BETA


Events

2018/02/22
   Legislative proposal
2017/05/15
   EC - Follow-up document
Details

The Commission presents a report on Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. Entering into application on 1 January 2014, the Regulation is a fundamental component of the EU system to enforce IPR at the border.

Based on the latest available data from 2013, international trade in counterfeit products represents up to 2.5% of world trade, or as much as EUR 338 billion. The impact of counterfeiting is particularly high in the European Union, with counterfeit and pirated products amounting up to 5% of imports, or as much as EUR 85 billion.

The report aims at reporting on the feedback gathered by the Commission on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 since 1 January 2014. As regards implementation by Member States, the report covers a three-year period from 1 January 2014 to December 2016.

Legislative framework: the Regulation provides for a wide range of protection and procedures. The major new features introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 in relation to past regulations, are the following:

· extension of the rights and infringements covered by customs actions;

· the simplified procedure for destruction has become the mandatory standard procedure ;

· the introduction of specific small consignment procedure , such consignments usually entering the Union through the postal service or via a commercial courier company;

· the possibility of using the deemed agreement of the holder of the goods/declarant instead of his explicit agreement to destruction.

Implementation by Member States: at this stage, the Commission considers that the implementation of Regulation No 608/2013 is functioning satisfactorily in the 28 Member States. However, it suggests that there is a need to reinforce the efforts made in certain areas such as:

1) the quality of the information contained in the applications for action, notably the Union applications for action: the administrative enforcement system for customs functions on the basis of the request right-holders have to lodge with customs authorities. Most Member State customs authorities consider that, on average, the applications for action they receive still lack the necessary quality information, which leads, in a low percentage of cases, to refusal of the decision granting the application.

2) the use of the standard procedure: this procedure is used in all Member States. In most Member States the procedure is used from the beginning to the end. In 2014, 69.12% of all cases were handled under the "standard procedure" (72.14% in 2015).

The private sector considered, however, that the ten-day deadline for initiating proceedings is too short. Some suggest that the holder of the decision should be given the opportunity to initiate legal proceedings during a lapse of time, which should be calculated from the day of the customs notification of the objection to the destruction by the holder of the goods/declarant.

The Commission considers that some Member States may need to update the way they implement the standard procedure, in order to fully adapt to the details of the procedure defined in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.

These points will be followed up in the context of the measures provided in the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2013-2017 and in the follow-up exercise to the Customs 2020 Seminar on Application for Actions.

Small consignments: small consignment functioning and handling remains a challenge as sales over internet are constantly increasing, notably sales of IPR infringing products. Work on this issue will be pursued in the working group on small consignment, whose activities will be resumed in 2017.

Observations from the private sector: associations of right-holders and of express courier companies praise most of the novelties introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. However, associations have raised questions about the interpretation of certain points in the Regulation and noted a lack of common EU-wide implementation on certain issues , such as the information which is considered to be mandatory in an application for actions, the deadline for request a renewal of the customs decision granting the application for actions, and the way to implement the standard procedure.

The concerns raised by the private sector will also be discussed with Member State customs authorities with a view to assessing if they are well established and if solutions could then be envisaged. The Commission concludes that, for the time being, there would be no justification for revising any provisions of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013.

2013/06/29
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to improve the legal framework regarding customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003.

CONTENT: t he new Regulation shall replace existing Regulation No 1383/2003. It sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision or customs control within the customs territory of the Union.

More specifically, the Regulation:

expands the range of IPR infringements covered and maintains the competence of customs authorities to control all goods under customs supervision irrespective of their customs treatment. This Regulation shall not apply to goods of a non- commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage. Infringements resulting from so-called illegal parallel trade and overruns are excluded from the scope of Regulation; it ensures that high quality information is provided to customs to enable a good analysis and assessment of the risk of infringement of IPR; sets out the legal basis for a central database for recording applications for customs action and detentions as well as exchange of information between customs authorities (COPIS).

With a view to reducing the administrative burden, the Regulation :

sets out a common procedure for all kinds of IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation. Under such common procedure, goods may be destroyed without the need for the right-holder to initiate legal proceedings where he so requests, on condition that the declarant or holder of the goods, after being properly notified of the detention of the goods by the customs authorities, does not object to destruction; establishes that the procedure for small consignments only applies upon previous request from the applicant in that regard, and that the customs authorities have the possibility to require that the applicant covers the costs incurred by the application of this procedure. A small consignment shall mean a postal or express courier consignment, which: (a) contains three units or less; or (b) has a gross weight of less than two kilograms.

In addition, the new Regulation:

stipulates that national laws shall apply for granting the right to be heard in favour of the persons concerned by the customs detention of goods; broadens and clarifies the list of cases in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a customs detention of goods under the Regulation; includes provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods , exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 19/07/2013.

APPLICATION: from 01/01/2014, with the exception of certain measures.

DELEGATED ACTS: the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts concerning the term small consignments. The power to adopt delegated acts shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 19 July 2013 . A delegated act shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification (this delay may be extended by two months). If the European Parliament or the Council object, the delegated act shall not enter into force.

2013/06/12
   CSL - Draft final act
Documents
2013/06/12
   CSL - Final act signed
2013/06/12
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2013/06/11
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
Details

The European Parliament approved, at second reading of the ordinary legislative procedure, 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.

The act is adopted in accordance with the Council position.

Documents
2013/06/10
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2013/05/31
   EP - Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
Details

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted a recommendation for second reading contained in the report by Jürgen CREUTZMANN (ADLE, DE) 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.

The committee recommends that the European Parliament approves, unamended, the Council position at first reading.

Documents
2013/05/30
   EP - Vote in committee, 2nd reading
2013/05/24
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/05/23
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
2013/05/17
   EC - Commission communication on Council's position
Details

The Commission can accept the amendments introduced by the Council to its proposal . It fully supports the agreement reached in the trilogue between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, as concluded on 19 December 2012.

