Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 92001E2494

**WRITTEN QUESTION E-2494/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. TRIPS Council.** 
  
*Official Journal 160 E , 04/07/2002 P. 0016 - 0017*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2494/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: TRIPS Council

Would the Commission outline its response to the proposal currently under discussion in the WTO TRIPS Council for a moratorium or due restraint on dispute settlement mechanisms, i.e. that developed countries would refrain from challenging cases involving access to medicines under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism?

Is it the case that at the TRIPS Council meeting on 25 July 2001 the EU opposed this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The proposal for a moratorium or due restraint on recourse to dispute settlement procedures in regard to measures for the protection of public health is one of many proposals which came out of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Council's Special Discussion on Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines, which took place in Geneva on 20 June 2001. The TRIPs Council is now systematically examining all the provisions and issues which were raised with a view to clarifying the flexibility available under the TRIPs Agreement.

At an informal meeting of the TRIPs Council on 25 July 2001, the Commission confined itself to pointing out that the mandate of the TRIPs Council is limited and does not extend to the imposition of a moratorium, which would necessitate an amendment to Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement.

More specifically, the Commission believes that careful examination of all the possible implications of such a proposal is required first. The weakness of a moratorium is that it does not address the real issue, which is to ensure that the TRIPs Agreement is implemented in a way which allows developing countries to set up an intellectual property regime that meets their policy needs and is capable of responding to public health concerns. For this reason, the Commission considers that it is more constructive to attempt to clarify issues of substance than to paper them over with a procedural expedient. If, as is to be hoped, the discussions in the TRIPs Council give rise to a consensus on these issues, then arguments as to the merits or otherwise of a moratorium will no longer be relevant. In the meantime, the position of the least-developed WTO Member countries will not be affected since they do not have to apply the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement until 1 January 2006.

[Top](#document1)