natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dans ces conditions, la formule « un enseignement nouveau sur l’usage des forces contrôlables de la nature, sous le contrôle d’un programme informatique, et distinct des moyens techniques nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de ce programme, est technique » nous a paru la plus englobante en même temps que la plus claire pour définir le champ de la technique.
As a result, the wording ‘new teaching about the use of controllable forces of nature, under the control of computer program and beyond the technical devices required to implement the program, is technical’ appears to be the most comprehensive and clear way of defining the scope of what is meant by ‘technical’.
L’usage de matière dans les systèmes et dispositifs qui relient en amont et en aval le logiciel au monde réel est inclus dans cette définition puisqu’il s’agit toujours non pas d’une matière inerte mais d’une matière mise en œuvre par de l’énergie.
The use of matter in the systems and devices which link the software to the real world upstream and downstream is included in this definition, since in all cases the matter concerned is not inert but is activated by energy.
La formulation en cause, imaginée voici près de 30 ans par une Cour allemande, n’a jamais été reprise mais jamais non plus infirmée par la Cour Fédérale.
The wording in question, which was formulated almost 30 years ago by a German Court, has never been adopted but nor has it ever been annulled by the Federal Court.
Elle est reprise déjà dans les législations suédoise, polonaise et japonaise.
It has already been incorporated into Swedish, Polish and Japanese law.
C’est là l’objet de l’amendement fondamental, qui reprend d’ailleurs partiellement mais en l’améliorant, la formulation retenue par le Parlement en première lecture.
This was the purpose of the basic amendment, which partially takes up and improves the wording adopted by Parliament at first reading.
Il prend place à l’article 2 « Définitions » et constitue un paragraphe c) nouveau.
It is included in Article 2 ‘Definitions’, forming a new paragraph (c).
Toute définition étant toujours aussi importante par ce qu’elle définit que par ce à quoi elle s’oppose, il a semblé essentiel à votre rapporteur d’ajouter dans ce paragraphe 2c) un deuxième alinéa lui aussi incorporé à l’amendement 5, destiné à confirmer en toute clarté ce que la définition proposée au premier alinéa exclut du champ de la technique, donc de la brevetabilité : « Le traitement, la manipulation, la représentation et la présentation de l’information par un programme informatique ne sont pas techniques, même lorsque des moyens techniques sont employés dans ce but ».
Given that what a definition excludes is as important as what it defines, your rapporteur felt it vital to include in paragraph 2(c) a second subparagraph (also included in Amendment 5) designed to make it clear that the definition given in the first paragraph covers the non-technical nature of certain aspects and therefore their non-patentability: ‘The processing, handling, representation and presentation of data by a computer program are not technical, even if technical devices are used for this purpose’.
Cette clarification est nécessaire, car, bien qu’elle soit rigoureusement synonyme du premier alinéa, elle tranche explicitement quelques situations ambiguës révélées par nos auditions.
This clarification is necessary because, even though it appears to repeat the first subparagraph, it deals explicitly with a number of ambiguous situations thrown up by our hearings.
Elle a surtout l’avantage de clarifier complètement aussi la relation du système de droit ainsi proposé avec le traité ADPIC.
In particular, it has the advantage of fully clarifying the relationship between the legal system proposed here and the TRIPS Treaty.
L’adoption d’une formule ainsi clarifiante pour l’ensemble du sujet nous a conduit à découvrir que le titre même de la directive pouvait receler une ambiguïté.
Adopting a wording of this kind which clarifies the whole subject area, prompted the realisation that the directive’s actual title could be ambiguous.
L’expression « invention mise en œuvre par ordinateur » peut tendre à laisser penser qu’une invention puisse être totalement réalisée au moyen d’un simple ordinateur, ce qui voudrait dire que des logiciels puissent être brevetables.
The expression ‘computer-implemented invention’ might give the impression that an invention can be wholly realised simply by a computer, which would mean that software could be patentable.
Pour éviter cette dérive votre rapporteur vous propose de modifier le titre de la directive en « concernant la brevetabilité des inventions contrôlées par ordinateur ».
To avoid giving this impression, your rapporteur proposes that the directive’s title be changed to ‘on the patentability of computer-controlled inventions’.
Une fois ce point établi, tous les autres amendements en découlent.
