration
system. In some cases, an agreement between the right holder and the third party as to the
amount of money which can, in a specific case, be deemed to represent a "fair and reasonable
remuneration" may be lacking. If the application of the repair clause were to be made
preconditional upon such an agreement, the third party would sometimes have to wait for a
considerable amount of time before an agreement is reached and before being able to use a
design for repair purposes. Where, in some cases, the remuneration would have to be fixed
through litigation or arbitration over the course of several years, the repair clause would have
been rendered ineffective. The purpose of this Recital is to avert this danger.

Notwithstanding this Recital, the right holder remains protected against mala fide third parties
through the safeguard provision introduced in Article 14, paragraph 4.

**Recital 16c**

This Recital has been introduced to make it clear that the use of the repair clause does not
in any way establish a relationship between the right holder and the third party which can be
compared to that existing between a licensor and a licensee. The Recital also states that the
consumer who chooses to have a product repaired with parts stemming from a third party
does not thereby derive any rights or claims against the manufacturer of the complex product.

The remaining amendments to the recitals aim at the clarification of the text or the necessary
adaptation of the recitals following amendments of the Articles to which they relate.

**EXPLANATION AS TO THE ARTICLES**

In order to make it easier to cross-reference similar Articles which can be found in both

Proposals, the Commission has added headings to the various Articles for the Directive
proposal. It is understood, however, that these headings are not legally binding.

**Article 1**

_Paragraph (a)_

This paragraph has been changed, in accordance with an amendment adopted by the
European Parliament, by adding wording to the effect that the design to be protected must be
"outwardly visible".

It must first of all be pointed out in this context that the addition of a visibility criterion in
Article 1 brings into focus a confusion concerning various meanings of the word "part" in the
English language. In Article 1, the word is used to describe any feature of a product, while
in Article 3(3) and in Article 14, the word is used to describe, in concrete terms, a component
part, which is usually also a product in its own right. That is why the word "component" has
been added to Article 3(3) and to Article 14, that is, whenever the word "part" is used to
describe, concretely, a component part.

Bearing this differentiation in mind, the visibility criterion introduced by the
European Parliament can be looked at more closely. It must be pointed out that the
Commission does not expect this amendment to entail substantial changes in the application
of the provision itself. Indeed, this amendment must not be confused with the amendment to
Article 3, which states that parts, in order to be eligible for protection, have to remain visible
during the normal use of the complex product they belong to. The criterion introduced in
Article 1 does not look at the visibility of the part as component part of a complex product,
as provided for in Article 3(3), but of the appearance of a product or a part thereof. Therefore,
if a right holder wishes to protect the appearance of, for example, the interior compartments
of a suitcase (which do not constitute component parts within the meaning of Article 3,
paragraph (3), but which are a part within the meaning of Article 1), he can do so by
applying for protection of a part of a product which, in the case of his application, is
"the compartments of a suitcase". The design for which protection is claimed is then
outwardly visible.

Thus, an appearance will only be invisible and lead to exclusion from protection in the rarest
of cases, such as, for example, the boring of a firearm barrel. However, an exclusion from
protection for component parts of complex products, which are independent products in their
own right, may follow from the provision in Article 3, paragraph (3).

Another change is the addition of the wording "in particular", where the Commission follows
a proposal of the Economic and Social Committee. The intention of this proposal is to clarify
that the list of features of appearance is not meant to be exhaustive.

Finally, the addition of the wording "texture" intends to add a dimension of design which was
deemed to be lacking in the original proposal.

**Article 2**

_Paragraph 2 (new)_

This paragraph has been inserted to clarify that the scope of application of the Directive also
covers designs in Member States which do not have a formal registration system, but where
protection is granted after a deposit and official publication of the design.

**Article 3**

_Paragraph 3_

To comply with the amendments made by the European Parliament, an extra requirement
relating to the protection of parts has been added to this paragraph: the visible featiires of
parts of a complex product can only qualify for protection in their own right if the parts
are visible during normal use of the complex product. The amendment is especially
relevant to the automotive-industry, where it means that certain spare parts, the so-called
"under-the-bonnet" parts, are excluded from protection.

In order to avoid a confusion as regards the word "part", which, in English, can have two
meanings, the word "component" has been added to the text (see explanation as regards
Article 1).

_Paragraph 4_

Following the amendments adopted by the European Parliament as regards paragraph 3, this
paragraph defines the notion of "normal use". It should be noted that this requirement should
not be understood to mean that parts must be visible at all times during normal use. in the
case of a car, normal use can also mean that someone sits in the back of the car, or walks
around it. The wording does, however, exclude from protection those parts whose design does
not normally play a role for the consumer because it is only visible during repair or
maintenance.

**Article 4**

_Paragraph_ _2_ _(deleted)_

The original paragraph 2 has been amended and moved to Article 6 in the Directive. This
change is related to the amendment to Article 5, paragraph (2), which made it possible to
regroup the provisions on the disclosure of the design in a single provision which would be
applicable both to Article 4 and Article 5.

**Article 5**

_Paragraph_ _1_

Paragraph 1 defines the individual character of a design and, in effect, sets the threshold for
protection. The European Parliament has wished to lower this threshold by deleting the word
"significantly". Because the provision still contains the requirement of a different overall
impression, this deletion does not unduly lower the threshold, and the Commission therefore
feels it can accept the amendment.

As a consequence of the lowering of the "threshold", the Commission did, however, feel
compelled to delete paragraph (2) of the initial proposal, for the following reason. In order
to alleviate the effect of the relatively high threshold provided for in the original wording of
paragraph (1), paragraph (2) substantially restricted the designs which were to be taken into
consideration as comparison material when assessing the individual character of a design.
Now that the "threshold" has been lowered, such a limitation would be counterproductive, and
the comparison should therefore be made with any design disclosed before the design in
question. This wording was easily integrated into paragraph (1). This change, in turn, made
it possible to have a single Article defining the concept of "making available to the public"
for Article 4 as well as for Article 5 (see the explanation concerning Article 6).

