natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale , and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences .
Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale , and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences .
Member States shall ensure that the intentional infringement of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale is treated as a criminal offence .
Member States shall ensure that the intentional infringement of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale is treated as a criminal offence .
Criminal sanctions for abetting and inciting any criminal act must be reserved for the most serious crimes; to penalize abetting and inciting could be disproportionate in case of infringement of intellectual property rights.
Criminal sanctions for abetting and inciting any criminal act must be reserved for the most serious crimes; to penalize abetting and inciting could be disproportionate in case of infringement of intellectual property rights.
Article 3, paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3, paragraph 1 a (new)
Furthermore, Member States shall ensure that attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements are treated as criminal offences where the attempting, aiding or abetting or inciting:
Furthermore, Member States shall ensure that attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements are treated as criminal offences where the attempting, aiding or abetting or inciting:
(a) is conducted for the purposes of assisting organised crime, or
(a) is conducted for the purposes of assisting organised crime, or
(b) constitutes a serious threat to health or safety.
(b) constitutes a serious threat to health or safety .
It is important to distinguish between patent infringements in the normal course of commercial activity (legitimate development of products) that can lead to invalid breaking of patents and counterfeiting and piracy with fraudulent and deliberate intent, which are often carried out by criminal organizations.
It is important to distinguish between patent infringements in the normal course of commercial activity (legitimate development of products) that can lead to invalid breaking of patents and counterfeiting and piracy with fraudulent and deliberate intent, which are often carried out by criminal organizations.
Article 3, paragraph 1 b (new
Article 3, paragraph 1 b (new)
Criminal penalties are not to be applied in cases of the parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the holder of the intellectual property rights therein in a third country.
Criminal penalties are not to be applied in cases of the parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the holder of the intellectual property rights therein in a third country.
Article 4, paragraph 2, introductory sentence
Article 4, paragraph 2, introductory sentence
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases:
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases:
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases , where the public interest so requires :
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases , where the public interest so requires :
This involves significant infringements of fundamental rights, which should therefore be justified on the grounds of general interest.
This involves significant infringements of fundamental rights, which should therefore be justified on the grounds of general interest.
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a)
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a)
(a) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right;
(a) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right;
(a) speedy destruction of all goods infringing an intellectual property right , save for the retention, without bond, of samples to be used in evidence ;
(a) speedy destruction of all goods infringing an intellectual property right , save for the retention, without bond, of samples to be used in evidence ;
On safety grounds, it is proposed that all the goods infringing an intellectual property right be speedily destroyed, except for items needed for the purpose of the investigation.
On safety grounds, it is proposed that all the goods infringing an intellectual property right be speedily destroyed, except for items needed for the purpose of the investigation.
This measure also avoids the need for costly arrangements for guarding the goods.
This measure also avoids the need for costly arrangements for guarding the goods.
A visual record of the stock can be made by photographing it when it is discovered.
A visual record of the stock can be made by photographing it when it is discovered.
If appropriate, the destruction of the stock may be subject to the consent, or non-opposition, of the alleged perpetrator, if s/he is identified at that stage, without this constituting an admission of guilt.
If appropriate, the destruction of the stock may be subject to the consent, or non-opposition, of the alleged perpetrator, if s/he is identified at that stage, without this constituting an admission of guilt.
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (f a) (new)
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (f a) (new)
(fa) an order requiring the infringer to pay the costs of keeping seized goods.
(fa) an order requiring the infringer to pay the costs of keeping seized goods.
Article 5, paragraph 2, points (a) and (b)
Article 5, paragraph 2, points (a) and (b)
(a) to a maximum of at least EUR 100 000 for cases other than the most serious cases;
(a) to a maximum of at least EUR 100 000 for cases other than the most serious cases;
(b) to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for cases referred to in paragraph 1.
(b) to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for cases referred to in paragraph 1.
In the case of financial penalties, the courts in each Member State shall determine the amount of the fine imposed, taking into account the damage caused and the value of the infringing goods or the profit derived therefrom and, as the main consideration in all cases, the economic situation of the infringer, as shown by his assets, income, family obligations, dependants and other personal circumstances.
In the case of financial penalties, the courts in each Member State shall determine the amount of the fine imposed, taking into account the damage caused and the value of the infringing goods or the profit derived therefrom and, as the main consideration in all cases, the economic situation of the infringer, as shown by his assets, income, family obligations, dependants and other personal circumstances.