Once this point has been established, all the other amendments flow from it.
Ils sont, en totalité pour ceux qui concernent les considérants, et pour la plupart de ceux qui concernent le dispositif, des rectifications ou des précisions de vocabulaire.
In every case for the recitals and in most cases for the operative text, the amendments are corrections or improvements to the wording.
Dans quelques cas, amendements 7 et 8 par exemple, ils correspondent à des exemples d’application.
In some cases, Amendments 7 and 8 for example, they are examples of application.
Enfin l’amendement 14 tire la conséquence de la définition retenue en ce qui concerne l’intéropérabilité, qu’il est essentiel de préserver, mais qui ne concerne plus les logiciels puisqu’ils sont confirmés comme étant hors champ de la brevetabilité.
Finally, Amendment 14 is a necessary consequence of the definition adopted for interoperability, which needs to be maintained, although it no longer covers software, which, as has been confirmed, is not patentable.
Společné stanovisko Rady směřující k přijetí směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady o patentovatelnosti vynálezů realizovaných na počítači
Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Datum, kdy bylo na zasedání oznámeno obdržení společného postoje
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary commune
JURI 14.4.2005
JURI 14.4.2005
Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Marcin Libicki, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Viktória Mohácsi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Stroz, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Diana Wallis, Nicola Zingaretti, Jaroslav Zvěřina
Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Marcin Libicki, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Viktória Mohácsi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Stroz, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Diana Wallis, Nicola Zingaretti, Jaroslav Zvěřina
Náhradníci přítom
Substitutes present for the final vote
Sharon Bowles, Tunne Kelam, Angelika Niebler
Sharon Bowles, Tunne Kelam, Angelika Niebler
o žádosti o ochranu imunity a výsad Jeana-Charlese Marchianiho
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Jean-Charles Marchiani
PE 359.890v02-00
PE 359.890v02-00
– s ohledem na žádost Jeana-Charlese Marchianiho o ochranu jeho imunity předloženou dne 19. května 2005 a oznámenou na plenárním zasedání dne 26. května 2005,
– having regard to the request by Jean-Charles Marchiani for defence of his immunity of 19 May 2005, announced in plenary sitting on 26 May 2005,
– s ohledem na rozhodnutí Soudního dvora Evropských společenství ze dne 12. května 1964 a 10. července 1986
– having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro právní záležitosti ( A6-0208/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0208/2005 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že pan Jean-Charles Marchiani byl zvolen do Evropského parlamentu v pátých všeobecných přímých volbách dne 13. června 1999, že jeho mandát byl Parlamentem potvrzen dne 15. prosince 1999
A. whereas Jean-Charles Marchiani was elected to the European Parliament at the fifth direct elections on 13 June 1999, his credentials were verified by Parliament on 15 December 1999
2000, s. 93). a skončil dne 19. července 2004,
93). and his term of office ended on 19 July 2004,
B. vzhledem k tomu, že v období, kdy byl poslancem Evropského parlamentu, podrobily francouzské soudní orgány některé telefonické hovory mezi panem Jeanem-Charlesem Marchianim a jinými osobami odposlechu;
B. whereas, during the period in which he was a member of the European Parliament, the French judicial authorities intercepted various telephone conversations between Jean-Charles Marchiani and others;
C. vzhledem k tomu, že po dobu trvání zasedání Evropského parlamentu požívají poslanci na území svého státu takové imunity jako členové národního parlamentu daného státu
C. whereas, during European Parliament sessions, members of the European Parliament enjoy, on their national territory, the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament
D. vzhledem k tomu, že podle článku 100-7 trestního řádu Francouzské republiky nemohou být telefonní linky poslanců a senátorů odposlouchávány, aniž by o tom vyšetřující soudce předem informoval předsedu shromáždění orgánu, jehož je daná osoba členem,
D. whereas, pursuant to Article 100-7 of the Code of criminal procedure of the French Republic, the telephone lines of members of Parliament and of the Senate may not be subject to interception unless the President of the Assembly to which they belong has been informed thereof in advance by the investigating judge,
E. vzhledem k tomu, že francouzský kasační soud nezohlednil zásadu iura novit curia ( soud zná právo ) a neuplatnil článek 10 Protokolu o privilegiích a imunitách Evropských společenství ze dne 8. dubna 1965 s ohledem na rozhodnutí soudu č. 1784 ze dne 16. března 2005, čímž panu Jeanu-Charlesovi Marchianimu odepřel imunitu zaručenou členům národních parlamentů článkem 100-7 trestního řádu,
E. whereas the French Court of Cassation, disregarding the principle of iura novit curia , failed to apply Article 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in its judgment No 1784 of 16 March 2005, thus denying Jean-Charles Marchiani the immunity accorded to members of the national parliament under Article 100-7 of the Code of criminal procedure,
3. pověřuje svého předsedu, aby ihned předal toto rozhodnutí a zprávu příslušného výboru kasačnímu soudu, vládě, národnímu shromáždění a senátu Francouzské republiky.
Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of the committee responsible to the Court of Cassation, the government, the National Assembly and the Senate of the French Republic.
La richiesta è stata comunicata al Parlamento riunito in seduta plenaria il 26 maggio 2005 e deferita alla commissione competente, vale a dire la commissione per gli affari giuridici.
The request was announced to Parliament in plenary session on 25 May 2005 and referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs as the committee responsible.
In fatto
Facts of the case
Tale somma corrisponderebbe alla commissione illecitamente versata da una Società per l'ottenimento di un contratto con l'Aeroporto di Parigi - Charles De Gaulle, per un sistema di trasporto, deposito e smistamento bagagli.
This sum allegedly represented an illegal commission paid by a company to obtain a contract with the Paris - Charles De Gaulle airport for a baggage transport, storage and retrieval system.
Risulta chiaramente dalla documentazione in atti che le intercettazioni sono state ordinate dal Giudice istruttore francese a partire dal 14 giugno 2004, giorno successivo alle elezioni per il rinnovo del Parlamento europeo, e sono terminate il 9 agosto 2004.
The relevant documentation clearly shows that the interception of the telephone line was ordered by the French investigating judge from 14 June 2004, the day after the elections to the European Parliament, and ended on 9 August 2004.
In diritto
Legal background
Nel caso trova applicazione l'articolo 10, lettera a) del Protocollo sui privilegi e sulle immunità delle Comunità europee dell'8 aprile 1965, secondo cui:
The case is covered by Article 10(a) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, which reads as follows:
" Per la durata delle sessioni del Parlamento europeo, i membri di esso beneficiano:
‘During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:
a) sul territorio nazionale, delle immunità riconosciute ai membri del Parlamento del loro paese; . ..".
(a) in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; (...)’ .
Tale disposizione rinvia dunque alla normativa in vigore in Francia per i deputati nazionali, normativa che è applicabile, in forza del Protocollo, anche ai membri francesi del Parlamento europeo.
This provision refers back, therefore, to the rules applying in France to members of the national parliament, which also apply, by virtue of the Protocol, to French Members of the European Parliament.
Il caso di specie è regolato dall'articolo 100-7 del codice di procedura penale francese che dispone:
The case in question is covered by Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:
" Nessuna intercettazione può aver luogo sulla linea di un deputato o di un senatore senza che il presidente dell'assemblea di appartenenza ne sia informato dal giudice istruttore.
‘No interception may be made on the telephone line of a Member of Parliament or Senator unless the President of the assembly to which he belongs is informed of the interception by the investigating judge. (...)
Appare ictu oculi che il supremo giudice di legittimità è incorso in un errore disconoscendo o rifiutando di applicare una norma del diritto primario europeo alla cui scrupolosa osservanza è tenuta la Repubblica francese.
It is immediately apparent that this supreme judicial authority has erred in disregarding, or refusing to apply, a provision of primary European law which the French Republic is obliged to observe scrupulously.
Spetterà dunque alla Repubblica francese rimediare agli effetti giuridici della sentenza della Corte di Cassazione emessa in violazione dell'articolo 10, lettera a) del Protocollo sui privilegi e sulle immunità delle Comunità europee dell'8 aprile 1965.
It is the responsibility of the French Republic, therefore, to remedy the legal effects of the judgment of the Court of Cassation, which flies in the face of Article 10(a) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965.