_Paragraph_ _2_

This paragraph (paragraph 3 in the original Commission proposal) contains a set of guidelines
for use by national Courts when assessing the individual character of a design. In this
assessment, commonalties with a previous design were, originally, to be given more weight
than differences. The intention of this provision was to make sure that, in order to achieve
protectability for a new design, it would not be enough to introduce a certain number of
minor differences to an existing one. However, following its wish to lower the "threshold"
in paragraph 1, the European Parliament also wanted to give equal weight to commonalties
and differences. The amendment of the guideline in accordance with these wishes, however,
deprives it of its specific significance and thereby makes it redundant. The Commission
therefore chose to delete it in its amended proposal and to restrict the guidance to that relating
to the freedom of the designer.

**Article 6**

_Paragraph 1_

The original Article 4(2) has been transferred to Article 6 since this provision not only
concerns Article 4, but also Article 5, in its new form.

The Article has furthermore been amended in accordance with the wishes of the

European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee through the introduction of
what is commonly known as the "safeguard clause". Its aim is to protect the design industry
from claims that a design right is not valid because there was an earlier design in use
somewhere in the world where the European industry could not possibly have been aware of
it. The intention of this provision is to avoid the situation where design rights can be
invalidated by infringers claiming that antecedents can be found in remote places or museums.

_Paragraph 2_

This paragraph has been transferred from paragraph 1 in the original Commission proposal.

_Paragraph 3_

This paragraph (paragraph 2 in the original Commission proposal) was reworded to clarify
the case where disclosure is the result of a breach of confidence. There is no change in
substance.

**Article** 7

_Paragraph_ _I_

Although the question whether a design does or does not contain any aesthetic elements is
irrelevant in the context of the requirements for protection, as set out in the Proposal, the need
was felt for a provision indicating that protection should not be available in those extremely
rare cases where form necessarily follows function. Even though Parliament did not adopt an
amendment concerning Article 7, paragraph (1), the Commission felt that clearer wording was
needed, especially after the amendment proposed as regards paragraph (2).

_Paragraph 2_

Paragraph 2 has been reworded to allow for the wishes of the European Parliament, which
sought a clearer definition of the "must fit" clause. The current text is closely modelled upon
the corresponding provision of the United Kingdom Patents, Designs and Copyright Act 1988.

**Article** 8

The wording of Article 8 has been modified slightly in order to clarify that it is not the
exploitation or publication of a design, but the design itself which may be contrary to public
policy or morality.

**Article 9**

_Paragraph 1_

The word "significantly" has been deleted in order to follow the wishes of the
European Parliament. Also, the wording "similar" has been replaced by the wording "not
different". This negative qualification was chosen to ensure compatibility between the
formulation of the scope of protection in Article 9, paragraph (1), and the definition of
individual character given in Article 5(1). Indeed, these provisions have to be worded so as
to avoid the situation where different interpretations of the wording "similar" and "not
different" would create a grey area where a design is eligible for protection in its own right
under the wording of Article 5, and, at the same time, constitutes an infringement of a prior
design under the wording of Article 9. This danger has been averted through the uniform use
of the wording "not different". This wording, as used in Article 9, paragraph (1), defines a
criterion which is an exact mirror image of that defined in Article 5, paragraph (1).
Consequently, all designs which do not qualify for individual character will be considered to
be infringing.

_Paragraph 2_

The explanation given for the amendment of Article 5, paragraph (2) also applies to the
amendment to this paragraph.

**Article 11**

_Paragraph 1_

As this provision is intended to provide an exhaustive list of invalidity grounds, several
grounds which exist in certain Member States, but were missing in the original proposal were
added in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g). Because the instances of unauthorized use described in
these new grounds can be prosecuted and prohibited by virtue of the relevant rights, the scope
of these grounds is rather limited. Their main aim is to ensure that, regardless of the
possibility of prohibiting infringements, infringing rights can be taken off the design registers,
thus contributing to keeping these registers "clean".

Furthermore, the provision which was contained in paragraph (2) of the original proposal is
now to be found in paragraph (h). This is a drafting amendment only

_Paragraph 2 (new)_

In a number of cases, only minor alterations of the design are required to avoid invalidity. A
possibility to protect the design in an amended form has therefore been foreseen.

_Paragraph 4_

This paragraph was to be found in Article 16 of the Commission's original proposal and has
been integrated into Article 11 in the interest of coherence.

Article 14

Several important amendments of the European Parliament focused on modalities of the
repair clause contained in Article 14.

_Paragraph_ _1_

Where the initial proposal provided free reproduction of certain spare parts after a phase-in
period of three years, the European Parliament has in its amendments eliminated this phase-in
period and introduced a remuneration system that will operate as from the date of registration '
of the design.

Further, in order to provide the right holder with the information which is needed to establish
the correctness of the remuneration paid by the third party, the Commission has introduced
an additional obligation, namely an obligation for the third party to offer to provide such
information in a regular and reliable manner.

In order to avoid confusion concerning various meanings of the word "part" (see the
explanation concerning Article 1), the word "component" was added to the wording of this
paragraph.

_Paragraph_ _2 (new)_

This paragraph was inserted to comply with a European Parliament amendment which
provided that, when parts falling within the scope of application of the repair clause are
manufactured outside the Community and then imported, the remuneration must be paid by
the importer. This provision was slightly modified to guarantee payment of the remuneration
also in cases of intra-Community trade, when parts are reproduced freely in a Member State
where the designer or his successor in title has not taken out protection of the relevant
designs, and are then imported into another Member State where he has. In this last case, the
Community exhaustion of rights doctrine cannot apply, because its decisive element, namely
the existence of a situation where a product has been put on the market with the consent of
the right holder, is missing.

