Activities of Matteo SALVINI related to 2011/0137(COD)
Plenary speeches (3)
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Explanations of vote
Shadow reports (2)
RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 PDF (134 KB) DOC (68 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights PDF (559 KB) DOC (824 KB)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Under the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union. With regard to dangerous products, and in particular falsified medicines as defined in Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products1 the Union customs authorities should be able to draw on other provisions of Union law, and in particular on the measures provided for in Directive 2011/62/EU. The Commission should analyse, within 18 months following the adoption of this Regulation, the effectiveness of current customs measures aiming at combating falsified medicines, and to propose, if necessary, legislative changes. _____________ 1 OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 74.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 5 – point a
Article 2 – point 5 – point a
(a) goods which are subject of an action infringing a trade mark and which bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark;
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 5 – point b
Article 2 – point 5 – point b
(b) goods which are subject of an action infringing a geographical indication and bear or are described by a name or term protected in respect of that geographical indication;
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 7 – point a
Article 2 – point 7 – point a
(a) goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right under the law of the Union or of that Member State;
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
When there are indications suggesting that non-Union goods in transit will be put on sale in the territory of the Union, such goods shall be considered as imports under the intellectual property laws of the Member State where they are found or where an application is made.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Indications suggesting that these goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to Union consumers.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new)
When there are indications suggesting a likelihood of diversion of the goods to the territory of the Union and when proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed are underway before the competent authority, the declarant or holder of the goods shall establish that such goods are not intended for the territory of the Union.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In order that the authority competent to take a substantive decision may profitably examine whether proof that goods are intended to be put on sale in the Union and the other elements constituting an infringement of the intellectual property right relied upon exist, the customs authority to which an application for action is made shall, as soon as there are indications before it giving grounds for suspecting that such an infringement exists, suspend the release of or detain those goods. Indications suggesting that those goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to Union consumers.
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The customs authorities may take samples and may provide or send samples to the holder of the decision granting the application, at his/her request, strictly for the purposes of analysis and to facilitate the subsequent procedure in relation to counterfeit and pirated goods. Any analysis of those samples shall be carried out under the sole responsibility of the holder of the decision granting the application.
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where goods other than those covered by Articles 23 and 24 are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days of dispatch of the decision to suspendthe receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or to detain themheir detention.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
In the case of perishable goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the period for initiating the proceedings referred to in the first subparagraph shall be three working days of dispatch of the decision to suspendthe receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or to detain themheir detention.
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. By way of exception to the provisions of paragraph 1, the customs authorities may authorise the public or private organisations, which aim at combating against counterfeiting and have been individually authorised prior to these operations, to use the above-mentioned measures. Prior to the destruction of the abandoned goods, the authorised organisations may stock them, in the conditions defined in the authorisation, for the purposes of analysis and establishment of a database of information intended to fight against counterfeiting. The authorised organisations shall be published on the website of the Commission.
Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the holder of the decision granting the application has informed the customs authorities in writing of his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspendthe receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or to detain them;heir detention.
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspendthe receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or to detain themheir detention.
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Where there is no agreement to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspendthe receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or to detain themheir detention.