natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.'
Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.'
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.
Право на получаване на информация от правоприлагащите органи
Right to receive information from law enforcement authorities
Държавите-членки трябва да гарантират, че когато правоприлагащите органи изземват вещи, предмет на нарушението, или получат друго доказателство, че е извършено нарушение, тези органи трябва да направят доказателствата годни за използване във висящи или предстоящи граждански производства срещу лицето, за което се твръди, че е извършило нарушението, представени от титуляра правата в съдебно дело в рамките на Европейския съюз и където е възможно, тези органи информират съответният титуляр на правата или негов представител за такова изземване или доказателство.
Member States shall provide that, where law enforcement authorities seize infringing items or obtain other evidence of infringement, the authorities make such evidence available for use in pending or contemplated civil proceedings against the alleged infringer brought by the right-holder in a jurisdiction within the European Union, and, where practicable, that those authorities inform the relevant right-holder or his representative of such seizure or evidence.
Държавите-членки могат да предвидят предоставянето на доказателства на титуляра на правата да бъде обвързано с изисквания за разумен достъп, охранителни мерки или друго изискване, за да се осигури пълнотата на доказателствата и да се избегне евентуалното опорочаване на наказателното производство.
Member States may require that any such provision of evidence to the right-holder be made subject to reasonable access, security or other requirements to ensure the integrity of the evidence and to avoid prejudice to any criminal proceedings that may ensue.
Cooperation at EU level between the public and private sectors should be encouraged.
Cooperation at EU level between the public and private sectors should be encouraged.
Public authorities including law enforcement authorities should be given the ability to share information and evidence with the private sector in order to ensure that legal actions, both civil and criminal, can be taken effectively and proportionately based on sound factual evidence against counterfeiters and pirates.
Public authorities including law enforcement authorities should be given the ability to share information and evidence with the private sector in order to ensure that legal actions, both civil and criminal, can be taken effectively and proportionately based on sound factual evidence against counterfeiters and pirates.
This fully respects data protection law, in particular Directive 95/46/EC on data protection.
This fully respects data protection law, in particular Directive 95/46/EC on data protection.
On 12 July 2005 the Commission sent the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights ( 2005/0127(COD) ); at the same time, it sent the Council a proposal for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences ( 2005/0128(CNS) ).
On 12 July 2005 the Commission sent the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights ( 2005/0127(COD) ); at the same time, it sent the Council a proposal for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences ( 2005/0128(CNS) ).
The proposal for a directive required Member States to ensure that all intentional infringements of intellectual property rights on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, were treated as criminal offences.
The proposal for a directive required Member States to ensure that all intentional infringements of intellectual property rights on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, were treated as criminal offences.
It provided for a series of penalties ranging from confiscation of the counterfeit goods to custodial sentences for culprits.
It provided for a series of penalties ranging from confiscation of the counterfeit goods to custodial sentences for culprits.
It also made provision for various additional penalties, including closure of establishments used for counterfeiting purposes, a ban on engaging in commercial activities and publication of the judicial verdict.
It also made provision for various additional penalties, including closure of establishments used for counterfeiting purposes, a ban on engaging in commercial activities and publication of the judicial verdict.
However, the proposal for a directive simply required Member States to prosecute and punish certain actions, without specifying the level of the penalty to be imposed
However, the proposal for a directive simply required Member States to prosecute and punish certain actions, without specifying the level of the penalty to be imposed
The Court of Justice (cf.
The Court of Justice (cf.
Judgment of 21 September 1989, Case C-68/88, Commission v Republic of Greece ) traditionally only authorises the so-called assimilation method, in accordance with which the Community legislation may provide that domestic criminal provisions designed to protect certain national interests should apply also to protect the corresponding Community interests, thus combining the two sets of provisions in a new piece of legislation establishing a criminal offence.
Judgment of 21 September 1989, Case C-68/88, Commission v Republic of Greece ) traditionally only authorises the so-called assimilation method, in accordance with which the Community legislation may provide that domestic criminal provisions designed to protect certain national interests should apply also to protect the corresponding Community interests, thus combining the two sets of provisions in a new piece of legislation establishing a criminal offence.