_Paragraph_ _3 (new)_

The Commission has followed the line set out by the European Parliament, but has added a
set of guidelines to ensure that the remuneration system functions similarly throughout the
Community, and that the spare part market becomes a level playing field.

Existing legislation concerning similar systems provides little guidance as to what is
considered to be a "fair and reasonable remuneration". Failing agreements by the parties
concerned, the rate of remuneration is normally decided by domestic Courts. Since
interference with national procedures needs to be avoided, it did not seem appropriate to deal
with procedural aspects. However, in order to reduce litigation and/or arbitration, the
Commission considered that it would be necessary to clarify the basis which should be used
in calculating the amount of the remuneration.

The most realistic basis for such calculation seems to be an amount related to the costs

incurred by the original producer in developing the design. This investment should therefore
primarily be taken into consideration.

_Paragraph 4 (new)_

In devising concrete guidelines for the functioning of the repair clause with a remuneration
system, one of the concerns of the Commission is that, in case of manifest abuse of the
repair clause, a right holder should not be deprived of the effective legal remedy provided
under national law by an infringement action. This could for example be the case when a
right holder is confronted with a third party who refers to the repair clause, but who is or will
evidently be unable or unwilling to pay the remuneration offered by him, or to furnish the
information which is needed by the right holder to assess if he has received the right
remuneration. Therefore, the Commission introduced a provision to the effect that, if a right
holder can provide evidence to sustain such a claim, he can avail himself of such infringement
procedures as are provided for under national law.

_Paragraph 5 (new)_

This paragraph, which provides for an analysis of the functioning of the repair clause
five years after the entry into force of the Directive, was inserted to comply with an
amendment adopted by the European Parliament. Such an analysis will be especially relevant
in assessing the effects of the repair clause in ensuring the existence of an open market in the
sector of spare car parts.

Although the Parliament amendment provided for an analysis of the functioning of the
Directive as a whole, the Commission considered that it would act in accordance with
Parliament's intentions by restricting the scope of such an analysis to the effects of the
repair clause. Indeed, the effects of the Directive as a whole can only be assessed after it has
been transposed in all Member States, i.e. well into the five-year period, whereas the effects
of the repair clause could probably be assessed fairly rapidly.

**Article** 15

The extent of the repair clause could have certain repercussions on the provision dealing with
the exhaustion of rights, contained in Article 15.

With reference to the cases C-19/84 Pharmon BV v Hoechst AG [1985] ECR2281 and
C-9/93 IHT Internationale Heiztechnik GmbH and UWE Danziger v Ideal Standard GmbH
and Wabco Standard GmbH [1994] ECR 1-2789, where the exhaustion was deemed not to
apply because of a lack of consent, it was thought advisable to clarify that, notwithstanding
the fact that application of Article 14 may imply that no consent has been given, the
exhaustion of rights-doctrine still applies.

10

**Article 16 (new)**

The original Article 16 is now to be found in Article 11(4).

The new Article 16 has been inserted in accordance with the wishes of the

European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. It was felt that such
a provision was needed in this area in order to provide more means to fight counterfeiting.
The provision is modelled on, albeit not identical to German law. As formulated, it makes it
clear that, in the case of interlocutory measures, the information can be requested prior to the
final judgement in an infringement case.

The provision contained in paragraph (3)(d) states that the obligation to provide information
cannot run counter to the generally recognised principle of law that one cannot legally be
compelled to incriminate himself.

**Article 18**

_Paragraph 1_

This paragraph has been modified following the suggestion that the Directive on the legal
protection of designs may not be the appropriate place for the harmonisation of copyright law.

_Paragraph 2 (deleted)_

This paragraph, which contained the requirement of national treatment, required each
Member State to guarantee nationals of other Member States a treatment which is not less
favourable than that given to its own nationals with regard to the protection of designs under
national copyright law. However, according to case C-92/92 Phil Collins v Imtrat [1993]
ECR I -5145, the principle of national treatment follows from the non-discrimination
principle in Article 6 EC Treaty, and is thereby already guaranteed by Community law The
original provision was therefore superfluous, and the Commission deleted it.

**Article** 19

_Paragraph 1_

As a result of delays in the procedure leading to final adoption of the Directive, the date by
which it has to be transposed into national law has been modified.

11

Amended proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

on the legal protection of designs

###### `THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,`

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular
Article 100a thereof,

Having regard to the proposal by the Commission [(1)],

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [(2)],

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty [(3)],

**(i)**

**(2)**

**(3)**

OJ NoC 345, 23.12.1993, p. 14.
OJ No C 388, 31.12.1994, p. 9 and OJ No C 110, 2.5.1995, p. 12.
Opinion of the European Parliament of 12 October 1995, OJ No C 287, 30.10.1995,
p. 157
Common Position of the Council of ... 1996 (not yet published in the Official Journal)
Decision of the European Parliament of ... (not yet published in the Official Journal).

12

**Original proposai**

1. Whereas the objectives of the
Community as laid down in the
Treaty include establishing an ever
closer union among the peoples of
Europe, fostering closer relations
between the States belonging to the
Community, and ensuring the
economic and social progress of
the Community countries by
common action to eliminate the

barriers which divide Europe,
whereas to that end the Treaty
provides for the establishment of
an internal market and includes the

abolition of obstacles to the free

movement of goods and the
institution of a system ensuring
that competition in the common
market is not distorted, whereas an
approximation of the laws of the
Member States on the legal
protection of designs would further
those objectives;

2. Whereas designs are not at present
protected in all Member States by
specific legislation and such
protection, where it exists, has
different attributes;

3. Whereas such differences in the

legal protection of designs offered
by (he legislation of the Member
States have direct and negative
effects on the establishment and

functioning of the internal market
as regards goods embodying
designs; whereas such differences
will distort competition within the
internal market;

**Amended proposal**

1. Unchanged.

Unchanged.

