natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kõnealuse sätte eesmärgiks on võimaldada disainilahenduse kasutamist mitmeosalise toote remondiks, kui kasutaja pakub disainilahenduse õiguse valdajale õiglast ja asjakohast hüvitist.
The aim of this provision was to enable a design to be used for the purpose of repairing a complex product provided the user paid the holder of the right to the design a fair and reasonable remuneration.
Euroopa Parlament oli arvamusel, et see on parim tee riikide üksteisest osaliselt väga erinevate õigussüsteemide kohandamiseks antud valdkonnas.
Parliament considered that this was the best way to approximate the national legal systems, which in some cases diverged widely in this area.
Kuna nõukogu jättis Euroopa Parlamendi kõnealused muudatusettepanekud ka teisel lugemisel vastu võtmata, algatati vahendusmenetlus.
Since the Council was again unable to accept these Parliament amendments at second reading, conciliation proceedings were opened.
Pikkade ja vaevaliste läbirääkimiste tulemusena jõuti seejärel freeze plus lahenduseni sellisel kujul, nagu see on lisatud direktiivi 98/71/EÜ artiklisse 14.
The result of the long and difficult negotiations was the “freeze plus” solution as it now appears in Article 14 of Directive 98/71/EC.
Direktiivi 98/71/EÜ rakendamise järel on olukord liikmesriikides mitmeosaliste toodete esialgse välimuse taastamiseks kasutatavate varuosade valdkonnas praegu erinev.
At present, following the transposition of Directive 98/71/EC, there are varying situations in the Member States regarding spare parts intended to restore the appearance of complex products.
Raportöör juhib tähelepanu sellele, et eriti rahvusvaheliselt võrreldes on olemas erinevaid õiguspraktikaid.
Your rapporteur points out that these differing legal practices show up particularly when compared at international level.
Ülemaailmses kontekstis on oluline vältida Euroopa jaoks ebasoodsa konkurentsiolukorra tekkimist.
The aim is to avoid competitive disadvantages for Europe in a world context
Raportööri arvamus
Your rapporteur’s position
Kuigi direktiivi ettepanek hõlmab põhimõtteliselt kõiki varuosi, mida kasutatakse mitmeosalise toote remontimise eesmärgil „selle esialgse välimuse taastamiseks", toimub arutelu esmajoones kõige olulisema kohaldamisala ehk mootorsõidukite varuosade üle.
Although the proposal for a directive in principle covers all spare parts which serve to repair a complex product “so as to restore its original appearance”, discussions centre on its most important area of application, namely spare parts for motor vehicles.
Ei tohiks siiski unustada, et tegemist on disainilahenduste kaitse ulatuse põhimõtteliste küsimustega.
However, it should not be forgotten that these are issues of principle relating to the scope of design protection.
Täpselt vastavate varuosade disainilahenduste kaitse küsimuses teisesel turul seisavad vastakuti kaks olulist arvamust:
There are two fundamentally contrasting views of design protection for “must-match” spare parts on the secondary market.
Ühelt poolt on esindatud arvamus, et varuosade disainilahenduste kaitse on intellektuaalomandi õiguse loogiliseks tagajärjeks.
The first holds that design protection for spare parts is a logical corollary of the right to intellectual property.
Selle arvamuse kohaselt oleks varuosade esmase ja teisese turu eristamine vastuolus intellektuaalomandi õiguse üldpõhimõtetega.
In this view, drawing a distinction between the primary and secondary markets for spare parts would contradict fundamental principles of intellectual property rights.
Teiselt poolt on esindatud arvamus, et disainilahenduste kaitse ei tohiks hõlmata teisese turu varuosi, sest see võiks kaasa tuua õigustamatu monopoolse seisundi.
In the other view, design protection should not be extended to cover spare parts because this would lead to prohibited monopoly positions.
Kõnealune arvamus kaitseb probleemile kohase lahendusena direktiivi ettepaneku remondi klauslit.
