natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
gd) to, vai ir bijuši sarežģījumi, izsniedzot patentus tādiem datorizpildāmiem izgudrojumiem, kuri neatbilst ar likumu noteiktajām patentspējas prasībām, jo īpaši tam, ka izgudrojumam:
(gd) whether difficulties have been experienced arising from the grant of patents for computer-implemented inventions which do not comply with the statutory requirements for patentability both in terms of whether the invention
i) jābūt saistītam ar darbību izgudrojumu jomā un
(i) involves an inventive step and
ii) jāsniedz tehnisks ieguldījums,
(ii) makes a technical contribution
saskaņā ar 4. panta 1. punktu, un kuriem kā tādiem nebija tiesību saņemt patentu;
in accordance with Article 4(1), and as such should not legitimately have been granted.
8. panta ge) apakšpunkts (jauns)
Article 8, point (g e) (new)
ge) to, vai šī direktīva ir sniegusi cerēto rezultātu saistībā ar to tiesību aktu saskaņošanu un skaidrošanu, kas attiecas uz datorizpildāmo izgudrojumu patentspēju;
(ge) whether this Directive has produced the desired effects in terms of harmonisation and clarification of the legal rules governing the patentability of computer-implemented inventions;
8. panta gf) apakšpunkts (jauns)
Article 8, point (g f) (new)
gf) patenta sistēmas attīstību datorizpildāmo izgudrojumu nozarē pasaules līmenī attiecībā uz a) līdz d) un f) līdz gb) apakšpunktiem.
(gf) the developments of the world-wide patent systems in the area of computer-implemented inventions in terms of the aspects mentioned in points (a) to (d) and (f) to (gb).
Komisija gada laikā ir sniedz priekšlikums par patiesu Eiropas Kopienas patentu,paredzot Eiropas Parlamenta demokrātisku kontroli attiecībā uz Eiropas Patentu biroju un Eiropas Patentu konvenciju.
The Commission shall come forward within a year with a proposal for an effective European Community patent which provides for democratic control by the European Parliament over the European Patent Office and the European Patent Convention.
Dalībvalstis raugās, lai to pārstāvji Eiropas Patenta organizācijas padomē veic pasākumus saskaņā ar savu kompetenci, lai nodrošinātu, ka Eiropas Patentu birojs Eiropas Savienības patentus piešķir tikai gadījumos, kad ir izpildītas Eiropas Patentu konvencijas prasības, jo īpaši attiecībā uz 2. panta b) apakšpunktā noteiktajām darbībām izgudrojumu un tehnisko ieguldījumu jomā .
Member States shall ensure that their representatives in the a dministrative c ouncil of the European Patent Organisation take such measures as are within their authority to ensure that the European Patent Office only grants European patents when the requirements of the European Patent Convention have been met, in particular with respect to inventive step and technical contribution as defined in point (b) of Article 2 .
Padome iesniedz Eiropas Parlamentam ikgadēju ziņojumu par to dalībvalstu, kas ir parakstījušas Eiropas Patentu konvenciju, pārstāvju darbību Eiropas Patentu organizācijas padomē un par 1. punktā noteikto mērķu izpildes gaitu.
The Council sh all provide a yearly report to the European Parliament on the activities of representatives of Member States that are Contracting States to the European Patent Convention in the a dministrative c ouncil of the European Patent Organisation , and the progress that has been made in achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1 .
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.F
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.