The main points of this agreement are as follows:

to exclude parallel trade and overruns from the scope of the Regulation; to rule out provisions in the Regulation harmonising the right to be heard in favour of the persons concerned by the customs detention of goods. It is considered that national laws apply for granting the right to be heard; to clarify that customs authority may carry out customs controls and take identification measures provided for in the customs legislation to prevent operations in breach of intellectual property laws applicable in the territory of the Union, and in order to cooperate with third countries on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; to set out a common procedure for all kinds of IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation, without prejudice of the specific procedure for small consignments. Under such common procedure, goods may be destroyed without the need for the right-holder to initiate legal proceedings where he so requests, on condition that the declarant or holder of the goods, after being properly notified of the detention of the goods by the customs authorities, does not object to destruction; to establish that the procedure for small consignments only applies upon previous request from the applicant in that regard, and that the customs authorities have the possibility to require that the applicant covers the costs incurred by the application of this procedure; to set out the definition of small consignments in the Regulation, which empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts in respect of amending, under certain circumstances, the non-essential elements of that definition; to provide, in line with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a legal basis for the swift exchange of information between customs authorities in the EU and in third countries on such trade; to broaden and clarify the list of cases in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a customs detention of goods under the Regulation; to include provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods, exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection.

2013/05/16
   CSL - Council position published
Details

The Council unanimously adopted its 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.

The European Parliament delivered its opinion on 3 July 2012, amending the proposal with 108 amendments .

The Council, in its position at first reading, shares the proposal's overall objective with regard to the need to strengthen the enforcement by customs of intellectual property rights. However, it takes the view that:

i. the scope of the Regulation should not be extended to parallel trade and overruns;

ii. the right to be heard should be granted in accordance with national law, and in addition introduces a number of technical changes to the proposal.

The main points of the common position which differ from the Commission's proposal concern:

the customs controls and identification measures that customs authorities may carry out to prevent operations in breach of intellectual property laws applicable in the territory of the Union, and in order to cooperate with third countries on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; the common procedure to apply to all IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation, without prejudice to the specific procedure for small consignments; the procedure for small consignments , which only applies upon request from the applicant, and the costs of which the applicant may be requested to cover; the definition of small consignments in the Regulation (as requested by the Parliament), with regard to which the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in view of amending, under certain circumstances, its non-essential elements; the necessary legal basis, in line with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), for the swift exchange of information between customs authorities in the EU and in third countries . Implementing powers are conferred on the Commission to define the elements of the practical arrangements for the exchange of data with third countries; the situations in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a detention of goods; the provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods, exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection.

Documents
2013/03/11
   CSL - Council Meeting
2012/09/19
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2012/07/03
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2012/07/03
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 397 votes to 259, with 26 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, amends the Commission proposal as follows:

Goods in transit : Parliament stipulates that this Regulation shall apply to goods in transit through the customs territory of the Union which are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right.

Submission of applications : to avoid the filing of multiple applications for the same IPR and parallel submissions of national and Union applications, the persons entitled to submit an application shall only submit one application for each intellectual property right protected in a Member State or in the Union.

In order to facilitate the traceability of parallel imports, right-holders and their representatives should provide the customs with all information relevant for the identification of genuine products such as marking and the authorised distributors.

The undertaking by the applicant to agree that the data provided by him/her will be processed by the Commission has been deleted. The application shall contain the information that must be provided to the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the national laws implementing Directive 95/46/EC.

Members call for computerised systems for the purpose of receiving and processing applications, applications shall be submitted using electronic data processing techniques. Member States shall make such systems available no later than 1 January 2014 .

Processing of applications : where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period, the competent customs department may reject the application. In that event the competent customs department shall provide reasons for its decision and include information on the appeal procedure.

Returning samples : the Commission proposal provides that the competent customs department may decide to suspend the actions of the customs authorities until the expiry of the period during which those authorities are to take action, where the holder of the decision does not comply with the requirements on returning samples. Member, however, propose deleting this possibility given that the returning of samples cannot always take place and the text is not precise on who judges if the circumstances allow the returning of samples or not.

Suspension of the release of the goods or their detention : Members consider that the suspension of the release or detention of goods pending the decision from the rightholder is not a decision point. Therefore, they propose deleting the word "decision".

The customs authorities may also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items , their nature and photographs of those items as appropriate.

Where goods suspected to be an imitation or a copy of a product protected in the Union by an intellectual property right are placed under a suspensive procedure , the customs authorities shall request the declarant or holder of the goods to provide adequate evidence that the final destination of the goods is beyond the territory of the Union within three working days of dispatch of that request. Where no adequate evidence to the contrary is provided, customs authorities shall presume the final destination to be the territory of the Union.

The additional obligation for customs authorities allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken would create a disproportionate administrative burden for customs authorities, potentially resulting in a decreased level of IPR protection. Therefore, Members propose deleting this obligation .

Sharing of information and data between customs authorities : the resolution underlines that cooperation with third countries is essential for countering the proliferation of trade in IPR infringing goods. In order for this cooperation to be effective, EU customs authorities should be able to share information and data on IPR violations with their counterparts in third countries, under confidentiality, and provided stringent data protection safeguards are in place.

Destruction of goods and initiation of proceedings : whilst welcoming the proposal from the Commission to make the implementation of the simplified procedure mandatory in all Member States, Members consider that this procedure should be applicable not only to counterfeit and pirated goods, but for all IPR infringements .

In addition to confirming his/her agreement to destruction, the right holder should also confirm that an IPR has been infringed and indicate which IPR is concerned , based on the information he/she has received from the customs authorities. Only then, and provided the agreement of the declarant/holder of the goods, may be abandoned for destruction. In order to avoid problems linked to the sending of the notification, the deadline should be set with reference to the receipt of the notification, and not its dispatch.

An amendment also states that where the declarant or holder of the goods within the periods set out in regulation has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction nor notified his/her opposition to destruction to the customs authorities that adopted the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction.

Where there is no agreement to destruction or the declarant or the holder of the goods objects to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 20 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or their detention.

Before the destruction of abandoned goods , the customs authorities may allow the goods to be moved under customs supervision between different places within the customs territory of the Union with a view to their destruction under customs control or their use for education and exhibition purposes accompanied by appropriate security measures.

Specific procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments : the definition of the term "small consignment" constitutes an essential element of the proposed Regulation and should therefore be defined therein. The resolution proposes a definition based on the number of items (less than three) and their total weight (less than 2kg) contained in a single package.