The establishment of fixed fines applicable to intellectual property rights infringements laid down in this article is too inflexible and probably difficult to reconcile with the principle of subsidiarity.
The establishment of fixed fines applicable to intellectual property rights infringements laid down in this article is too inflexible and probably difficult to reconcile with the principle of subsidiarity.
The amendment seeks to bring the principle into line with the objective of harmonisation pursued by the proposal.
The amendment seeks to bring the principle into line with the objective of harmonisation pursued by the proposal.
The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
The Member States shall , without infringing fundamental rights, take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 of February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are a serious crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
The Member States shall , without infringing fundamental rights, take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 of February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are a serious crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
It is a concern that Article 6 is restricted to offences only committed in the context of 'organised crime'.
It is a concern that Article 6 is restricted to offences only committed in the context of 'organised crime'.
This article will only be useful if it applies to all offences causing serious commercial harm to rights-holders, irrespective of whether these infringements were committed in the context of organised crime.
This article will only be useful if it applies to all offences causing serious commercial harm to rights-holders, irrespective of whether these infringements were committed in the context of organised crime.
Article 6 of the proposal for a framework decision should therefore delete the reference to 'organised crime' and replace it by the term 'serious crimes'.
Article 6 of the proposal for a framework decision should therefore delete the reference to 'organised crime' and replace it by the term 'serious crimes'.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives , and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives , and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of the intellectual property rights concerned, or their duly mandated representatives and experts, shall provide information to the joint investigation teams investigating the offences referred to in Article 3.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of the intellectual property rights concerned, or their duly mandated representatives and experts, shall provide information to the joint investigation teams investigating the offences referred to in Article 3.
The wording of this article is too vague: it is legitimate that the Court allows each of the parties to have their experts.
The wording of this article is too vague: it is legitimate that the Court allows each of the parties to have their experts.
However, direct involvement of the representatives of the holder of the IPRs into the investigation must be limited; otherwise right-holders could jeopardize the criminal procedures by endangering the impartial and fair investigation.
However, direct involvement of the representatives of the holder of the IPRs into the investigation must be limited; otherwise right-holders could jeopardize the criminal procedures by endangering the impartial and fair investigation.
The text proposed by the Commission is disproportionate; as this should be left to the Courts to interpret.
The text proposed by the Commission is disproportionate; as this should be left to the Courts to interpret.
Article 7, paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7, paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the protection of personal data, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 1 shall be fully respected in the course of investigations and judicial proceedings.
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the protection of personal data, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 1 shall be fully respected in the course of investigations and judicial proceedings.
OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p.
OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p.
The Directive aims to protect the rights and freedoms of persons with respect to the processing of personal data by laying down guidelines determining when this processing is lawful.
The Directive aims to protect the rights and freedoms of persons with respect to the processing of personal data by laying down guidelines determining when this processing is lawful.
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 may be initiated even without a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 may be initiated even without a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
This amendment, while clarifying the conditions for initiating criminal investigations or proceedings, retains the flexibility of the proposed provision.
This amendment, while clarifying the conditions for initiating criminal investigations or proceedings, retains the flexibility of the proposed provision.
It is very important, especially when public health may be at risk, and where the right-holder cannot be determined, to be able to initiate such steps without a report made by the person subjected to the offence.
It is very important, especially when public health may be at risk, and where the right-holder cannot be determined, to be able to initiate such steps without a report made by the person subjected to the offence.
Дата на решението
Drafts(wo)man Date appointed
Carlo Casini, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Cristian Dumitrescu, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Hans-Peter Mayer, Manuel Medina Ortega, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Rainer Wieland, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Jan Březina, Jerzy Buzek, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, Norbert Glante, Umberto Guidoni, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Vincenzo Lavarra, Nils Lundgren, Eugenijus Maldeikis, Reino Paasilinna, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Dominique Vlasto
Mogens N.J. Camre, Janelly Fourtou, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Eva Lichtenberger, Arlene McCarthy, Michel Rocard, Gabriele Stauner, József Szájer, Jacques Toubon, Nicola Zingaretti
Pilar Ayuso, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Edit Herczog, Gunnar Hökmark, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar
2), присъстващ(и) на окончателното гласуване
Comments (available in one language only)
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS
Draftsman: Rainer Wieland
Draftsman: Rainer Wieland
Following the European Court of Justice's judgement of 13 September 2005 (Case C 176/03 Commission v Council), the European Commission amended its proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Following the European Court of Justice's judgement of 13 September 2005 (Case C 176/03 Commission v Council), the European Commission amended its proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The issue of the protection of intellectual property is of particular importance for European companies, which need to make sure that their investments are going to be profitable.