This means that Community law may establish that certain types of conduct should be regarded as a criminal offence, but must not encroach on the Member States' competence with regard to prescribing and applying penalties in practice. .
This means that Community law may establish that certain types of conduct should be regarded as a criminal offence, but must not encroach on the Member States' competence with regard to prescribing and applying penalties in practice. .
Meanwhile, the proposal for a framework decision sought to strengthen the criminal law measures to approximate national legislation on infringements of intellectual property rights and to facilitate cooperation between Member States to repress the offences in question.
Meanwhile, the proposal for a framework decision sought to strengthen the criminal law measures to approximate national legislation on infringements of intellectual property rights and to facilitate cooperation between Member States to repress the offences in question.
In particular, to supplement the accompanying proposal for a directive, the proposal for a framework decision sought to set minimum penalties for the offences in question: a maximum of at least four years' imprisonment in the case of offences committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation within the meaning of the future framework decision on the fight against organised crime ( 2005/0003(CNS) ) or where such offences involved a health or safety risk, together with a fine up to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000.
In particular, to supplement the accompanying proposal for a directive, the proposal for a framework decision sought to set minimum penalties for the offences in question: a maximum of at least four years' imprisonment in the case of offences committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation within the meaning of the future framework decision on the fight against organised crime ( 2005/0003(CNS) ) or where such offences involved a health or safety risk, together with a fine up to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000.
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005 and the Commission's position
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005 and the Commission's position
While the procedure for the adoption of the above-mentioned proposals was in progress, the Court of Justice issued a judgment on 13 September 2005, in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council , which, while finding that, as a general rule, criminal matters did not fall within the Community's competence, stated that that finding did not 'prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective' (point 49).
While the procedure for the adoption of the above-mentioned proposals was in progress, the Court of Justice issued a judgment on 13 September 2005, in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council , which, while finding that, as a general rule, criminal matters did not fall within the Community's competence, stated that that finding did not 'prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective' (point 49).
Furthermore, the Court considered that, for the purpose of establishing whether the correct legal basis had been selected for a Community act, the aim and content of the act itself had to be taken into account.
Furthermore, the Court considered that, for the purpose of establishing whether the correct legal basis had been selected for a Community act, the aim and content of the act itself had to be taken into account.
Consequently, as the principal aim and content of the framework decision at issue in the case in question
Consequently, as the principal aim and content of the framework decision at issue in the case in question
Council framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. was environmental protection, it should have been based on Article 175 of the ECT (first pillar) and not on Title VI TEU (third pillar) (point 51).
Council framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. was environmental protection, it should have been based on Article 175 of the ECT (first pillar) and not on Title VI TEU (third pillar) (point 51).
The Commission therefore adopted a Communication
The Commission therefore adopted a Communication
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583 . which carries the Court of Justice's finding to its logical conclusion, namely that there are no restrictions on adopting provisions relating to criminal matters under the first pillar in any potentially relevant area of Community competence.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583 . which carries the Court of Justice's finding to its logical conclusion, namely that there are no restrictions on adopting provisions relating to criminal matters under the first pillar in any potentially relevant area of Community competence.
In the Commission's opinion, powers should be distributed between the first and third pillar as follows: the provisions of criminal law required for the effective implementation of Community law come under the first pillar, while horizontal criminal law provisions (police and judicial cooperation, measures on the harmonisation of criminal law in connection with the area of freedom, security and justice) belong to the third pillar.
In the Commission's opinion, powers should be distributed between the first and third pillar as follows: the provisions of criminal law required for the effective implementation of Community law come under the first pillar, while horizontal criminal law provisions (police and judicial cooperation, measures on the harmonisation of criminal law in connection with the area of freedom, security and justice) belong to the third pillar.
This being so, the Commission undertook to make the necessary changes to any legislative proposals still pending.