3 Unchanged.

**13**

**Original proposal**

4. Whereas it is therefore necessary
for the proper functioning of the
internal market to provide for
specific design protection law in all
Member States and to approximate
the design protection laws of the
Member States;

5. Whereas in doing so it is important
to take into consideration the

solutions and the advantages with
which the Community design
system will provide undertakings
wishing to acquire design rights;

6. Whereas it is unnecessary to
undertake a full-scale

approximation of the design laws
of the Member States, and it will
be sufficient if approximation is
limited to those national provisions
of law which most directly affect
the functioning of the internal
market; whereas the objectives of
this limited approximation cannot
be sufficiently achieved by the
Member States acting alone;

7. Whereas Member States should

accordingly remain free to fix the
procedural provisions concerning
registration and invalidation of
design rights and provisions
concerning the effects of such
invalidity;

8. Whereas this Directive does not

exclude the application to designs
of the legislation of the Member
States other than that relating to
the specific protection acquired by
registration, such as the legislation
relating to unregistered design
rights, trademarks, patents and
utility models, unfair competition
or civil liability,

**Amended proposal**

4. Unchanged.

5. Unchanged.

6. Unchanged.

7. Unchanged.

Whereas this Directive does not

exclude the application to designs
of national or Community
legislation providing for protection
other than that conferred by
registration or publication as
design, such as the legislation
relating to unregistered design
rights, trademarks, patents and
utility models, unfair competition
or civil liability;

**14**

**Original proposal**

Whereas the attainment of the

objectives of the internal market in
the field of designs may only be
fully realised following further
harmonisation of the relevant

provisions of the copyright laws of
Member States, in particular those
relating to the criterion of
originality; whereas, pending such
further harmonisation, it is
important to establish the principle
of cumulation of protection under
specific registered design
protection law and under copyright
law, whilst leaving Member States
free to establish the extent of

copyright protection and the
conditions under which such

protection is conferred; whereas it
is, however, necessary to abolish in
the relationship between Member
States the requirement that
protection under copyright law
shall be afforded only subject to
reciprocity in the country of origin
of the design, as such a
requirement would run contrary to
the principle of non-discrimination;

Whereas the attainment of the

objectives of the internal market
requires that the conditions for
obtaining a registered design right
be not only identical in all the
Member States but also identical to

those required for obtaining a
registered Community design;
whereas to that end it is necessary
to give a unitary definition of the
notion of design and of the
requirements as to novelty and
individual character with which

registered design rights must
comply;

**Amended proposal**

9. Whereas the attainment of the
objectives of the internal market in
the field of designs may only be
fully realised following further
harmonisation of the relevant

provisions of the copyright laws of
Member States, in particular those
relating to the criterion of
originality; whereas, pending such
further harmonisation, it is
important to establish the principle
of cumulation of protection under
specific registered design
protection law and under copyright
law, whilst leaving Member States
free to establish the extent of

copyright protection and the
conditions under which such

protection is conferred; whereas it
is contrary to Community law to
apply, in the relationship between
Member States, Article 2 paragraph
(7) of the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works, which provides that
protection under copyright law
shall be afforded only subject to
reciprocity in the country of origin
of the design, as such a
requirement is incompatible with
the principle of non-discrimination;

10. Unchanged.

15

**Original proposal**

11. Whereas semiconductor products
should not be excluded as products
whose appearance could form the
subject of a design right, since
Member States may choose design
legislation to implement the
provisions of Council
Directive 87/54/EEC of

16 December 1986 on the legal
protection of topographies of
semiconductor products [(4)] .

12. Whereas it is essential, in order to
facilitate the free movement of

goods, to ensure that registered
design rights confer upon the right
holder the same protection in all
Member States and that this

protection is identical to the
protection afforded by the
registered Community design;

**Amended proposal**

11. Unchanged* [4] *.

12. Unchanged.

12a Whereas protection should not be
extended to those component parts
which are not visible during
normal use of a product, or to
those features of such part which
are invisible when the part is
mounted, or which would not, in
themselves, fulfil the requirements
as to novelty and individual
character; whereas features of
design which are excluded from
protection for these reasons should
not be taken into consideration for

the purpose of assessing whether
other features of the design fulfil
the requirements for protection;

**(4)** OJNoL24, 27.1.1987, p. 36. **(4)** Unchanged.

16

**Original proposal**

13. Whereas, in conformity with the
applicable provisions on the
Community design, the
interoperability of products of
different makes should not be

hindered by extending the
protection to the design of
mechanical fittings;

14. Whereas the mechanical fittings of
modular products may nevertheless
constitute an important element of
the innovative characteristics of

modular products and present a
major marketing asset and
therefore should be eligible for
protection;

15. Whereas it is fundamental for the

functioning of the internal market
to unify the term of protection
afforded by registered design rights
in conformity with the solution
adopted for the registered
Community design;

**Amended proposal**

13. Whereas technological innovation
should not be hampered by
granting design protection to
features dictated solely by a
technical function; whereas it is
understood that this does not mean

that a design must have an
aesthetic quality; whereas,
likewise, the interoperability of
products of different makes should
not be hindered by extending
protection to the design of
mechanical fittings; whereas
features of a design which are
excluded from protection for these
reasons should not be taken into

consideration for the purpose of
assessing whether other features of
the design fulfil the requirements
for protection;

14. Unchanged.

5. Unchanged.

17

**Original proposal**

16. Whereas the legal protection of
design might in certain
circumstances allow the creation of

monopolies in generic products and
captive markets by improperly
binding consumers to a specific
make of product, and thus the
introduction of a provision is
necessary in order to make the
reproduction of designs applied to
parts of complex products possible
for repair purposes under very
specific conditions;

**Amended proposal**

16. Unchanged.

16a Whereas the limitation in the

exercise of the rights provided for
in the context of the use of

designs for repair purposes should
be compensated by a fair and
reasonable remuneration, to be
calculated primarily on the basis
of the relevant design
development costs;

16b Whereas the exercise of the rights
of a third party to reproduce parts
for repair purposes should not be
made conditional upon agreement
as to the level of remuneration;

16c Whereas the use of a design
under the "repair clause" should
not create a legal link between
the right holder and the third
party using the design; whereas
the remuneration to be paid
should not entail an obligation on
the right holder to transfer knowhow and shall not imply that the
right holder is considered to be
the manufacturer of a reproduced
part as regards, for example, rules
or agreements regarding product
liability, warranty obligations or
product safety requirements.