Supporters of this view defend the repair clause in the proposal for a directive as the most appropriate solution to the problem.
Raportööri arvamuse kohaselt ei arvesta komisjoni esitatud lahendus, mis tähendab, et disainilahenduse kaitse ei laiene otsekohe varuosadele, piisavalt kirjeldatud pingetega erinevate osapoolte huvide vahel.
Your rapporteur considers that the solution proposed by the Commission, which means that design protection for spare parts ceases immediately, fails to take sufficient account of this tension between the various interested parties.
Seepärast teeb raportöör ettepaneku üleminekulahenduseks, mille kohaselt „liikmesriigid, kelle kehtivad õigusaktid näevad ette disainilahenduse kaitse disainilahenduste suhtes, mida mitmeosalise toote koostisosana direktiivi 98/71/EÜ artikli 12 lõike 1 tähenduses kasutatakse eesmärgil seda mitmeosalist toodet remontida, et taastada selle algne välimus”, võivad seda disainilahenduse kaitset veel viis aastat pärast käesoleva direktiivi jõustumist säilitada.
Your rapporteur therefore proposes a transitional solution, whereby those ‘Member States under whose existing legislation protection as a design exists for a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product used within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 98/71/EEC for the purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance’ may retain this design protection for another five years after the entry into force of the directive.
Direktiivi ettepanek käsitleb disainilahenduste kaitse küsimusi ega puuduta seetõttu mootorsõidukite ja nende varuosade ohutuse küsimusi.
The proposal for a directive relates to design protection issues and consequently does not touch matters of the safety of vehicles and their components.
Sellele vaatamata võib liberaliseerimine avaldada kaudset mõju toodete kvaliteedile ja seega ka ohutusele.
Nevertheless, liberalisation may have indirect effects on product quality and thus also on safety.
Kõnealust küsimust käsitlev uuring näitas, et varuosade ohutuse tagamiseks tuleks laiendada tüübikinnitusmenetlust ohutuse seisukohalt olulistele varuosadele.
The study commissioned on this topic found that the type approval procedure should be extended to cover certain safety-related spare parts in order to guarantee the safety of the spare parts.
Raportöör väljendab seetõttu heameelt, et ettepanek laiendada tüübikinnitusmenetlust ohutuse seisukohalt olulistele varuosadele on lisatud artiklisse 31 direktiivis 2007/46/EÜ, 5.9.2007 (L 263/1, 9.10.2007).
Your rapporteur therefore welcomes the fact that the proposal to extend the type approval procedure to safety-related spare parts has been included in Article 31 of Directive 2007/46/EC of 5 September 2007 (OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p.1).
ettepaneku kohta võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv, millega muudetakse direktiivi 98/71/EÜ disainilahenduste õiguskaitse kohta
on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs
The Directive 98/71/ EC concerns the legal protection of design.
The Directive 98/71/ EC concerns the legal protection of design.
The aim of design law is to protect the appearance, outside and visible form of a product.
The aim of design law is to protect the appearance, outside and visible form of a product.
In this context protection should grant exclusivity in new and original design and reward the intellectual work of the creator of a design.
In this context protection should grant exclusivity in new and original design and reward the intellectual work of the creator of a design.
Article 14 deals with the repair of a complex product.
Article 14 deals with the repair of a complex product.
It was from its creation only temporary in nature.
It was from its creation only temporary in nature.
Member States shall keep in force their existing legal provisions on protection of design - meaning protection of design or liberalised markets, i.e. no protection of design - until an amendment changes this Directive.
Member States shall keep in force their existing legal provisions on protection of design - meaning protection of design or liberalised markets, i.e. no protection of design - until an amendment changes this Directive.
Member States shall change their legislation only if they liberalise the market ("freeze plus" solution).
Member States shall change their legislation only if they liberalise the market ("freeze plus" solution).
15 Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) have protected markets, 9 Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Hungary, Latvia) have liberalised markets and Greece has a time-limited protection.