Padomes kopējā nostāja nolūkā pieņemt Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes direktīvu par datorizpildāmo izgudrojumu patentspēju
Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
Datums, kad notika pirmais lasījums EP – P5
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P[5]
Datums, kad paziņoja plenārsēdē par kopējās nostājas saņemšanu
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary commune
par pieprasījumu aizstāvēt Jean–Charles Marchiani neaizskaramību un privilēģijas
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Jean-Charles Marchiani
– ņemot vērā Jean–Charles Marchiani 2005. gada 19. maija pieprasījumu aizstāvēt viņa neaizskaramību, par kuru paziņoja plenārsēdē 2005. gada 26. maijā,
– 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,
– ņemot vērā 9. un 10. pantu 1965. gada 8. aprīļa Protokolā par privilēģijām un neaizskaramību Eiropas Kopienās, kā arī 6. panta 2. punktu 1976. gada 20. septembra Aktā par Eiropas Parlamenta deputātu ievēlēšanu tiešās vispārējās vēlēšanās,
– having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ņemot vērā Eiropas Kopienu Tiesas 1964. gada 12. maija un 1986. gada 10. jūlija spriedumus
– having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
Lieta 101/63, Wagner/Fohrmann un Krier [1964] ECR–383. lpp. un lieta 149/85, Wybot/Faure un citi [1986] ECR–2391. lpp. ;
Case 101/63, of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ņemot vērā Reglamenta 6. panta 3. punktu un 7. pantu,
– having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ņemot vērā Juridiskās komitejas ziņojumu ( A6‑0208/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0208/2005 ),
A. tā kā Jean–Charles Marchiani tika ievēlēts Eiropas Parlamenta piektajās tiešajās vēlēšanās 1999. gada 13. jūnijā, Eiropas Parlaments pārbaudīja viņa deputāta pilnvaras 1999. gada 15. decembrī
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
B. tā kā Jean–Charles Marchiani Eiropas Parlamenta deputāta pilnvaru laikā Francijas tiesu iestādes noklausījās atsevišķas viņa telefona sarunas ar citām personām;
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. tā kā Eiropas Parlamenta sesiju laikā Eiropas Parlamenta deputātiem savas valsts teritorijā ir tāda pati neaizskaramība, kā attiecīgās valsts parlamenta deputātiem
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
Sk. 10. panta pirmās daļas a) apakšpunktu Protokolā par privilēģijām un neaizskaramību Eiropas Kopienās. ;
cf Article 10(1)(a) of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. ;
D. tā kā saskaņā ar Francijas Republikas Kriminālprocesa kodeksa 100–7. pantu ir aizliegts noklausīties deputāta vai senatora telefona līnijas, ja vien izmeklēšanas tiesnesis par to iepriekš neinformē asamblejas, kuras loceklis ir attiecīgais deputāts/senators, priekšsēdētāju;
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. tā kā Francijas Kasācijas tiesa, neievērojot iura novit curia principu (tiesnesim ir jāpārzina likumi), savā 2005. gada 16. marta spriedumā Nr. 1784 nepiemēroja 10. pantu 1965. gada 8. aprīļa Protokolā par privilēģijām un neaizskaramību Eiropas Kopienās, tādējādi liedzot Jean-Charles Marchiani neaizskaramību, kas Francijas valsts deputātiem ir piešķirta saskaņā ar Francijas Republikas Kriminālprocesa kodeksa 100–7. pantu,
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. uzdod tā priekšsēdētājam nekavējoties nosūtīt šo lēmumu, kā arī atbildīgās komitejas ziņojumu Francijas Republikas Kasācijas tiesai, valdībai, Nacionālajai Asamblejai un Senātam.
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.
In a letter of 19 May 2005 sent to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani, former Member of the European Parliament, asked for his immunity and privileges to be defended pursuant to Rule 5(3) of the Rules of Procedure in connection with judgment No 1784 of the French Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) of 16 March 2005.
In a letter of 19 May 2005 sent to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani, former Member of the European Parliament, asked for his immunity and privileges to be defended pursuant to Rule 5(3) of the Rules of Procedure in connection with judgment No 1784 of the French Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) of 16 March 2005.
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.
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.
Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani had been a Member of the European Parliament during the fifth legislative term, from 20 July 1999 to 19 July 2004.
Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani had been a Member of the European Parliament during the fifth legislative term, from 20 July 1999 to 19 July 2004.