18

**Original proposal**

17. Whereas the provisions of this
Directive are without prejudice to
the application of the competition
rules under Articles 85 and 86 of

the Treaty;

18. Whereas the grounds for refusal of
registration in those Member States
which provide for substantive
examination of applications prior to
registration, and the grounds for
the invalidation of registered
design rights in all the Member
States, must be exhaustively
enumerated,

**Amended proposal**

16d Whereas, in order to prevent a
partitioning of the Community
market, as regards Community
exhaustion of rights, use of the
design right by a third party
against payment to the right
holder should have the same

effect as the marketing of a
product with the consent of the
right holder;

16e Whereas, in order to reinforce
effective action against the
infringement of design rights, it is
important that judicial authorities
be entitled to issue orders

permitting the right holder to
obtain relevant information

concerning the production and
distribution of infringing
products; whereas any effective
fight against product
counterfeiting makes it necessary
to provide that this remedy is to
be available by court order, where
appropriate, even before final
judgment in an infringement case.

17. Unchanged.

18 Unchanged

19

**Original proposal**

**HAVE ADOPTED** **THIS**

**DIRECTIVE:**

**Article 1**

For the purpose of this Directive:

(a) "design" means the appearance of
the whole or a part of a product
resulting from the specific features
of the lines, contours, colours,
shape and/or materials of the
product itself and/or its
ornamentation;

(b) "product" means any industrial or
handicraft item, including parts
intended to be assembled into a

complex item, sets or compositions
of items, packaging, get-ups,
graphic symbols and typographic
typefaces, but excluding a
computer program.

**Article 2**

This Directive shall apply to:

(a) design rights registered with the
central industrial property offices
of the Member States;

(b) design rights registered at the
Benelux Design Office;

(c) design rights registered under
international arrangements which
have effect in a Member State;

(d) applications for design rights
referred to under (a) to (c).

**Amended proposal**

**HAVE ADOPTED THIS**

**DIRECTIVE:**

**Article 1**

**Definitions**

For the purpose of this Directive:

(a) "design" means the outwardly
visible appearance of the whole or
a part of a product resulting from
the features of, in particular, the
lines, contours, colours, shape,
texture and/or materials of the

product itself and/or its
ornamentation;

(b) "product" means any industrial or
handicraft item, including parts
intended to be assembled into a

complex product, packaging, getup, graphic symbols and
typographic typefaces, but
excluding computer programs.

**Article** 2

Scope **of application**

This Directive shall apply to:

```
    (a) Unchanged.

    (b) Unchanged.

    (c) Unchanged.

    (d) Unchanged.

20

```

**Original proposal**

**Article 3**

1. Member States shall protect the
designs upon registration, by
conferring exclusive rights in
accordance with the provisions of
the Directive.

2. A design shall be protected by a
design right to the extent that it is
new and has an individual

character.

3. A design of a product which
constitutes a part of a complex
item shall only be considered to be
new and to have an individual

character in so far as the design
applied to the part as such fulfils
the requirement as to novelty and
individual character.

**3.**

**21**

**Amended proposal**

2. The publication by an industrial
property office of a Member State
of a design filed with that office
shall, for the purpose of this
Directive, be considered to be a
registration.

**Article 3**

**Protection requirements**

1. Unchanged.

Unchanged.

A design of a product which
constitutes a component part of a
complex product shall only be
considered to be new and to have

an individual character:

(a) if the component part, when
incorporated into the
complex product, remains
visible during normal use of
the latter, and

(b) to the extent that the visible
features of the component
part fulfil in themselves the
requirement as to novelty and
individual character.

**Original proposai**

**Article 4**

1. A design shall be considered new
if no identical design has been
made available to the public before
the date of filing the application
for registration, or if a priority is
claimed, the date of priority,
designs shall be deemed to be
identical if their specific features
differ only in immaterial details.

2. A design shall be deemed to have
been made available to the public
if it has been published following
registration or otherwise, exhibited,
used in trade or otherwise

disclosed. It shall not, however, be
deemed to have been made

available to the public for the sole
reason that it has been disclosed to

a third person under explicit or
implicit conditions of
confidentiality.

**Amended proposal**

"Normal use" within the meaning
of paragraph (3) (a) shall mean use
by the end user and shall not
include maintenance, servicing or
repair.

**Article 4**

**Novelty**

A design shall be considered new if no
identical design has been made
available to the public before the date
of filing the application for registration
or, if priority is claimed, the date of
priority. Designs shall be deemed to be
identical if their features differ only in
immaterial details.

2. Deleted.

**22**

**Original proposal**

**Article** 5

1. A design shall be considered to
have an individual character if the

overall impression it produces on
the informed user differs

significantly from the overall
impression produced on such a user
by any design referred to in
paragraph (2).

To be considered for the purpose
of application of paragraph (1) a
design must be:

(a) commercialised in the market
place, whether in the
Community or elsewhere, at
the date of filing the
application for registration or,
if a priority is claimed, at the
date of priority, or

(b) published following
registration as a registered
Community design or a design
right of the Member State in
question, the protection of
which has not expired at the
date of filing the application or
registration or, if a priority is
claimed, at the date of priority.