15 Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) have protected markets, 9 Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Hungary, Latvia) have liberalised markets and Greece has a time-limited protection.
This provision was a compromise of antagonists and supporters of a possible Europe-wide liberalisation, but was not meant to be a long term solution.
This provision was a compromise of antagonists and supporters of a possible Europe-wide liberalisation, but was not meant to be a long term solution.
The Commission has currently proposed to liberalise the secondary market of spare parts.
The Commission has currently proposed to liberalise the secondary market of spare parts.
Thus protection of design should not exist for a component part of a complex product used for the purpose of the repair of this product so as to restore its original appearance.
Thus protection of design should not exist for a component part of a complex product used for the purpose of the repair of this product so as to restore its original appearance.
The liberalisation is proposed on the condition that Member States ensure that the consumers are informed about the origin of spare parts so that they can decide if they want to buy a spare part of the vehicle manufacturer (VM), of the original equipment supplier (OES) or of an independent supplier (non-OES).
The liberalisation is proposed on the condition that Member States ensure that the consumers are informed about the origin of spare parts so that they can decide if they want to buy a spare part of the vehicle manufacturer (VM), of the original equipment supplier (OES) or of an independent supplier (non-OES).
The Member States have to adapt their national legislation, entering into force at the latest two years after the adoption of the proposed directive.
The Member States have to adapt their national legislation, entering into force at the latest two years after the adoption of the proposed directive.
Scope of the proposed Directive
Scope of the proposed Directive
The proposed Directive only concerns visible "must match" (i.e. body-integrated) spare parts for complex products.
The proposed Directive only concerns visible "must match" (i.e. body-integrated) spare parts for complex products.
Although the proposal affects essentially any sector where the replacement and repair of visible components of complex products is at stake, it largely concerns the automotive aftermarket and has only a minor impact on other markets such as sanitary appliances, watches, motorbikes and domestic electrical appliances.
Although the proposal affects essentially any sector where the replacement and repair of visible components of complex products is at stake, it largely concerns the automotive aftermarket and has only a minor impact on other markets such as sanitary appliances, watches, motorbikes and domestic electrical appliances.
The data for these other markets is difficult to quantify and mostly affects the luxury segment of these markets; experts agree that only the automotive aftermarket is of major importance and thus crucially affected.
The data for these other markets is difficult to quantify and mostly affects the luxury segment of these markets; experts agree that only the automotive aftermarket is of major importance and thus crucially affected.
The areas specifically concerned are namely, car body panels, automotive glass and lighting.
The areas specifically concerned are namely, car body panels, automotive glass and lighting.
9-11 billion € are annually spent to buy these spare parts.
9-11 billion € are annually spent to buy these spare parts.
A certain minimum demand for repair and replacement is necessary for spare part manufacturers to operate profitably.
A certain minimum demand for repair and replacement is necessary for spare part manufacturers to operate profitably.
Thus offering spare parts is only profitable for certain volume cars.
Thus offering spare parts is only profitable for certain volume cars.
Nevertheless, a several billion € market is concerned.
Nevertheless, a several billion € market is concerned.
Possible advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Directive
Possible advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Directive
Prices: In markets with design protection a monopolistic pricing system risks to create overcharges for spare parts.
Prices: In markets with design protection a monopolistic pricing system risks to create overcharges for spare parts.
A liberalised market offers a greater choice and a high probability of lower prices.
A liberalised market offers a greater choice and a high probability of lower prices.
A study showed that 10 out of 11 spare parts are more expensive in protected markets than in liberalised markets.
A study showed that 10 out of 11 spare parts are more expensive in protected markets than in liberalised markets.
Furthermore -for example- the VM price for a wing front can be up to over 200% higher than it is on the free market.
Furthermore -for example- the VM price for a wing front can be up to over 200% higher than it is on the free market.
Innovation: The liberalisation does not affect innovation negatively.
Innovation: The liberalisation does not affect innovation negatively.
Innovation is created through competition in the primary market.
Innovation is created through competition in the primary market.
The main purpose of creating a car design is to ensure the uniqueness of a car brand in order to defend the market position of a brand.
The main purpose of creating a car design is to ensure the uniqueness of a car brand in order to defend the market position of a brand.
The design of a new car is crucial for the buying decision of the consumer and the basis for a successful sale, but design does not affect consumer behaviour in the aftermarket.
The design of a new car is crucial for the buying decision of the consumer and the basis for a successful sale, but design does not affect consumer behaviour in the aftermarket.
Employment: Independent manufacturers in low-cost countries frequently lack the technical know-how to produce parts at the quality level required by the European market.
Employment: Independent manufacturers in low-cost countries frequently lack the technical know-how to produce parts at the quality level required by the European market.
Production abroad is done rather by the VM themselves as they outsource and dislocate the production of spare parts in order to import them afterwards in the EU.
Production abroad is done rather by the VM themselves as they outsource and dislocate the production of spare parts in order to import them afterwards in the EU.
In contrast, SMEs in the EU can better guarantee jobs in their own markets.
In contrast, SMEs in the EU can better guarantee jobs in their own markets.
SMEs currently suffer from the lack of harmonisation in Europe and will benefit from a liberalisation.
SMEs currently suffer from the lack of harmonisation in Europe and will benefit from a liberalisation.
In addition, all suppliers will benefit from the opening-up of the market as the production of spare parts for non-EU cars will be permitted.
In addition, all suppliers will benefit from the opening-up of the market as the production of spare parts for non-EU cars will be permitted.
Currently, 15% of the cars in the EU are imported from abroad (e.g. from Japan, Korea and US) and all non-EU VM have registered car component designs in the EU.
Currently, 15% of the cars in the EU are imported from abroad (e.g. from Japan, Korea and US) and all non-EU VM have registered car component designs in the EU.
Safety: Safety is not a question of design protection.
Safety: Safety is not a question of design protection.
No safety test exists for granting design protection.
No safety test exists for granting design protection.
Safety is instead subject to a regime of type-approval for same parts and could be extended to all other parts through further European legislation.
Safety is instead subject to a regime of type-approval for same parts and could be extended to all other parts through further European legislation.
Competition : No competition exists in protected markets.
Competition : No competition exists in protected markets.
The consumer must buy the spare parts from the VM.
The consumer must buy the spare parts from the VM.
They can contact the OES for some spare parts, although this is only possible for products of some of the big and powerful OES.
They can contact the OES for some spare parts, although this is only possible for products of some of the big and powerful OES.
A single European market does not exist and national protected markets are, in reality, protected to a different degree for different spare parts.
A single European market does not exist and national protected markets are, in reality, protected to a different degree for different spare parts.
To liberalise the market would mean to open it up to competition.
To liberalise the market would mean to open it up to competition.
Competition is not only price competition, but other factors such as service, product quality and reputation come into play.
Competition is not only price competition, but other factors such as service, product quality and reputation come into play.
Even in liberalised markets the market share of VM/ OES stays high, e.g. in the USA independent body panels have reached only 15% of the market share.
Even in liberalised markets the market share of VM/ OES stays high, e.g. in the USA independent body panels have reached only 15% of the market share.
Your rapporteur wishes to express his strong support for the Commission's Proposal.
Your rapporteur wishes to express his strong support for the Commission's Proposal.
It is not satisfactory that we have a single market for new cars but no single market for spare parts.
It is not satisfactory that we have a single market for new cars but no single market for spare parts.
A liberalisation of the secondary market of spare parts will lead to more competition and push the development of the internal market.
A liberalisation of the secondary market of spare parts will lead to more competition and push the development of the internal market.
The prices will become more elastic.
The prices will become more elastic.
Innovation is not negatively affected.
Innovation is not negatively affected.
In fact it might be increased since VM will tend to design the parts of their products in such a way that independent suppliers will find it difficult to manufacture these spare parts.
In fact it might be increased since VM will tend to design the parts of their products in such a way that independent suppliers will find it difficult to manufacture these spare parts.