Members consider that the specific procedure for small consignments should apply to all IPR infringements in order to simplify its application and to improve the effectiveness of IPR protection.

An "opt-in" by the right-holder should be required in order to apply this specific procedure to infringements covered by his/her application, because he/she will also have to pre-finance the costs of storage and destruction.

The amended text stipulates that the goods concerned may be destroyed where the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Such destruction shall be carried out under customs control at the expense of the holder of the decision granting the application.

Lastly, right holders should obtain access to information about the goods destroyed under this procedure, which they can use for their investigations.

Costs : the holder of a decision shall, upon request, be given information by the customs authorities on where and how the detained goods are being stored and on the costs associated with such storage, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on that storage .

If the consignee cannot be identified either , is not tangible or unable to pay, the right-holder should be able to seek compensation from intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders (physical holders of the goods), where they have failed to exercise due diligence in the handling of the consignment.

Exchange of data on decisions relating to application for action between the Member States and the Commission : the Commission shall make the relevant information available to the customs authorities of the Member States in an electronic form as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 2015.

Entry into force and report : by three years after the entry into force of the this Regulation, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation, as well as an analysis of this Regulation's impact on the availability of generic medicines, in the Union as well as globally. If necessary, that report shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals and/or recommendations.

Documents
2012/07/02
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2012/04/02
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted the report drafted by Jürgen CREUTZMANN (ADLE, DE) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.

It recommends that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, should amend the Commission proposal as follows:

Goods in transit : Members stipulate that this Regulation shall apply to goods in transit through the customs territory of the Union which are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right.

Submission of applications : to avoid the filing of multiple applications for the same IPR and parallel submissions of national and Union applications, the persons entitled to submit an application shall only submit one application for each intellectual property right protected in a Member State or in the Union.

In order to facilitate the traceability of parallel imports, right-holders and their representatives should provide the customs with all information relevant for the identification of genuine products such as marking and the authorised distributors.

The undertaking by the applicant to agree that the data provided by him/her will be processed by the Commission has been deleted by the committee. The application shall contain the information that must be provided to the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the national laws implementing Directive 95/46/EC.

Members call for computerised systems for the purpose of receiving and processing applications, applications shall be submitted using electronic data processing techniques. Member States shall make such systems available no later than 1 January 2014 .

Processing of applications : where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period, the competent customs department may reject the application. In that event the competent customs department shall provide reasons for its decision and include information on the appeal procedure.

Returning samples : the Commission proposal provides that the competent customs department may decide to suspend the actions of the customs authorities until the expiry of the period during which those authorities are to take action, where the holder of the decision does not comply with the requirements on returning samples. Member, however, propose deleting this possibility given that the returning of samples cannot always take place and the text is not precise on who judges if the circumstances allow the returning of samples or not.

Suspension of the release of the goods or their detention : Members consider that the suspension of the release or detention of goods pending the decision from the rightholder is not a decision point. Therefore, they propose deleting the word "decision".

The customs authorities may also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items , their nature and photographs of those items as appropriate.

Where goods suspected to be an imitation or a copy of a product protected in the Union by an intellectual property right are placed under a suspensive procedure , the customs authorities shall request the declarant or holder of the goods to provide adequate evidence that the final destination of the goods is beyond the territory of the Union within three working days of dispatch of that request. Where no adequate evidence to the contrary is provided, customs authorities shall presume the final destination to be the territory of the Union.

The additional obligation for customs authorities allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken would create a disproportionate administrative burden for customs authorities, potentially resulting in a decreased level of IPR protection. Therefore, Members propose deleting this obligation .

Sharing of information and data between customs authorities : the report underlines that cooperation with third countries is essential for countering the proliferation of trade in IPR infringing goods. In order for this cooperation to be effective, EU customs authorities should be able to share information and data on IPR violations with their counterparts in third countries, under confidentiality, and provided stringent data protection safeguards are in place.

Destruction of goods and initiation of proceedings : whilst welcoming the proposal from the Commission to make the implementation of the simplified procedure mandatory in all Member States, Members consider that this procedure should be applicable not only to counterfeit and pirated goods, but for all IPR infringements .

In addition to confirming his/her agreement to destruction, the right holder should also confirm that an IPR has been infringed and indicate which IPR is concerned , based on the information he/she has received from the customs authorities. Only then, and provided the agreement of the declarant/holder of the goods, may be abandoned for destruction. In order to avoid problems linked to the sending of the notification, the deadline should be set with reference to the receipt of the notification, and not its dispatch.

An amendment also states that where the declarant or holder of the goods within the periods set out in regulation has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction nor notified his/her opposition to destruction to the customs authorities that adopted the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction.

Where there is no agreement to destruction or the declarant or the holder of the goods objects to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 20 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or their detention.

Before the destruction of abandoned goods , the customs authorities may allow the goods to be moved under customs supervision between different places within the customs territory of the Union with a view to their destruction under customs control or their use for education and exhibition purposes accompanied by appropriate security measures.

Specific procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments : the definition of the term "small consignment" constitutes an essential element of the proposed Regulation and should therefore be defined therein. The report proposes a definition based on the number of items (less than three) and their total weight (less than 2kg) contained in a single package.

Members consider that the specific procedure for small consignments should apply to all IPR infringements in order to simplify its application and to improve the effectiveness of IPR protection.

An "opt-in" by the right-holder should be required in order to apply this specific procedure to infringements covered by his/her application, because he/she will also have to pre-finance the costs of storage and destruction.

The amended text stipulates that the goods concerned may be destroyed where the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Such destruction shall be carried out under customs control at the expense of the holder of the decision granting the application.

Lastly, right holders should obtain access to information about the goods destroyed under this procedure, which they can use for their investigations.

Costs : the holder of a decision shall, upon request, be given information by the customs authorities on where and how the detained goods are being stored and on the costs associated with such storage, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on that storage .

If the consignee cannot be identified either , is not tangible or unable to pay, the right-holder should be able to seek compensation from intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders (physical holders of the goods), where they have failed to exercise due diligence in the handling of the consignment.

Exchange of data on decisions relating to application for action between the Member States and the Commission : the Commission shall make the relevant information available to the customs authorities of the Member States in an electronic form as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 2015.