In order to assess individual

character, common features shall as
a matter of principle be given more
weight than differences and the
degree of freedom of the designer
in developing the design shall be
taken into consideration.

**Amended proposal**

**Article 5**

**Individual character**

1. A design shall be considered to
have an individual character if the

overall impression it produces on
the informed user differs from the

overall impression produced on
such a user by any design which
has been made available to the

public before the date of filing of
the application for registration, or,
if priority is claimed, the date of
priority.

2. Deleted.

In order to assess individual
character, the degree of freedom of
the designer in developing the
design shall be taken into
consideration.

**23**

**Amended proposal**

**Article 6**

**Disclosure**

1. For the purpose of applying
Articles 4 and 5, a design shall be
deemed to have been made

available to the public if it has
been published following
registration or otherwise, or
exhibited, used in trade or
otherwise disclosed, except where
these events could not reasonably
have become known in the normal

course of business to the circles

specialised in the sector concerned,
operating within the Community
before the date of filing of the
application for registration or, if
priority is claimed, the date of
priority.

The design shall not, however, be
deemed to have been made

available to the public for the sole
reason that it has been disclosed to

a third person under explicit or
implicit conditions of
confidentiality.

2. Disclosure shall not be taken into

consideration for the purpose of
applying Articles 4 and 5 if a
design for which protection is
claimed under a registered design
right of a Member State has been
made available to the public:

(a) by the designer, his successor
in title, or a third person as a
result of information provided
or action taken by the
designer, or his successor in
title; and

**1.**

**2.**

**Original proposal**

**Article 6**

If **a** design for which protection is
claimed under a registered design
right of a Member State has been
made available to the public by the
designer or his successor in title or
by **a** third person as a result of
information provided or action
taken by the designer or his
successor in title or as a

consequence of an abuse in relation
to **the** designer or his successor in
**title** during the 12-month period
preceding the date of the filing of
the application or, if a priority is
claimed, the date of priority, such a
disclosure shall not be taken into

consideration for the purpose of
applying Articles 4 and 5.

The provisions of paragraph (1)
shall not apply if the subject of the
abusive disclosure is a design
which has resulted in a registered
Community design or a registered
design right of the Member State
concerned.

**24**

**Original proposal**

**Article** 7

1. A design right shall not subsist in a
design to the extent that the
realisation of a technical function

leaves no freedom as regards
arbitrary features of appearance.

2. A design right shall not subsist in a
design to the extent that it must
necessarily be reproduced in its
exact form and dimensions in order

to permit the product in which the
design is incorporated or to which
it is applied to be mechanically
assembled or connected with

another product.

**Amended proposal**

(b) during the 12-month period
preceding the date of the filing
of the application or, if
priority is claimed, the date of
priority.

3. The provisions of paragraph (2)
shall also apply if the design has
been made available to the public
as a consequence of an abuse in
relation to the designer or his
successor in title, unless, as a
result of the abusive conduct, a
Registered Community Design or a
registered design right of the
Member State concerned has come

into existence.

**Article 7**

**Designs dictated by their technical**

**function and designs of**

**interconnections**

1. A design right shall not subsist in
features of appearance of a product
which are solely dictated by its
technical function.

2. A design right shall not subsist in
features of appearance of a product
which must necessarily be
reproduced in their exact form and
dimensions in order to permit the
product in which the design is
incorporated or to which it is
applied to be mechanically
connected or placed in, around or
against another product so that
either product may perform its
function.

**25**

**Original proposal**

3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, a
design right shall under the
conditions set out in Articles 4

and 5 subsist in a design serving
the purpose of allowing
simultaneous and infinite or

multiple assembly or connection of
identical or mutually
interchangeable products within a
modular system.

**Article 8**

A design right shall not subsist in a
design the exploitation or publication of
which is contrary to public policy or to
the accepted principles of morality.

**Article 9**

1. The scope of the protection
conferred by a design right shall
include any design which produces
on the informed user a significantly
similar overall impression.

2. In order to assess the scope of
protection, common features shall
as a matter of principle be given
more weight than differences and
the degree of freedom of the
designer in developing his design
shall be taken into consideration.

**Amended proposal**

3. Unchanged.

**Article 8**

**Designs contrary to public policy or**

**morality**

A design right shall not subsist in a
design which is contrary to public
policy or to the accepted principles of
morality.

**Article 9**
**Scope of Protection**

1. The scope of the protection
conferred by a design right shall
include any design which does not
produce on the informed user a
different overall impression.

2. In order to assess the scope of
protection, the degree of freedom
of the designer in developing his
design shall be taken into
consideration.

**26**

**Original proposal**

**Article 10**

Upon registration a design which meets
the requirements under Article 3(2)
shall be protected by a design right for
a period of five years from the date of
filing the application. The term of
protection may be renewed for periods
of five years each, up to a total term
of 25 years from the date of filing.

**Article 11**

1. A design is excluded from

registration, or if registered may be
declared invalid, only in the
following cases:

(a) if the design does not fulfil
the requirements under
Article 3(2), or

(b) where its specific technical
and/or interconnecting features
are not eligible for protection
under Article 7(1) or (2), or

(c) to the extent that its
exploitation or publication is
contrary to public policy or to
accepted principles or morality,

or

(d) if the applicant for or the
holder of the design right is
not entitled to it under the law

of the Member State

concerned.

**Amended proposal**

**Article 10**

**Term of protection**

Unchanged.

**Article** **11**

**Invalidity or refusal of registration**

1. A design may only be refused
registration, or, if registered,
declared invalid, in the following

cases:

(a) if it is not a design within the
meaning of Article 1, or if it
does not fulfil the

requirements under Article 3,

or

(b) if its technical and/or
interconnecting features are
not eligible for protection
under Article 7(1) or (2), or

(c) if it is contrary to public
policy or to accepted
principles of morality, or

(d) if the applicant for or the
holder of the design right is
not entitled to it under the law

of the Member State

concerned, or

**27**

**Original proposal** **Amended proposal**

(e) if a distinctive sign is used in
a subsequent design, and
Community law or the law of
the Member State governing
that sign confers on the right
holder of the sign the right to
prohibit such use, or

(f) if the design constitutes an
unauthorised use of a work

protected under the copyright
law of the Member State

concerned, or

(g) if the design constitutes an
improper use of any of the
items listed in Article 6 [ter] of

the Paris Convention for the

Protection of Industrial

Property, or of badges,
emblems and escutcheons

other than those covered by
Article 6 [,er] of the said

Convention and which are of

particular public interest in the
Member State concerned, or

(h) if a conflicting design which
has been made available to the

public after the date of the
filing of the application or, if
priority is claimed, the date of
priority, is protected from a
date prior to the said date by a
registered Community design
or a design right of the
Member State concerned, or
by an application for such a
right.

28

**Original proposal**

2. A design right may also be
declared invalid if a conflicting
design which has been made
available to the public after the
date of the filing of the application
or, if a priority is claimed, the date
of priority, is protected from a date
prior to the said date by a
registered Community design or a
design right of the Member State
concerned, or by an application for
such a right.

3. Any Member State may provide
that, by way of derogation from the
preceding paragraphs, the grounds
for refusal of registration or for
invalidation in force in that State

prior to the date on which the
provisions necessary to comply
with this Directive enter into force,
shall apply to design rights for
which application has been made
prior to that date.

**Amended proposal**

2. If the ground for invalidity or for
refusal of registration applies only
to some of the features of the

design, it may be registered or
maintained in an amended form.

3. Unchanged.

4. A design right may be declared
invalid even after it has lapsed or
has been surrendered.

29

**Original proposal**

**Article 12**

1. Upon registration a design right
shall confer on its holder the

exclusive right to use the design
and to prevent any third party not
having his consent from using a
design included within the scope of
protection of the design right. The
aforementioned use shall cover, in
particular, the making, offering,
putting on the market or using of a
product in which such a design is
incorporated or to which it is
applied, or from importing,
exporting or stocking such a
product for those purposes.

Where, under the law of a
Member State, acts referred to in
paragraph 1 could not be prohibited
before the date on which the

provisions necessary to comply
with this Directive entered into

force, the rights conferred by the
design right may not be relied on
to prevent continuation of such

acts.

Article 13

1. The rights conferred by a design
right upon registration shall not
extend to:

(a) acts done privately and for
non-commercial purposes;

(b) acts done for experimental

purposes;

**Amended proposal**

Article 12

**Rights conferred**
by **the** design **right**

Upon registration, a design right
shall confer on its holder the

exclusive right to use the design
and to prevent any third party not
having his consent from copying it,
or from using a design included
within the scope of protection of
the design right. The
aforementioned use shall cover, in
particular, the making, offering,
putting on the market or using of a
product in which such a design is
incorporated or to which it is
applied, or, importing, exporting or
stocking such a product for those

purposes.

Unchanged.

Article 13

Limitation of the rights
conferred by the design right

1 Unchanged.

(a) Unchanged.

(b) Unchanged.

**30**

**Original proposai**

(c) acts of reproduction for the
purposes of making citations
or of teaching, provided that
such acts are compatible with
fair trade practice and do not
unduly prejudice the normal
exploitation of the design, and
that mention is made of the

source.

2. In addition, the rights conferred by
a design right upon registration
shall not extend to:

(a) the equipment on ships and
aircraft registered in another
country when these
temporarily enter the territory
of the Member State

concerned;

(b) the importation in the Member
State concerned of spare parts
and accessories for the purpose
of repairing such craft;

(c) the execution of repairs on
such craft.

**Article** 14

The rights conferred by a design right
shall not be exercised against third
parties who, after three years from the
first putting on the market of a product
incorporating the design or to which the
design is applied, use the design under
Article 12, provided that:

**Amended proposal**

(c) Unchanged.

2. Unchanged.

**Article 14**

**Use of a design for repair purposes**

1 By way of derogation from
Article 12, the rights conferred by
a design right shall not be
exercised against third parties who
use the design, provided that:

31

**Original proposal**

**(a) the product incorporating the**
**design or to which the design is**
**applied is a part of a complex**
**product upon whose appearance the**
**protected design is dependent;**

**(b) the purpose of such a use is to**
**permit the repair of the complex**
**product so as to restore its original**
**appearance; and**

**(c) the public is not misled as to the**
**origin of the product used for the**
**repair.**

**Amended proposal**

(a) the product incorporating the
design or to which the design
is applied is a component part
of **a** complex product upon
whose appearance the
protected design is dependent;
and

(b) the purpose of such a use is to
permit the repair of the
complex product so as to
restore its original appearance;
and

(c) the public is informed as to
the origin of the product used
for the repair by the use of an
indelible marking, such as a
trademark or a trade name, or
in another appropriate form;
and

(d) the third party has:

(i) notified the right holder
of the intended use of the

design;

(ii) offered the right holder a
fair and reasonable

remuneration for that use;
and

(iii) offered to provide the
right holder in a regular
and reliable manner with

information as to the

scale of the use made of

the design under this
provision.

**32**

**Original proposal** **Amended proposal**

2. Save as otherwise agreed, the
obligations mentioned in
paragraph 1(d) shall be incurred by
the manufacturer or, in the case of
the import of a component part not
manufactured in the Member State

where the protection applies, by
the importer of the component part
into which the design is to be
incorporated or to which it is to be
applied.