The facts to which the judgment in question relate occurred, in part, during the period in which Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani held office as a Member of the European Parliament, and accordingly the request is admissible.
The facts to which the judgment in question relate occurred, in part, during the period in which Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani held office as a Member of the European Parliament, and accordingly the request is admissible.
By the abovementioned decision, the French Court of Cassation annulled without remand judgment No 2 of the Chambre de l’instruction (investigation procedure section) of the Paris Court of Appeal of 8 December 2004, which had declared null and void the tapping of a telephone line registered in the name of Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani in the period from 14 June to 19 July 2004.
By the abovementioned decision, the French Court of Cassation annulled without remand judgment No 2 of the Chambre de l’instruction (investigation procedure section) of the Paris Court of Appeal of 8 December 2004, which had declared null and void the tapping of a telephone line registered in the name of Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani in the period from 14 June to 19 July 2004.
The interception of telephone calls had been ordered by the investigating judge at the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (Court of First Instance) in connection with a criminal investigation into suspected receiving of stolen property and misappropriation of corporate assets by Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani and others, including the supposed payment, between August 1991 and January 1994, of sums amounting to FF 9,703,826 into Mr Marchiani’s Swiss bank accounts.
The interception of telephone calls had been ordered by the investigating judge at the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (Court of First Instance) in connection with a criminal investigation into suspected receiving of stolen property and misappropriation of corporate assets by Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani and others, including the supposed payment, between August 1991 and January 1994, of sums amounting to FF 9,703,826 into Mr Marchiani’s Swiss bank accounts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is obvious that the judge mistakenly believed that, once the elections were in progress, Mr Marchiani’s term of parliamentary office had come to an end, whereas, under Article 5(1) and (3) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, it did not come to an end until the eve of the new parliamentary term, in other words at midnight on 19 July 2004.
It is obvious that the judge mistakenly believed that, once the elections were in progress, Mr Marchiani’s term of parliamentary office had come to an end, whereas, under Article 5(1) and (3) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, it did not come to an end until the eve of the new parliamentary term, in other words at midnight on 19 July 2004.
It should also be pointed out that the European Parliament had rejected a request for the waiver of Mr Marchiani’s immunity in connection with the same criminal proceedings submitted on 29 April 2003 by the investigating judge at the Paris Court of First Instance (Mr Philippe Courroye) who also ordered the telephone tapping referred to above.
It should also be pointed out that the European Parliament had rejected a request for the waiver of Mr Marchiani’s immunity in connection with the same criminal proceedings submitted on 29 April 2003 by the investigating judge at the Paris Court of First Instance (Mr Philippe Courroye) who also ordered the telephone tapping referred to above.
See European Parliament Decision P5_TA(2003)0529 ( A5-0423/2003 ) On that occasion, the European Parliament took the view, inter alia, that there existed a fumus persecutionis in relation to Mr Marchiani, given that, in the circumstances, it was impossible to rule out the possibility that the criminal proceedings were motivated by an intention to damage the Member’s political activities.
See European Parliament Decision P5_TA(2003)0529 ( A5-0423/2003 ) On that occasion, the European Parliament took the view, inter alia, that there existed a fumus persecutionis in relation to Mr Marchiani, given that, in the circumstances, it was impossible to rule out the possibility that the criminal proceedings were motivated by an intention to damage the Member’s political activities.
Legal background
Legal background
The question at issue is whether the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by Mr Marchiani should have prevented the judicial authorities of the French Republic from tapping his telephone line.
The question at issue is whether the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by Mr Marchiani should have prevented the judicial authorities of the French Republic from tapping his telephone line.
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:
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:
‘During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:
‘During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:
(a) in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; (...)’ .
(a) in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; (...)’ .
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.
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.
The case in question is covered by Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:
The case in question is covered by Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:
‘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. (...)
‘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. (...)
The formalities set out by the present article are prescribed under penalty of nullity’.
The formalities set out by the present article are prescribed under penalty of nullity’.