Documents
2012/02/29
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2012/01/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2012/01/26
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2012/01/19
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/12/13
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2011/12/05
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Ministers took note of the progress made on three files under examination by the Council preparatory bodies in the field of intellectual property:

· a draft directive on the protection of orphan works ;

· a draft regulation for entrusting the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market with certain tasks related to the protection of intellectual property ; and

· a draft regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property right s.

Documents
2011/12/05
   CSL - Council Meeting
2011/11/17
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2011/11/15
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2011/10/24
   RO_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2011/10/12
   EDPS - Document attached to the procedure
Details

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a regulation of the

European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The EDPS recalls that the proposal establishes the procedure through which right holders can apply to require the customs department of a Member State to take action in that Member State (‘national application’) or the customs departments of more than one Member State to take action in each and respective Member State (‘EU application’).

The proposal also establishes the process through which the relevant customs departments take a decision on the application, the actions that the customs authorities (or offices) should consequently take (i.e. suspension of the release, detention or destruction of goods) and the connected rights and obligations.

In this context, the processing of data provided by the draft regulation does not only cover the personal data of the holder of the right in the context of the transfer of applications and decisions from right holders to custom authorities, between the Member States and between Member States and the Commission. It also covers the consignor, consignee, the declarant or holder of the goods as well as other information related to the goods.

The EDPS welcomes the specific reference in the proposal to the applicability of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to the personal data processing activities covered by the Regulation.

He highlights the following points with a view to improving the text from a data protection perspective:

Right of information of the data subject: whilst the Commission is empowered to adopt implementing acts, Article 6(3) already contains a list of required information to be provided by the applicant, including the applicant's personal data. In determining the essential content of the application, Article 6(3) should also require the customs authorities to provide to the applicant and any other potential data subject (e.g. consignor, consignee or holder of the goods) with the information pursuant to the national rules implementing Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC. In parallel, the application should also embody the similar information to be provided to the data subject for processing by the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (in view of the storing and processing operations in COPIS).

The EDPS therefore recommends that Article 6(3) includes, in the list of information to be provided to the applicant, the information to be provided the data subject pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

In addition, the EDPS asks to be consulted when the Commission exercises its implementing power, in order to ensure that the new model (national or EU) application forms are ‘data protection compliant’.

Time limit for the retention of personal data : the EDPS would like to stress that the application submitted by the right holder (and in particular, the personal data therein) should not be stored or retained by the national customs authorities and in the COPIS database beyond the date of expiry of the decision. He suggests inserting a provision in the proposalwhich imposes a limit to the retention of personal data linked to the duration of the period of validity of the decisions. Any extension of the duration of the retention date should be avoided or, if justified, should fulfil the principles of necessity and proportionality in relation to the purpose, which needs to be clarified. Including a provision in the proposal, which would be equally applicable throughout the Member States and to the Commission, would guarantee simplification, legal certainty and effectiveness, as it would avoid conflicting

interpretations.

Legal basis for establishment of COPIS: the legal basis for the creation of the COPIS database seems currently to be limited to the combined provisions of the new Articles 6(4) and 31. However, there is at this stage no further detailed legal provision adopted through the ordinary legislative procedure in which the purpose and characteristics of COPIS are determined. This is particularly worrying in the EDPS' view. Personal data of individuals (names, addresses and other contact details as well as related information on suspected offences) will be the object of an intense exchange between the Commission and Member States and will be stored for an undefined period of time within the database, yet there is no legal text on the basis of which an individual could verify the legality of such processing. Furthermore, the specific access rights and management rights in relation to the various processing operations are not explicitly clarified.

The EDPS stresses that the legal basis for instruments which restrict the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, as recognised by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union and in the case law on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and which is recognised by Article 16 of the TFEU, must be laid down in a legal instrument based on the Treaties and that can be invoked before a judge. This is necessary in order to guarantee legal certainty for the data subject, who must be able to rely on clear rules and invoke them before a court.

The EDPS therefore urges the Commission to clarify the legal basis of the COPIS database by introducing a more detailed provision in an instrument adopted according to the ordinary legislative procedure under the TFEU. Such a provision must comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and, where applicable, Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, the provision establishing the database involving the electronic exchange mechanism must:

· identify the purpose of the processing operations and establish which are the compatible uses;

· identify which entities (customs authorities, Commission) will have access to which data stored in the database and will have the possibility of modifying the data;

· ensure the right of access and information for all the data subjects whose personal data may be stored and exchanged;

· define and limit the retention period for the personal data to the minimum necessary for the performance of such purpose.

Lastly, the EDPS stresses that the following elements of the database should be defined in the main legislative act:

· the entity which will be controlling and managing the database

· the entity in charge of ensuring the security of the processing of the data contained in the database.

2011/07/13
   EP - CREUTZMANN Jürgen (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2011/07/13
   EP - CREUTZMANN Jürgen (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2011/07/13
   EP - ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in INTA
2011/06/20
   EP - BOULLIER GALLO Marielle (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2011/06/07
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2011/05/24
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2011/05/24
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2011/05/24
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to improve the legal framework regarding customs enforcement of intellectual property rights.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

BACKGROUND: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringements and the resulting trade in infringing goods are of growing concern, particularly in a globalised economy. In addition to the economic consequences for industry, the infringing products may pose serious health and safety risks to consumers.

Certain instances of detentions by customs authorities of shipments of medicines in transit through the EU, which occurred at the end of 2008, which together with the concerns expressed during the WTO consultations between India and Brazil and the EU, have shown that the relevant EU legislation for intellectual property enforcement by customs authorities could benefit from further clarification to increase legal certainty.

In its Communication on a Single Market Act , the Commission recalled that customs authorities should be able to provide greater protection for intellectual-property rights through revised legislation. The Commission developed a new customs action plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009-2012. The main elements of the Plan were endorsed by the Council.

The review of Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 showed that certain improvements to the legal framework were necessary to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, as well as to ensure appropriate legal clarity, thereby taking into account developments in the economic, commercial and legal areas.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment report looked at three different options, with a number of sub-options.

Option 1: ‘ baseline scenario’, where the Commission would take no action and the status quo was maintained.

Option 2 : this provided for certain non-legislative measures, where the Commission would propose training initiatives and the development of guidelines and exchange of best practises;

Option 3: the Commission proposes amendments to the existing legal framework. Under this option different sub-options could be available for each of the i problems:

Sub-option 1 provided for the extension of the possible types of infringements to rights already covered by the current Regulation, for example, as regards goods involving any infringement of trade mark rights, not just counterfeiting. Sub-option 2 included sub-option 1 and extended the current scope of the Regulation in terms of IPR covered.

The impact assessment concluded that the best suitable solution would be to amend the Regulation to respond to all the problems identified and to ensure a balanced outcome for all categories of persons affected.

LEGAL BASIS: Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides powers to adopt measures for implementing the common commercial policy. The Regulation concerns the commercial aspects of intellectual property rights in that it deals with measures enabling customs to enforce intellectual property rights at the border on goods that are internationally traded.

CONTENT: the draft Regulation sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision within the customs territory of the Union. The main points are as follows:

Strengthening enforcement : it is proposed to broaden the scope covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, by including trade names, topographies of semiconductor products and utility models. It is also proposed to widen the scope of the Regulation by including infringements resulting from parallel trade and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs.

The new Regulation would maintain the ability for customs to control for the purpose of enforcement of intellectual property rights, in all situations where the goods were under their supervision and the distinction between the procedural nature of the legislation and substantive law on intellectual property would be emphasised.

Destruction of goods : the proposal also introduces procedures enabling customs, under certain conditions, to have goods abandoned for destruction without having to undergo formal and costly legal proceedings. These would be differentiated according to the type of infringement.

for counterfeit and pirated goods, the agreement of the owner to destroy the goods could be presumed if the destruction had not been explicitly opposed, whereas for other situations, the owner of the goods would have to agree explicitly to their destruction; in a case where no agreement is reached, the right-holder would have to initiate legal proceedings to establish the infringement, otherwise the goods will be released.

A specific procedure is also proposed for small consignments of suspected counterfeit and pirated goods covered by an application, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the involvement of the right- holder.

Protection of the interests of legitimate traders : additional provisions are proposed to ensure the protection of the interests of legitimate traders from possible abuse of the customs enforcement procedures and to integrate the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Regulation. To this end, the proposal clarifies the timelines for detaining suspected goods, the conditions in which information about consignments would be passed on to right-holders by customs, the conditions for applying the procedure allowing for destruction of the goods under customs control for suspected infringements of intellectual property rights other than for counterfeiting and piracy, and the right of defence.

Costs of storage and destruction of goods : the draft Regulation continues to provide that storage and destruction costs directly incurred by customs be assumed by the right-holders requesting customs action, though this would not preclude them from taking legal action to recover such costs from the primary liable party. However, it is proposed to introduce an important exception for small consignments, for which storage and destruction costs would be assumed by customs.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no implications for the EU budget.

Documents

Activities

AmendmentsDossier
240 2011/0137(COD)
2012/01/10 INTA 27 amendments...
source: PE-478.692
2012/01/18 JURI 14 amendments...
source: PE-478.671
2012/01/26 IMCO 199 amendments...
source: PE-480.583