This being so, the Commission undertook to make the necessary changes to any legislative proposals still pending.
The proposal of 26 April 2006
The proposal of 26 April 2006
Following discussion of this issue, and in particular the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission decided it should amend the proposal for a directive and withdraw the proposal for a framework decision of 12 July 2005
Following discussion of this issue, and in particular the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission decided it should amend the proposal for a directive and withdraw the proposal for a framework decision of 12 July 2005
Article 250(2) of the ECT: 'as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of the Community Act.'
Article 250(2) of the ECT: 'as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of the Community Act.'
We consider that this power to alter proposals includes the power to withdraw them; cf. the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 22 March 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the legislature ( 2005/2214(INI) ). .
We consider that this power to alter proposals includes the power to withdraw them; cf. the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 22 March 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the legislature ( 2005/2214(INI) ). .
Consequently, on 26 April 2006 the Commission forwarded a new proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights which incorporates, updates and amalgamates the provisions of the two previous initiatives.
Consequently, on 26 April 2006 the Commission forwarded a new proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights which incorporates, updates and amalgamates the provisions of the two previous initiatives.
In particular, the proposals relating to the level of penalties and the broad powers of confiscation previously contained in the proposal for a framework decision were now incorporated in the new proposal for a directive (see, in particular, Articles 5 to 8).
In particular, the proposals relating to the level of penalties and the broad powers of confiscation previously contained in the proposal for a framework decision were now incorporated in the new proposal for a directive (see, in particular, Articles 5 to 8).
This appears to be one of the first cases where the Commission has applied its new approach to criminal law.
This appears to be one of the first cases where the Commission has applied its new approach to criminal law.
Briefly summarised, Article 1 sets out the subject-matter and scope of the directive; Article 2 defines the concept of a legal person for the purposes of the directive; Article 3 obliges Member States to treat specified types of behaviour as criminal offences; Articles 4 and 5 specify the nature and the level of criminal penalties respectively; Article 6 deals with powers of confiscation; Article 7 provides for joint investigation teams to combat counterfeiting; Article 8 obliges Member States to ensure that investigations and prosecution of the offences defined in the directive do not need to be instigated by the persons whose rights are infringed; finally, Articles 9 and 10 deal with transposal and entry into force respectively.
Briefly summarised, Article 1 sets out the subject-matter and scope of the directive; Article 2 defines the concept of a legal person for the purposes of the directive; Article 3 obliges Member States to treat specified types of behaviour as criminal offences; Articles 4 and 5 specify the nature and the level of criminal penalties respectively; Article 6 deals with powers of confiscation; Article 7 provides for joint investigation teams to combat counterfeiting; Article 8 obliges Member States to ensure that investigations and prosecution of the offences defined in the directive do not need to be instigated by the persons whose rights are infringed; finally, Articles 9 and 10 deal with transposal and entry into force respectively.
If we compare the new proposal with the two previous ones, it is clear that the only provisions that have not been incorporated in the new proposal are those relating to jurisdiction and the coordination of proceedings.
If we compare the new proposal with the two previous ones, it is clear that the only provisions that have not been incorporated in the new proposal are those relating to jurisdiction and the coordination of proceedings.
The Commission plans to take a horizontal approach to this subject under its Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of 'ne bis in idem' in criminal proceedings, adopted on 23 December 2005
The Commission plans to take a horizontal approach to this subject under its Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of 'ne bis in idem' in criminal proceedings, adopted on 23 December 2005
The Commission does not consider it essential to lay down specific arrangements for the protection of intellectual property.
The Commission does not consider it essential to lay down specific arrangements for the protection of intellectual property.
Problem issues and the rapporteur's position
Problem issues and the rapporteur's position
Looking to the first pillar for the basis of proposals relating to criminal matters is perfectly consistent with the Commission's broad interpretation of the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005.
Looking to the first pillar for the basis of proposals relating to criminal matters is perfectly consistent with the Commission's broad interpretation of the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005.