It follows that, by virtue of the combined provisions of Article 10(1) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the French judicial authority could not lawfully carry out any interception of Mr Marchiani’s telephone line without having previously informed the President of the European Parliament.
It follows that, by virtue of the combined provisions of Article 10(1) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the French judicial authority could not lawfully carry out any interception of Mr Marchiani’s telephone line without having previously informed the President of the European Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In view of the foregoing, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament defend the immunity and privileges of Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani, former Member of the European Parliament.
In view of the foregoing, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament defend the immunity and privileges of Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani, former Member of the European Parliament.
Pieprasījums aizstāvēt Jean–Charles Marchiani neaizskaramību un privilēģijas
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Jean-Charles Marchiani
Pieprasījums aizstāvēt imunitāti Nosūtīja Pieprasījuma datums Datums, kad paziņoja plenārsēdē
Request for defence of immunity from Date of request Date announced in plenary
6. panta 3. punkts un 7. pants
Rules 6(3) and 7
pret: 6 atturas: 0
against: 6 abstentions: 0
par pieprasījumu aizstāvēt Umberto Bossi deputāta neaizskaramību un privilēģijas
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi
EIROPAS PARLAMENTA LĒMUMA PRIEKŠLIKUMS.........................................................3
PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION
par pieprasījumu aizsargāt Umberto Bossi neaizskaramību un privilēģijas
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi
- ņemot vērā Umberto Bossi advokāta 2004. gada 3. augustā iesniegto pieprasījumu aizstāvēt Umberto Bossi deputāta neaizskaramību, kurš paziņots plenārsēdē 2004. gada 13. septembrī, sakarā ar Padujas rajona civillietu tiesā uzsākto tiesvedību,
- 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,
- ņemot vērā 9. un 10. pantu 1965. gada 8. aprīļa Protokolā par privilēģijām un neaizskaramību Eiropas Kopienās, kā arī 6. panta 2. punktu 1976. gada 20. septembra Aktā par Eiropas Parlamenta deputātu ievēlēšanu tiešās vispārējās vēlēšanās,
- having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
- ņemot vērā Eiropas Kopienu Tiesas 1964. gada 12. maija un 1986 gada 10. jūlija spriedumus
- having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
Lieta 101/63: Wagner pret Fohrmann un Krier (1964) ECR 195; lieta 149/85: Wybot pret Faure un citiem, (1986) ECR 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
- ņemot vērā Reglamenta 6. panta 3. punktu un 7. pantu,
- having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
- ņemot vērā Juridiskās komitejas ziņojumu ( A6-0209/2005 ),
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0209/2005 ),
A. tā kā Umberto Bossi bija Eiropas Parlamenta deputāts ceturtajā sasaukumā (mandāta sākums 1994. gada 19. jūlijā, mandāts apstiprināts 1994. gada 15. novembrī, mandāts izbeidzies 1999. gada 19. jūlijā) un piektajā sasaukumā (mandāta sākums 1999. gada 20. jūlijā, mandāts apstiprināts 1999. gada 15. decembrī, mandāts izbeigts 2001. gada 10. jūnijā neatbilstības dēļ);
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. tā kā Eiropas Parlamenta deputātus nevar pakļaut nekāda veida izmeklēšanai, aizturēšanai vai tiesvedībai attiecībā uz viņu paustajiem viedokļiem vai balsojumu savu pienākumu izpildes gaitā
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
Protokola par Eiropas Kopienu privilēģijām un neaizskaramību 9. pants. ;
Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. ,
C. tā kā Eiropas Parlamenta deputātu neaizskaramība pret tiesvedību attiecas arī uz neaizskaramību pret tiesvedību civillietās,
C. whereas the immunity from legal proceedings enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament also covers immunity from civil proceedings,
3. uzdod tā priekšsēdētājam nekavējoties nosūtīt šo lēmumu un atbildīgās komitejas ziņojumu attiecīgajai Padujas rajona tiesai.
Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of the committee responsible to the District Court of Padua.