Žádost o ochranu imunity a výsad Jeana-Charlese Marchianiho
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Jean-Charles Marchiani
Jean-Charles Marchiani 19.5.2005 26.5.2005
Jean-Charles Marchiani 19.5.2005 26.5.2005
JURI 26.5.2005
JURI 26.5.2005
2 a článek 7
Rules 6(3) and 7
Francesco Enrico Speroni 23.5.2005
Francesco Enrico Speroni 23.5.2005
proti: 6 zdrželi se: 0
against: 6 abstentions: 0
Antonio Di Pietro, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Marcin Libicki, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Viktória Mohácsi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Stroz, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Diana Wallis, Nicola Zingaretti, Jaroslav Zvěřina
Antonio Di Pietro, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Katalin Lévai, Marcin Libicki, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Viktória Mohácsi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Stroz, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Diana Wallis, Nicola Zingaretti, Jaroslav Zvěřina
Evelin Lichtenberger, Manuel Medina Ortega, Michel Rocard
Evelin Lichtenberger, Manuel Medina Ortega, Michel Rocard
o žádosti o ochranu imunity a výsad pana Umberta Bossiho
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi
PE 359.928v02-00
PE 359.928v02-00
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................4
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
– s ohledem na žádost obhájce zastupujícího pana Umberta Bossiho o ochranu jeho imunity v souvislosti s občanským trestním stíháním, které probíhá před občanským soudem v Padově, předloženou dne 3. srpna 2004 a oznámenou na plenárním zasedání dne 13. září 2004,
- having regard to the request, by a barrister acting for Mr Umberto Bossi, for defence of his immunity in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the Padua Civil District Court, of 3 August 2004, announced in plenary sitting on 13 September 2004,
– s ohledem na rozhodnutí Soudního dvora Evropských společenství ze dne 12. května 1964 a 10. července 1986
- having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro právní záležitosti ( A6‑0209/2005 ),
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0209/2005 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že Umberto Bossi byl poslancem Evropského parlamentu ve čtvrtém volebním období (zahájení mandátu dne 19. července 1994, ověření mandátu dne 15. listopadu 1994, vypršení mandátu dne 19. července 1999) a v pátém volebním období (zahájení mandátu dne 20. července 1999, ověření mandátu dne 15. prosince 1999, vypršení mandátu dne 10. června 2001 pro neslučitelnost),
A. whereas Umberto Bossi was a Member of the European Parliament in the fourth legislative term (start of mandate on 19 July 1994, mandate verified on 15 November 1994, mandate expired on 19 July 1999) and in the fifth legislative term (start of mandate on 20 July 1999, mandate verified on 15 December 1999, mandate expired on 10 June 2001 for incompatibility),
B. vzhledem k tomu, že poslanci Evropského parlamentu nesmí být vystaveni jakékoli formě výslechu, zadržení nebo soudnímu řízení v souvislosti se stanovisky, která zaujímají, a udělováním hlasů při plnění svých povinností
B. whereas Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties
2 Článek 9 Protokolu o výsadách a imunitách Evropských společenství.
Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. ,
2. navrhuje v souladu s článkem 9 výše uvedeného Protokolu a s ohledem na způsob projednávání věci příslušným členským státem před soudem úředně prohlásit, že zmíněné jednání by nemělo dále pokračovat; vyzývá tudíž soud, aby z toho vyvodil odpovídající závěry;
Proposes, pursuant to Article 9 of the above Protocol and having regard to the proceedings of the relevant Member State, to declare that the proceedings in question should not be continued; therefore calls on the Court to draw the appropriate conclusions;
Umberto Bossi's first term of office as Member of the European Parliament lasted from 19 July 1994 to 19 July 1999.
Umberto Bossi's first term of office as Member of the European Parliament lasted from 19 July 1994 to 19 July 1999.
His second term lasted from 20 July 1999 to 10 June 2001, the day on which he was appointed minister (incompatibility, pursuant to Article 6(1), first indent, of the Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage
His second term lasted from 20 July 1999 to 10 June 2001, the day on which he was appointed minister (incompatibility, pursuant to Article 6(1), first indent, of the Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage
His third term started on 20 July 2004.
His third term started on 20 July 2004.
The facts in connection with the legal proceedings pending before the Padua Civil District Court took place on 1998 and on February1999.
The facts in connection with the legal proceedings pending before the Padua Civil District Court took place on 1998 and on February1999.