Your rapporteur supports the claim for intellectual property, but in our opinion it is no obstacle for a liberalisation of this market.
Your rapporteur supports the claim for intellectual property, but in our opinion it is no obstacle for a liberalisation of this market.
In addition, it is remarkable that there is only one single case where a VM sued another VM for the copying of design in the primary market, even if some models greatly resemble each other.
In addition, it is remarkable that there is only one single case where a VM sued another VM for the copying of design in the primary market, even if some models greatly resemble each other.
SMEs will benefit from the liberalisation.
SMEs will benefit from the liberalisation.
The liberalisation will have positive effects on the employment in the EU and finally the individual consumer will be able to have the freedom of choice and should be able to accept the responsibility for that choice.
The liberalisation will have positive effects on the employment in the EU and finally the individual consumer will be able to have the freedom of choice and should be able to accept the responsibility for that choice.
A liberalisation of the secondary market of spare parts is the right way forward.
A liberalisation of the secondary market of spare parts is the right way forward.
(1) Disainilahenduste kaitse ainus eesmärk on anda ainuõigused toote välimusele, mitte monopol toote kui sellise üle; disainilahenduste kaitsmine, millel ei ole praktilist alternatiivi, viiks tegelikult tootemonopoli tekkimiseni; selline kaitse rikuks peaaegu disainilahenduste režiimi; kui kolmandatel osapooltel on õigus toota ja müüa varuosi, säilib konkurents; kui disainilahenduste kaitse laieneb varuosadele, siis sellised kolmandad osapooled rikuvad neid õigusi, konkurents kaob ja disainilahenduste õiguse omanikule antakse faktiliselt tootemonopol.
(1) Whereas the sole purpose of design protection is to grant exclusive rights to the appearance of a product, but not a monopoly over the product as such; whereas protecting designs for which there is no practical alternative would lead in fact to a product monopoly; whereas such protection would come close to an abuse of the design regime; whereas if thirds parties are allowed to produce and distribute spare parts, competition is maintained; whereas if design protection is extended to spare parts, such third parties infringe those rights, competition is eliminated and the holder of the design right is de facto given a product monopoly,
(1) Disainilahenduste kaitse ainus eesmärk on anda ainuõigused toote välimusele, mitte monopol toote kui sellise üle ja ka mitte tema koostisosade üle ; disainilahenduste kaitsmine, millel ei ole praktilist alternatiivi, viiks tegelikult tootemonopoli tekkimiseni toodete puhul, mille tarbeks neid kasutati ; selline kaitse rikuks peaaegu disainilahenduste režiimi; kui kolmandatel osapooltel on õigus toota ja müüa varuosi remondi eesmärkidel, säilib konkurents; kui disainilahenduste kaitse laieneb varuosadele, siis sellised kolmandad osapooled rikuvad neid õigusi, konkurents kaob ja disainilahenduste õiguse omanikule antakse faktiliselt tootemonopol.
(1) Whereas the sole purpose of design protection is to grant exclusive rights to the appearance of a product, but not a monopoly over the product as such or the component parts thereof ; whereas protecting designs for which there is no practical alternative would lead in fact to a product monopoly on the products for which they were used; whereas such protection would come close to an abuse of the design regime; whereas if third parties are allowed to produce and distribute spare parts for repair purposes , competition is maintained; whereas if design protection is extended to spare parts, such third parties infringe those rights, competition is eliminated and the holder of the design right is de facto given a product monopoly,
Põhjendus 3A (uus)
Recital 3 A (new)
(3 a) Remontimisel kasutatavate nähtavate varuosade puhul disainilahenduste kaitse tühistamine loob väikese ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele uusi võimalusi ja tarbijale soodsaid pakkumisi.
(3a) The abolishment of protection of design for visible spare parts for repair purposes leads to new liberties for small and medium-sized enterprises and favourable offers for the consumer,
Põhjendus 3B (uus)
RECITAL 3 B (new)