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
rapporteur
name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: BOULLIER GALLO Marielle date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2011-06-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BOULLIER GALLO Marielle group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0597/COM_SEC(2011)0597_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0597/COM_SEC(2011)0597_EN.pdf
docs/7/body
EC
docs/8/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2013/0282/COM_COM(2013)0282_EN.pdf
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2013/0282/COM_COM(2013)0282_EN.pdf
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-46&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0046_EN.html
events/8/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-272
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0272_EN.html
events/12/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-185&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2013-0185_EN.html
events/14/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-241
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2013-0241_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=285 title: COM(2011)0285 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52011PC0285:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm title: Taxation and Customs Union Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2011-06-07T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
  • date: 2011-11-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3133 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3133*&MEET_DATE=05/12/2011 type: Debate in Council title: 3133 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2011-12-05T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2012-02-29T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
  • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-46&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A7-0046/2012 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle date: 2012-04-02T00:00:00
  • date: 2012-07-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120702&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2012-07-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21261&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-272 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0272/2012 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2013-03-11T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3231
  • date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=6353%2F13&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 06353/1/2013 body: CSL type: Council position published
  • date: 2013-05-23T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • date: 2013-05-30T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-185&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A7-0185/2013 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen date: 2013-05-31T00:00:00
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130610&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2013-06-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-241 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T7-0241/2013 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2013-06-29T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608 title: Regulation 2013/608 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2013:181:TOC title: OJ L 181 29.06.2013, p. 0015
commission
  • body: EC dg: Taxation and Customs Union commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
IMCO
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
committees/2
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
INTA
date
2011-07-13T00:00:00
committee_full
International Trade (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa
committees/3
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2011-06-20T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BOULLIER GALLO Marielle group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
JURI
date
2011-06-20T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3231 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3231*&MEET_DATE=11/03/2013 date: 2013-03-11T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) meeting_id: 3133 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3133*&MEET_DATE=05/12/2011 date: 2011-12-05T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0597/COM_SEC(2011)0597_EN.pdf title: SEC(2011)0597 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=597 title: EUR-Lex type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=SECfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=598 title: EUR-Lex title: SEC(2011)0598 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2011-10-12T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2011:363:TOC title: OJ C 363 13.12.2011, p. 0001 title: N7-0001/2012 summary: Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. The EDPS recalls that the proposal establishes the procedure through which right holders can apply to require the customs department of a Member State to take action in that Member State (‘national application’) or the customs departments of more than one Member State to take action in each and respective Member State (‘EU application’). The proposal also establishes the process through which the relevant customs departments take a decision on the application, the actions that the customs authorities (or offices) should consequently take (i.e. suspension of the release, detention or destruction of goods) and the connected rights and obligations. In this context, the processing of data provided by the draft regulation does not only cover the personal data of the holder of the right in the context of the transfer of applications and decisions from right holders to custom authorities, between the Member States and between Member States and the Commission. It also covers the consignor, consignee, the declarant or holder of the goods as well as other information related to the goods. The EDPS welcomes the specific reference in the proposal to the applicability of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to the personal data processing activities covered by the Regulation. He highlights the following points with a view to improving the text from a data protection perspective: Right of information of the data subject: whilst the Commission is empowered to adopt implementing acts, Article 6(3) already contains a list of required information to be provided by the applicant, including the applicant's personal data. In determining the essential content of the application, Article 6(3) should also require the customs authorities to provide to the applicant and any other potential data subject (e.g. consignor, consignee or holder of the goods) with the information pursuant to the national rules implementing Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC. In parallel, the application should also embody the similar information to be provided to the data subject for processing by the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (in view of the storing and processing operations in COPIS). The EDPS therefore recommends that Article 6(3) includes, in the list of information to be provided to the applicant, the information to be provided the data subject pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. In addition, the EDPS asks to be consulted when the Commission exercises its implementing power, in order to ensure that the new model (national or EU) application forms are ‘data protection compliant’. Time limit for the retention of personal data : the EDPS would like to stress that the application submitted by the right holder (and in particular, the personal data therein) should not be stored or retained by the national customs authorities and in the COPIS database beyond the date of expiry of the decision. He suggests inserting a provision in the proposalwhich imposes a limit to the retention of personal data linked to the duration of the period of validity of the decisions. Any extension of the duration of the retention date should be avoided or, if justified, should fulfil the principles of necessity and proportionality in relation to the purpose, which needs to be clarified. Including a provision in the proposal, which would be equally applicable throughout the Member States and to the Commission, would guarantee simplification, legal certainty and effectiveness, as it would avoid conflicting interpretations. Legal basis for establishment of COPIS: the legal basis for the creation of the COPIS database seems currently to be limited to the combined provisions of the new Articles 6(4) and 31. However, there is at this stage no further detailed legal provision adopted through the ordinary legislative procedure in which the purpose and characteristics of COPIS are determined. This is particularly worrying in the EDPS' view. Personal data of individuals (names, addresses and other contact details as well as related information on suspected offences) will be the object of an intense exchange between the Commission and Member States and will be stored for an undefined period of time within the database, yet there is no legal text on the basis of which an individual could verify the legality of such processing. Furthermore, the specific access rights and management rights in relation to the various processing operations are not explicitly clarified. The EDPS stresses that the legal basis for instruments which restrict the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, as recognised by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union and in the case law on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and which is recognised by Article 16 of the TFEU, must be laid down in a legal instrument based on the Treaties and that can be invoked before a judge. This is necessary in order to guarantee legal certainty for the data subject, who must be able to rely on clear rules and invoke them before a court. The EDPS therefore urges the Commission to clarify the legal basis of the COPIS database by introducing a more detailed provision in an instrument adopted according to the ordinary legislative procedure under the TFEU. Such a provision must comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and, where applicable, Directive 95/46/EC. In particular, the provision establishing the database involving the electronic exchange mechanism must: · identify the purpose of the processing operations and establish which are the compatible uses; · identify which entities (customs authorities, Commission) will have access to which data stored in the database and will have the possibility of modifying the data; · ensure the right of access and information for all the data subjects whose personal data may be stored and exchanged; · define and limit the retention period for the personal data to the minimum necessary for the performance of such purpose. Lastly, the EDPS stresses that the following elements of the database should be defined in the main legislative act: · the entity which will be controlling and managing the database · the entity in charge of ensuring the security of the processing of the data contained in the database. type: Document attached to the procedure body: EDPS