The issue of the protection of intellectual property is of particular importance for European companies, which need to make sure that their investments are going to be profitable.
Without such a protection of intellectual property, investments and consequently innovation may slow down in Europe.
Without such a protection of intellectual property, investments and consequently innovation may slow down in Europe.
Some common grounds need to be defined at the European level so as to fight more effectively against counterfeiting and piracy: this proposal therefore establishes common definitions and common levels of penalties.
Some common grounds need to be defined at the European level so as to fight more effectively against counterfeiting and piracy: this proposal therefore establishes common definitions and common levels of penalties.
This proposal also intends to facilitate criminal investigations related to infringements of intellectual property rights.
This proposal also intends to facilitate criminal investigations related to infringements of intellectual property rights.
The draftsman supports the proposed directive but draws attention to the need to precisely define important terms in the directive, especially when they are a central component of the definition of the offence.
The draftsman supports the proposed directive but draws attention to the need to precisely define important terms in the directive, especially when they are a central component of the definition of the offence.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Provisions must be laid down to facilitate criminal investigations.
(8) Provisions must be laid down to facilitate criminal investigations.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams .
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams .
What may appear as the privatisation of criminal prosecution in favour of individual stakeholders’ interests implied therein should be rejected for reasons of general legal policy.
What may appear as the privatisation of criminal prosecution in favour of individual stakeholders’ interests implied therein should be rejected for reasons of general legal policy.
In democratic societies bound by the rule of law, the state is endowed with a legal monopoly over the use of force.
In democratic societies bound by the rule of law, the state is endowed with a legal monopoly over the use of force.
Private parties are not entitled to avail themselves of criminal prosecution measures in order to combat violations of the law committed by fellow citizens.
Private parties are not entitled to avail themselves of criminal prosecution measures in order to combat violations of the law committed by fellow citizens.
At least the following intellectual property rights are covered by the scope of the Directive:
At least the following intellectual property rights are covered by the scope of the Directive:
b) rights related to copyright;
b) rights related to copyright;
c) sui generis right of a database maker;
c) sui generis right of a database maker;
d) rights of the creator of the topographies of a semiconductor product;
d) rights of the creator of the topographies of a semiconductor product;
e) trademark rights;
e) trademark rights;
f) design rights;
f) design rights;
g) utility model rights;
g) utility model rights;
The material scope of the directive must be defined more precisely, in order to achieve the objective of better, more transparent and more readily comprehensible legislation.
The material scope of the directive must be defined more precisely, in order to achieve the objective of better, more transparent and more readily comprehensible legislation.
It cannot be the task of the Commission to bypass - through the publication of opinions - the legislature in defining the way in which directives are to be interpreted, with such far ‑reaching implications.
It cannot be the task of the Commission to bypass - through the publication of opinions - the legislature in defining the way in which directives are to be interpreted, with such far ‑reaching implications.
The list based on Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC will, moreover, make it easier for the committee responsible to exclude specific areas of law from the scope of the provisions, if it considers this to be necessary, through separate votes.
The list based on Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC will, moreover, make it easier for the committee responsible to exclude specific areas of law from the scope of the provisions, if it considers this to be necessary, through separate votes.
In particular, this Directive does not apply to any infringement of an intellectual property right related to:
In particular, this Directive does not apply to any infringement of an intellectual property right related to:
- patents, utility models and supplementary protection certificates;
- patents, utility models and supplementary protection certificates;
- parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the right-holder in a third country.
- parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the right-holder in a third country.
The scope of this Directive needs to be limited.
The scope of this Directive needs to be limited.
“On a commercial scale” means acts carried out with the intention to earn a direct economic or commercial profit, or acts carried out on such a large scale that may cause a significant direct loss for the holder of that right.
“On a commercial scale” means acts carried out with the intention to earn a direct economic or commercial profit, or acts carried out on such a large scale that may cause a significant direct loss for the holder of that right.