The request is therefore admissible pursuant to Rule 6(3) of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, since Umberto Bossi was a Member of the European Parliament at the time in question.
The request is therefore admissible pursuant to Rule 6(3) of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, since Umberto Bossi was a Member of the European Parliament at the time in question.
Substance and merits of the request
Substance and merits of the request
In accordance with Rule 6 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, the President announced at the sitting of 13 September 2004 that he had received a
In accordance with Rule 6 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure, the President announced at the sitting of 13 September 2004 that he had received a
request from a barrister acting for Mr Umberto Bossi MEP for his parliamentary immunity to be defended in connection with the legal proceedings pending before the Padua Civil District Court.
request from a barrister acting for Mr Umberto Bossi MEP for his parliamentary immunity to be defended in connection with the legal proceedings pending before the Padua Civil District Court.
In implementation of Rule 6(3), the President referred all the requests to the Legal Affairs Committee, as the committee responsible.
In implementation of Rule 6(3), the President referred all the requests to the Legal Affairs Committee, as the committee responsible.
Facts of the case
Facts of the case
Mr Fabrizio Comencini, former member of Mr Bossi's party (Lega Nord), sued Mr Bossi for damages before the Padua District Court.
Mr Fabrizio Comencini, former member of Mr Bossi's party (Lega Nord), sued Mr Bossi for damages before the Padua District Court.
In his pleadings, Mr Comencini complained that Mr Bossi, on several occasions, had spoken in terms which had been serously offensive and detrimental to his reputation.
In his pleadings, Mr Comencini complained that Mr Bossi, on several occasions, had spoken in terms which had been serously offensive and detrimental to his reputation.
In particular The ‘ Giornale di Vicenza ’ of 9 October 1998, referring to the Lega Nord Congress in Bassano del Grappa, reported that Mr Bossi had said towards Mr Comencini and his supporters: ‘ Spit in his eye ’.
In particular The ‘ Giornale di Vicenza ’ of 9 October 1998, referring to the Lega Nord Congress in Bassano del Grappa, reported that Mr Bossi had said towards Mr Comencini and his supporters: ‘ Spit in his eye ’.
‘ Traitors, insects, scroungers, layabouts: first he split the MSI and then the Lega Nord: schism is in his DNA ’.
‘ Traitors, insects, scroungers, layabouts: first he split the MSI and then the Lega Nord : schism is in his DNA ’.
‘ We are men, we are not Comencini ’.
‘ We are men, we are not Comencini ’.
‘ A puppet in the hands of the puppet master from Arcore ’.
‘ A puppet in the hands of the puppet master from Arcore ’.
‘ Crush him ’.
‘ Crush him ’.
On other occasions Mr Bossi declared that Mr Comencini ‘ was plotting in the shadows ’ and ‘ was considering giving a hand to the Polo delle Libertà coalition and its leader, Silvio Berlusconi the mafioso ’ to allow the ‘ mafioso’s party to win ’ and ‘ we shall never ally ourselves with the mafioso ’ (‘ La Padania ’ of 27 October 1998, 29 September 1998 and 13 October 1998).
On other occasions Mr Bossi declared that Mr Comencini ‘ was plotting in the shadows ’ and ‘ was considering giving a hand to the Polo delle Libertà coalition and its leader, Silvio Berlusconi the mafioso ’ to allow the ‘ mafioso’s party to win ’ and ‘ we shall never ally ourselves with the mafioso ’ (‘ La Padania ’ of 27 October 1998, 29 September 1998 and 13 October 1998).
Also: ‘ Cosa Nostra dictates the line to be followed by Berlusconi, who manipulates Galan and Comencini in the Veneto ’ (‘ La Padania ’ of 13 October 1998): ‘ Comencini (...) the bought man, the man bribed by Berlusconi ’ (‘ Il Gazzettino ’ of 1 February 1998 ).
Also: ‘ Cosa Nostra dictates the line to be followed by Berlusconi, who manipulates Galan and Comencini in the Veneto ’ (‘ La Padania ’ of 13 October 1998): ‘ Comencini (...) the bought man, the man bribed by Berlusconi ’ (‘ Il Gazzettino ’ of 1 February 1998 ).
Article 9 of the PPI reads as follows:
Article 9 of the PPI reads as follows: