Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

29.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 378/95

**Thursday 30 March 2000**

16. Given that renewables are a stated priority of the EU as a whole, cannot envisage that the supports
to those energy sources could be limited in time or in extent by a Directive, while no CO 2 energy tax is in
place, while direct and indirect subsidies to traditional energy sources continue, despite the current Electricity Directive, while the White Paper targets have not been met, fair access is not guaranteed, and
unbundling is not complete;

17. Considers that, since it is not possible to anticipate how renewable energies will develop, in particular the development rate and contribution of solar power, which is currently quite uncompetitive, it is not
possible to set any specific deadline for ending supports to all renewable sources, which would probably
have the effect of ending their development at some crucial point in the future;

18. Considers that renewable energies should be clearly defined as those energies which renew themselves indefinitely, and therefore should not include municipal incineration or peat, but may include biogas
and geothermal, as per the White paper on Renewables; a separate article is required in any Directive
which should exclude large hydro in general, since it is normally already economically viable, possibly
with some very limited exceptions for newer installations or the restoration of older ones;

19. Believes that, since much of the potential for the exploitation of renewable energy sources is to be
found in rural areas, any future directive should promote the use of renewable energy sources in such
areas; believes this would help to revitalise economic activity in the most isolated areas, advantage could
be taken of resources which have so far remained unused and improvements to the quality of supply
(which in many such areas is deficient) could be speeded up;

20. Calls on the Commission to report on the situation regarding fair access to the grid for renewables
in its widest interpretation, in all Member States and trans-boundary, and to incorporate rules based on
best possible practice into any Directive, bearing in mind the special conditions under which renewables
operate;

21. Considers that, to ensure economic operation at the pioneer stage and thus to allow renewable
energy resources to be put on the market on a broad front, a suspension of transport tariffs should be
provided for, from the start-up stage until commercial maturity;

22. Calls on the Commission to submit to the Council and the European Parliament a draft directive
supplementing the one relating to the internal electricity market and establishing both priority rules for
access to electricity produced by means of a renewable energy source and a financial framework for
shared-cost Community intervention in respect of research into, and the promotion of, renewable energy

sources;

23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and Council and the Parliaments
of the Member States.

**9.** **Decision of the Patents Office on the cloning of human beings**

**B5-0288, 0291, 0293, 0299 and 0301/2000**

**European Parliament resolution on the decision by the European Patent Office with regard to**
**patent No EP 695 351 granted on 8 December 1999.**

_The European Parliament,_

�
having regard to patent EP 695 351 of 8 December 1999 relating to the genetic manipulation of
human cells and embryos, ‘mistakenly’ granted by the European Patent Office (EPO),

�
having regard to European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal
protection of biotechnological inventions,

C 378/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29.12.2000

**Thursday 30 March 2000**

�
having regard to its resolutions of 16 March 1989 on the ethical and legal problems of genetic engineering ( [1] ) and artificial insemination _‘in vivo’_ and _‘in vitro’_ ( [2] ) and of 12 March 1997 ( [3] ) and 15 January
1998 ( [4] ) on the cloning of human beings,

�
having regard to the 1973 European Patent Convention (EPC), in particular Article 53(a) thereof which
precludes patenting of inventions contrary to _‘ordre public’_ or morality,

A. whereas the granting of patent EP 695 351 has raised great public concern,

B. whereas the said patent embraces within its description in paragraph 0011 ‘all animal cells, especially
of mammalian species, including human cells’ and Claim 48 of the patent is for the use of such
‘animal cells’ to produce an embryo enabling germline transmission of the selectable marker
(for example a herpes virus or an antibiotic resistance gene),

C. whereas the EPO has sought to excuse the granting of this patent on the grounds of a simple error in
the wording and interpretation of Claim 48 but has seriously misled the public by not revealing that
Description 0011 expressly applies the claimed invention to human cells and that it has clearly
granted a patent for the production and possible cloning of genetically modified human embryos,

D. whereas the granting of the patent is incompatible with public morality and in breach of the European
and national patent legislation in force in the European Union,

E. whereas Directive 98/44/EC prohibits the patenting of the human body at the various stages of its
formation and development and of the simple discovery of one of its elements including the sequence
or partial sequence of a gene in its natural environment,

F. whereas there is no provision within the EPC or the operating rules of the EPO to amend or revoke
a patent on its own initiative; whereas there must be effective legal safeguards to allow patents to be
revoked _ex officio_ in the case of manifest mistakes in the application of the Convention, without the
need for recourse to legal challenge by third parties,

G. whereas the possibilities of opposing the effects of the patent, within the nine-month deadline, have
not yet been exhausted,

H. whereas the absence of a Community patent is a shortcoming in patent legislation,

I. whereas the public must be fully informed and the Union must play a leading role in promoting
public debate; whereas the EPO is a body acting as both judge and jury whose powers and procedures
must be reviewed,

1. Is deeply shocked at the granting of a patent to the University of Edinburgh, which includes a technique for the genetic modification of the germ line of human embryos and of the embryos themselves, a
patent on isolation, selection, and propagation of animal and transgenic stem cells, which could be used
for the cloning of human beings;

2. Undertakes to file without delay an objection to patent number EP 695 351 if legally possible, and
calls on the other institutions of the European Union and Member State governments to do likewise;

3. Notes the regret expressed by the EPO and expects the procedure opposing the granting of the patent
to be processed speedily so that the patent can be revoked as soon as possible;

( [1] ) OJ C 96, 17.4.1989, p. 165.
( [2] ) OJ C 96, 17.4.1989, p. 171.
( [3] ) OJ C 115, 14.4.1997, p. 92.
( [4] ) OJ C 34, 2.2.1998, p. 164.

29.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 378/97

**Thursday 30 March 2000**

4. Underlines its fundamental position regarding the application of biotechnology on human beings,
especially the refusal of interventions in the human germ line, the refusal of cloning of the human being
in all phases of its development and the refusal of research on human embryos, which destroys the
embryo;

5. Reaffirms that no consideration of research, and still less of profit, can be allowed to override that of
the dignity of human life, and calls for this principle to be written into the Treaty on European Union in
the future;

6. Calls on the Commission to establish clearly and categorically that Directive 98/44/EC on the legal
protection of biotechnological inventions rules out the patenting of human beings and parts of the human
body, and manipulation of the genome and the cloning of the human being in all phases of its development, and that only an invention based on an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process, which is susceptible of industrial application, is not excluded from
patentability, even where the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element, given that
the rights conferred by the patent do not extend to the human body and its elements in their natural
environment;

7. Requests swift implementation of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions into national law and asks national legislators to recognise the limits fixed by the Community
�in particular regarding the ethically motivated limitation of the granting of patents �as a minimum
standard;

8. Calls on the Commission to take all necessary measures to remove any ambiguity in European patent
legislation and to close any loophole that exists as soon as possible;

9. Demands a review of the operations of the EPO to ensure that it becomes publicly accountable in the
exercise of its functions, and to amend its operating rules to provide for it revoking a patent on its own
initiative;

10. Calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals to ensure the participation of Parliament in
respect of ethical matters relating to biotechnology;

11. Calls on the EPO to ensure that all existing patents and patent applications in Europe do not violate
the principle of non-patentability of humans, their genes or cells in their natural environment and human
embryos;

12. Calls on the European Union and the Member States to adopt the measures required to ensure that
the human genetic code is freely available for research throughout the world;

13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European
Patent Office and the governments of the Member States.