WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1630/97 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. The future of patents in Europe
C 45/64 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 2. 98 The Commission has however no objection to considering greater flexibility, particularly in view of the new anti-discrimination clause included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission is therefore open for dialogue on the matter, in particular with the other institutions, and preliminary discussions have already been held with the staff organisations of the Commission. However, against a background of zero growth in staff numbers in the Commission, it is vital to continue to recruit young people in order to avoid an ageing personnel profile. (98/C 45/77) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/97 by Ba·rbara Du¤hrkop Du¤ hrkop (PSE) to the Commission (14 May 1997) Subject: Increase in funds for new fisheries agreements The EU must take action to compensate for the sacrifices which the Community fishing fleet is obliged to make if the reductions required under the Fourth Fisheries Guidance Programme are to be achieved. On 14 April 1997 did the Commission not ask the Council of Fisheries Ministers for an ECU 30 million increase in the budget to enable new fisheries agreements to be negotiated with third countries? What was the Councilís decision? Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997) The Commission did not make any such request at the Fisheries Council in April 1997. In addition to the initial appropriation of ECU 246 million, this yearís budget provides for a reserve of ECU 30 million (budget heading B0- 40) for both fishing agreements being renewed or renegotiated with third parties in 1997 and possible new agreements. (98/C 45/78) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1630/97 by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997) Subject: The future of patents in Europe The translation of European patents is a general problem which affects all the EU countries. The European Patent Office (EPO) is calling for the abolition of the requirement for European patents to be translated in order to reduce the cost thereof, since translation (which represents between 20 and 25% of the total cost) is too expensive. According to the EPO, this will help to ensure greater protection for innovations in Europe. Although the question of costs is undoubtedly an important one it is by no means crucial and it does not at first sight seem unreasonable that a patent holder should be required to bear certain costs as a quid pro quo for his monopoly. Does the Commission not think that one way of helping to reduce the cost of patents without doing away with translations altogether would be to set up some kind of mechanism for cutting down the length of the texts to be translated since this, combined with technical progress in computer-aided translation, ought to result in a substantial reduction in the cost of having patents translated?