It follows that, if this broad interpretation is accepted, the Commission's approach is unexceptionable.
It follows that, if this broad interpretation is accepted, the Commission's approach is unexceptionable.
However, there are still certain problematic points which the amended Commission proposal does not seem to have succeeded in resolving.
However, there are still certain problematic points which the amended Commission proposal does not seem to have succeeded in resolving.
This applies, in particular, to the scope of the directive.
This applies, in particular, to the scope of the directive.
The explanatory memorandum states that the proposal for a directive applies to any infringement of intellectual property rights provided for by Community law and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned, as does Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The explanatory memorandum states that the proposal for a directive applies to any infringement of intellectual property rights provided for by Community law and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned, as does Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The statement by the Commission (2005/292/EC) concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC lists the property rights concerned in order to establish more precisely the exact scope of the directive.
The statement by the Commission (2005/292/EC) concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC lists the property rights concerned in order to establish more precisely the exact scope of the directive.
The list includes 'patent rights, including rights derived from supplementary protection certificates'.
The list includes 'patent rights, including rights derived from supplementary protection certificates'.
However, applying criminal penalties laid down at Community level to infringements of patent rights does not seem to be either particularly appropriate in itself, or consistent with the approach followed in recent years by the Community legislator.
However, applying criminal penalties laid down at Community level to infringements of patent rights does not seem to be either particularly appropriate in itself, or consistent with the approach followed in recent years by the Community legislator.
There is no evidence of any urgent need to intervene by imposing criminal penalties, since many Member States already enforce patent protection by means of criminal penalties (i.e. fines and custodial sentences).
There is no evidence of any urgent need to intervene by imposing criminal penalties, since many Member States already enforce patent protection by means of criminal penalties (i.e. fines and custodial sentences).
This applies, for example, to the German
This applies, for example, to the German
Cf. paragraph 142 of Bekanntmachung der Neufassung des Patentgesetzes (PatG) of 16 December 1980. , Austrian
Cf. paragraph 142 of Bekanntmachung der Neufassung des Patentgesetzes (PatG) of 16 December 1980. , Austrian
Articles 147 and 149 of the Patentgesetz 1970 , as amended by the federal law no I 143. , Danish
Articles 147 and 149 of the Patentgesetz 1970 , as amended by the federal law no I 143. , Danish
Cf. section 57 of the Danish Patents Act No 479 of 20 December 1967. , Spanish
Cf. section 57 of the Danish Patents Act No 479 of 20 December 1967. , Spanish
Article 273 of the Criminal Code, as amended by organic law No 10/1995 of 23 November 1995. , French
Article 273 of the Criminal Code, as amended by organic law No 10/1995 of 23 November 1995. , French
Article 329/D of the Criminal Code. , Italian
Article 329/D of the Criminal Code. , Italian
Articles 473 and 474 of the Criminal Code, which punish the offences of counterfeiting, altering or using the distinctive signs of creative works or industrial products and introducing into the State and marketing products with false signs, and Article 475, which provides for the supplementary penalty of publication of the judgment or judicial decision. , Dutch
Articles 473 and 474 of the Criminal Code, which punish the offences of counterfeiting, altering or using the distinctive signs of creative works or industrial products and introducing into the State and marketing products with false signs, and Article 475, which provides for the supplementary penalty of publication of the judgment or judicial decision. , Dutch
Article 45 of the Dutch Patent Act ( Rijksoctrooiwet ) of 1910 and Article 79(1) of the Dutch Patent Act ( Rijksoctrooiwet ) of 1995. and Portuguese
Article 45 of the Dutch Patent Act ( Rijksoctrooiwet ) of 1910 and Article 79(1) of the Dutch Patent Act ( Rijksoctrooiwet ) of 1995. and Portuguese
Articles 261 and 262 of the Industrial Property Code (decree law no 16/95 of 24 January 1995 as subsequently amended). legislation.
Articles 261 and 262 of the Industrial Property Code (decree law no 16/95 of 24 January 1995 as subsequently amended). legislation.