3. In calculating the remuneration, the
investment made in development
of the relevant design shall be the
primary basis for consideration.

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the
right holder provides evidence to
sustain a claim that the party upon
whom the obligations under
paragraph 1(d) are incumbent is
unable or unwilling to comply with
them or to pay the remuneration
offered by him.

5. No later than five years after the
implementation date specified in
Article 19, the Commission shall
submit an analysis of the
consequences of the provisions of
this Article for the Community
industrial sectors most affected,
and in particular for manufacturers
of complex products such as motor
vehicles and producers of spare
parts. If necessary, it shall propose
to the European Parliament and the
Council changes to this Article,
after consulting the
abovementioned sectors.

**33**

**Original proposal**

**Article 15**

The rights conferred by a design right
upon registration shall not extend to
acts relating to a product in which a
design included within the scope of
protection of the design right is
incorporated or to which it is applied,
when the product has been put on the
market in the Community by the holder
of the design right or with his consent.

**Article 16**

A design right may be declared invalid
even after it has lapsed or has been
surrendered.

**Amended proposal**

**Article 15**

**Exhaustion**

The rights conferred by a design right
upon registration shall not extend to
acts relating to a product in which a
design included within the scope of
protection of the design right is
incorporated or to which it is applied,
when the product has been put on the
market in the Community by the holder
of the design right, with his consent, or
in accordance with the provisions of
Article 14.

**Article 16**

Deleted.

**Article 16a**

**Right to information**

1. The Court having jurisdiction to
hear an action for infringement of
a design right or to grant a request
for interlocutory measures shall, at
the request of the right holder and
unless there are special reasons for
not doing so, order a person to
supply that right holder with
information as to the origin and the
route for the commercial

distribution of goods allegedly
infringing the design right, if the
person in question:

(a) has been found in possession,
for commercial purposes, of
such goods, or

**34**

**Original proposal** **Amended proposal**

(b) has been identified by a person
under (a) as being the origin
or a link in the route for the

commercial distribution of

such goods.

2. The information referred to under

paragraph 1 shall comprise.

(a) the names and addresses of
producers, suppliers and other
prior possessors of the product
and of commercial recipients
or outlets, as well as

(b) information on the quantity of
goods which have been
produced, delivered, received
or commissioned.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
without prejudice to other
provisions:

(a) granting the right holder more
far reaching rights to
information;

(b) governing the use of
information provided under
this Article, in penal or civil
procedures;

(c) governing liability for the
abuse of a right to
information; or

(d) affording the possibility of
refusing to provide information
that would force the person
referred to in paragraph 1 to
admit the existence of an

infringement.

**35**

**Original proposal**

**Article 17**

The provisions of this Directive shall
be without prejudice to any legal
provisions of the Community or of the
Member State concerned relating to
unregistered design rights, trademarks
or other distinctive signs, patents and
utility models, typefaces, civil liability,
or unfair competition.

**Article 18**

Pending further harmonisation of
the laws of copyright of the
Member States, a design protected
by a design right registered in or
for a Member State in accordance

with this Directive shall also be

eligible for protection under the
law of copyright of that State as
from the date on which the design
was created or fixed in any form,
irrespective of the number of
products in which such design is
intended to be incorporated or to
which it is intended to be applied
and irrespective of whether the
design can be dissociated from the
products in which it is intended to
be incorporated or to which it is
intended to be applied. The extent
to which, and the conditions under
which, such a protection is
conferred, including the level of
originality required, shall be
determined by each Member State.

**Amended proposal**

**Article 17**

**Relationship to other forms of**

**protection**

The provisions of this Directive shall
be without prejudice to any provisions
of Community law or of the law of the
Member State concerned relating to
unregistered design rights, trademarks
or other distinctive signs, patents and
utility models, typefaces, civil liability,
or unfair competition.

**Article 18**

**Relationship to copyright**

A design protected by a design right
registered in, or in respect of, a
Member State in accordance with this

Directive shall also be eligible for
protection under the law of copyright
of that State as from the date on which

the design was created or fixed in any
form. The extent to which, and the
conditions under which, such a
protection is conferred, including the
level of originality required, shall be
determined by each Member State.

36

Deleted.

**Amended proposal**

**Article 19**

**Implementation**

**2.**

**Original proposal**

Pending further harmonisation of
the laws of copyright of the
Member States, each Member State
shall admit to the protection under
its law of copyright a design
protected by a design right
registered in or for this State which
fulfils the conditions required
under such law, even if, in another
Member State which is the country
of origin of the design, the latter
does not fulfil the conditions for

protection under the law of
copyright in that State.

**Article** 19

Member States shall bring into
force the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary
to comply with this Directive
by 31 October 1996.

When Member States adopt these
measures, these shall contain a
reference to the Directive or shall

be accompanied by such reference
at the time of their official

publication. The procedure for such
reference shall be adopted by
Member States.

Member States shall communicate

to the Commission the provisions
of national law which they adopt in
the field governed by this
Directive.

1. Member States shall bring into
force the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary
to comply with this Directive
by 1 January 1998.

When Member States adopt these
provisions, these shall contain a
reference to this Directive or shall
be accompanied by such reference
at the time of their official
publication. The procedure for
such reference shall be adopted by
Member States.

2. Unchanged.

**37**

**Original proposal**

**Article 20**

This Directive is addressed to the

Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

**Amended proposal**

**Article 20**

**Entry into force**

This Directive shall enter into force on

the twentieth day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of
the European Communities.

**Article 21**

**Addressees**

This Directive is addressed to the

Member States.

For the Council

The President

38

##### **ISSN 0254-1475**

## **COM(96) 66 final**

# **DOCUMENTS**

### **EN 08**

#### Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-079-EN-C ISBN 92-78-00777-3

**Office for Official Publications of the European Communities**

**L-2985** **Luxembourg**

**39**