  • date: 2011-12-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE470.069 title: PE470.069 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2012-01-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE476.120&secondRef=02 title: PE476.120 committee: INTA type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2012-01-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE478.335&secondRef=02 title: PE478.335 committee: JURI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2012-01-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE480.583 title: PE480.583 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2012-09-19T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=21261&j=0&l=en title: SP(2012)627 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2013-05-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2013/0282/COM_COM(2013)0282_EN.pdf title: COM(2013)0282 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=282 title: EUR-Lex summary: The Commission can accept the amendments introduced by the Council to its proposal . It fully supports the agreement reached in the trilogue between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, as concluded on 19 December 2012. The main points of this agreement are as follows: to exclude parallel trade and overruns from the scope of the Regulation; to rule out provisions in the Regulation harmonising the right to be heard in favour of the persons concerned by the customs detention of goods. It is considered that national laws apply for granting the right to be heard; to clarify that customs authority may carry out customs controls and take identification measures provided for in the customs legislation to prevent operations in breach of intellectual property laws applicable in the territory of the Union, and in order to cooperate with third countries on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; to set out a common procedure for all kinds of IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation, without prejudice of the specific procedure for small consignments. Under such common procedure, goods may be destroyed without the need for the right-holder to initiate legal proceedings where he so requests, on condition that the declarant or holder of the goods, after being properly notified of the detention of the goods by the customs authorities, does not object to destruction; to establish that the procedure for small consignments only applies upon previous request from the applicant in that regard, and that the customs authorities have the possibility to require that the applicant covers the costs incurred by the application of this procedure; to set out the definition of small consignments in the Regulation, which empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts in respect of amending, under certain circumstances, the non-essential elements of that definition; to provide, in line with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a legal basis for the swift exchange of information between customs authorities in the EU and in third countries on such trade; to broaden and clarify the list of cases in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a customs detention of goods under the Regulation; to include provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods, exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection. type: Commission communication on Council's position body: EC
  • date: 2013-05-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE513.007 title: PE513.007 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=[%n4]%2F13&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 00027/2013/LEX type: Draft final act body: CSL
  • date: 2017-05-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2017/0233/COM_COM(2017)0233_EN.pdf title: COM(2017)0233 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2017&nu_doc=0233 title: EUR-Lex summary: The Commission presents a report on Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. Entering into application on 1 January 2014, the Regulation is a fundamental component of the EU system to enforce IPR at the border. Based on the latest available data from 2013, international trade in counterfeit products represents up to 2.5% of world trade, or as much as EUR 338 billion. The impact of counterfeiting is particularly high in the European Union, with counterfeit and pirated products amounting up to 5% of imports, or as much as EUR 85 billion. The report aims at reporting on the feedback gathered by the Commission on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 since 1 January 2014. As regards implementation by Member States, the report covers a three-year period from 1 January 2014 to December 2016. Legislative framework: the Regulation provides for a wide range of protection and procedures. The major new features introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 in relation to past regulations, are the following: · extension of the rights and infringements covered by customs actions; · the simplified procedure for destruction has become the mandatory standard procedure ; · the introduction of specific small consignment procedure , such consignments usually entering the Union through the postal service or via a commercial courier company; · the possibility of using the deemed agreement of the holder of the goods/declarant instead of his explicit agreement to destruction. Implementation by Member States: at this stage, the Commission considers that the implementation of Regulation No 608/2013 is functioning satisfactorily in the 28 Member States. However, it suggests that there is a need to reinforce the efforts made in certain areas such as: 1) the quality of the information contained in the applications for action, notably the Union applications for action: the administrative enforcement system for customs functions on the basis of the request right-holders have to lodge with customs authorities. Most Member State customs authorities consider that, on average, the applications for action they receive still lack the necessary quality information, which leads, in a low percentage of cases, to refusal of the decision granting the application. 2) the use of the standard procedure: this procedure is used in all Member States. In most Member States the procedure is used from the beginning to the end. In 2014, 69.12% of all cases were handled under the "standard procedure" (72.14% in 2015). The private sector considered, however, that the ten-day deadline for initiating proceedings is too short. Some suggest that the holder of the decision should be given the opportunity to initiate legal proceedings during a lapse of time, which should be calculated from the day of the customs notification of the objection to the destruction by the holder of the goods/declarant. The Commission considers that some Member States may need to update the way they implement the standard procedure, in order to fully adapt to the details of the procedure defined in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. These points will be followed up in the context of the measures provided in the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2013-2017 and in the follow-up exercise to the Customs 2020 Seminar on Application for Actions. Small consignments: small consignment functioning and handling remains a challenge as sales over internet are constantly increasing, notably sales of IPR infringing products. Work on this issue will be pursued in the working group on small consignment, whose activities will be resumed in 2017. Observations from the private sector: associations of right-holders and of express courier companies praise most of the novelties introduced by Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. However, associations have raised questions about the interpretation of certain points in the Regulation and noted a lack of common EU-wide implementation on certain issues , such as the information which is considered to be mandatory in an application for actions, the deadline for request a renewal of the customs decision granting the application for actions, and the way to implement the standard procedure. The concerns raised by the private sector will also be discussed with Member State customs authorities with a view to assessing if they are well established and if solutions could then be envisaged. The Commission concludes that, for the time being, there would be no justification for revising any provisions of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. type: Follow-up document body: EC
  • date: 2018-02-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0077/COM_COM(2018)0077_EN.pdf title: COM(2018)0077 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2018&nu_doc=0077 title: EUR-Lex type: Legislative proposal
  • date: 2011-11-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2011)0285 title: COM(2011)0285 type: Contribution body: PT_PARLIAMENT
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2011)0285 title: COM(2011)0285 type: Contribution body: RO_CHAMBER
events
  • date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0285/COM_COM(2011)0285_EN.doc title: COM(2011)0285 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=285 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE: to improve the legal framework regarding customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. BACKGROUND: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringements and the resulting trade in infringing goods are of growing concern, particularly in a globalised economy. In addition to the economic consequences for industry, the infringing products may pose serious health and safety risks to consumers. Certain instances of detentions by customs authorities of shipments of medicines in transit through the EU, which occurred at the end of 2008, which together with the concerns expressed during the WTO consultations between India and Brazil and the EU, have shown that the relevant EU legislation for intellectual property enforcement by customs authorities could benefit from further clarification to increase legal certainty. In its Communication on a Single Market Act , the Commission recalled that customs authorities should be able to provide greater protection for intellectual-property rights through revised legislation. The Commission developed a new customs action plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009-2012. The main elements of the Plan were endorsed by the Council. The review of Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 showed that certain improvements to the legal framework were necessary to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, as well as to ensure appropriate legal clarity, thereby taking into account developments in the economic, commercial and legal areas. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment report looked at three different options, with a number of sub-options. Option 1: ‘ baseline scenario’, where the Commission would take no action and the status quo was maintained. Option 2 : this provided for certain non-legislative measures, where the Commission would propose training initiatives and the development of guidelines and exchange of best practises; Option 3: the Commission proposes amendments to the existing legal framework. Under this option different sub-options could be available for each of the i problems: Sub-option 1 provided for the extension of the possible types of infringements to rights already covered by the current Regulation, for example, as regards goods involving any infringement of trade mark rights, not just counterfeiting. Sub-option 2 included sub-option 1 and extended the current scope of the Regulation in terms of IPR covered. The impact assessment concluded that the best suitable solution would be to amend the Regulation to respond to all the problems identified and to ensure a balanced outcome for all categories of persons affected. LEGAL BASIS: Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides powers to adopt measures for implementing the common commercial policy. The Regulation concerns the commercial aspects of intellectual property rights in that it deals with measures enabling customs to enforce intellectual property rights at the border on goods that are internationally traded. CONTENT: the draft Regulation sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision within the customs territory of the Union. The main points are as follows: Strengthening enforcement : it is proposed to broaden the scope covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, by including trade names, topographies of semiconductor products and utility models. It is also proposed to widen the scope of the Regulation by including infringements resulting from parallel trade and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs. The new Regulation would maintain the ability for customs to control for the purpose of enforcement of intellectual property rights, in all situations where the goods were under their supervision and the distinction between the procedural nature of the legislation and substantive law on intellectual property would be emphasised. Destruction of goods : the proposal also introduces procedures enabling customs, under certain conditions, to have goods abandoned for destruction without having to undergo formal and costly legal proceedings. These would be differentiated according to the type of infringement. for counterfeit and pirated goods, the agreement of the owner to destroy the goods could be presumed if the destruction had not been explicitly opposed, whereas for other situations, the owner of the goods would have to agree explicitly to their destruction; in a case where no agreement is reached, the right-holder would have to initiate legal proceedings to establish the infringement, otherwise the goods will be released. A specific procedure is also proposed for small consignments of suspected counterfeit and pirated goods covered by an application, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the involvement of the right- holder. Protection of the interests of legitimate traders : additional provisions are proposed to ensure the protection of the interests of legitimate traders from possible abuse of the customs enforcement procedures and to integrate the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Regulation. To this end, the proposal clarifies the timelines for detaining suspected goods, the conditions in which information about consignments would be passed on to right-holders by customs, the conditions for applying the procedure allowing for destruction of the goods under customs control for suspected infringements of intellectual property rights other than for counterfeiting and piracy, and the right of defence. Costs of storage and destruction of goods : the draft Regulation continues to provide that storage and destruction costs directly incurred by customs be assumed by the right-holders requesting customs action, though this would not preclude them from taking legal action to recover such costs from the primary liable party. However, it is proposed to introduce an important exception for small consignments, for which storage and destruction costs would be assumed by customs. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no implications for the EU budget.
  • date: 2011-06-07T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-11-17T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2011-12-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3133*&MEET_DATE=05/12/2011 title: 3133 summary: Ministers took note of the progress made on three files under examination by the Council preparatory bodies in the field of intellectual property: · a draft directive on the protection of orphan works ; · a draft regulation for entrusting the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market with certain tasks related to the protection of intellectual property ; and · a draft regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property right s.
  • date: 2012-02-29T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2012-04-02T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-46&language=EN title: A7-0046/2012 summary: The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted the report drafted by Jürgen CREUTZMANN (ADLE, DE) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. It recommends that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, should amend the Commission proposal as follows: Goods in transit : Members stipulate that this Regulation shall apply to goods in transit through the customs territory of the Union which are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right. Submission of applications : to avoid the filing of multiple applications for the same IPR and parallel submissions of national and Union applications, the persons entitled to submit an application shall only submit one application for each intellectual property right protected in a Member State or in the Union. In order to facilitate the traceability of parallel imports, right-holders and their representatives should provide the customs with all information relevant for the identification of genuine products such as marking and the authorised distributors. The undertaking by the applicant to agree that the data provided by him/her will be processed by the Commission has been deleted by the committee. The application shall contain the information that must be provided to the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the national laws implementing Directive 95/46/EC. Members call for computerised systems for the purpose of receiving and processing applications, applications shall be submitted using electronic data processing techniques. Member States shall make such systems available no later than 1 January 2014 . Processing of applications : where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period, the competent customs department may reject the application. In that event the competent customs department shall provide reasons for its decision and include information on the appeal procedure. Returning samples : the Commission proposal provides that the competent customs department may decide to suspend the actions of the customs authorities until the expiry of the period during which those authorities are to take action, where the holder of the decision does not comply with the requirements on returning samples. Member, however, propose deleting this possibility given that the returning of samples cannot always take place and the text is not precise on who judges if the circumstances allow the returning of samples or not. Suspension of the release of the goods or their detention : Members consider that the suspension of the release or detention of goods pending the decision from the rightholder is not a decision point. Therefore, they propose deleting the word "decision". The customs authorities may also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items , their nature and photographs of those items as appropriate. Where goods suspected to be an imitation or a copy of a product protected in the Union by an intellectual property right are placed under a suspensive procedure , the customs authorities shall request the declarant or holder of the goods to provide adequate evidence that the final destination of the goods is beyond the territory of the Union within three working days of dispatch of that request. Where no adequate evidence to the contrary is provided, customs authorities shall presume the final destination to be the territory of the Union. The additional obligation for customs authorities allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken would create a disproportionate administrative burden for customs authorities, potentially resulting in a decreased level of IPR protection. Therefore, Members propose deleting this obligation . Sharing of information and data between customs authorities : the report underlines that cooperation with third countries is essential for countering the proliferation of trade in IPR infringing goods. In order for this cooperation to be effective, EU customs authorities should be able to share information and data on IPR violations with their counterparts in third countries, under confidentiality, and provided stringent data protection safeguards are in place. Destruction of goods and initiation of proceedings : whilst welcoming the proposal from the Commission to make the implementation of the simplified procedure mandatory in all Member States, Members consider that this procedure should be applicable not only to counterfeit and pirated goods, but for all IPR infringements . In addition to confirming his/her agreement to destruction, the right holder should also confirm that an IPR has been infringed and indicate which IPR is concerned , based on the information he/she has received from the customs authorities. Only then, and provided the agreement of the declarant/holder of the goods, may be abandoned for destruction. In order to avoid problems linked to the sending of the notification, the deadline should be set with reference to the receipt of the notification, and not its dispatch. An amendment also states that where the declarant or holder of the goods within the periods set out in regulation has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction nor notified his/her opposition to destruction to the customs authorities that adopted the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction. Where there is no agreement to destruction or the declarant or the holder of the goods objects to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 20 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or their detention. Before the destruction of abandoned goods , the customs authorities may allow the goods to be moved under customs supervision between different places within the customs territory of the Union with a view to their destruction under customs control or their use for education and exhibition purposes accompanied by appropriate security measures. Specific procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments : the definition of the term "small consignment" constitutes an essential element of the proposed Regulation and should therefore be defined therein. The report proposes a definition based on the number of items (less than three) and their total weight (less than 2kg) contained in a single package. Members consider that the specific procedure for small consignments should apply to all IPR infringements in order to simplify its application and to improve the effectiveness of IPR protection. An "opt-in" by the right-holder should be required in order to apply this specific procedure to infringements covered by his/her application, because he/she will also have to pre-finance the costs of storage and destruction. The amended text stipulates that the goods concerned may be destroyed where the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Such destruction shall be carried out under customs control at the expense of the holder of the decision granting the application. Lastly, right holders should obtain access to information about the goods destroyed under this procedure, which they can use for their investigations. Costs : the holder of a decision shall, upon request, be given information by the customs authorities on where and how the detained goods are being stored and on the costs associated with such storage, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on that storage . If the consignee cannot be identified either , is not tangible or unable to pay, the right-holder should be able to seek compensation from intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders (physical holders of the goods), where they have failed to exercise due diligence in the handling of the consignment. Exchange of data on decisions relating to application for action between the Member States and the Commission : the Commission shall make the relevant information available to the customs authorities of the Member States in an electronic form as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 2015.
  • date: 2012-07-02T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120702&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2012-07-03T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21261&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2012-07-03T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-272 title: T7-0272/2012 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 397 votes to 259, with 26 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. The European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading, under the ordinary legislative procedure, amends the Commission proposal as follows: Goods in transit : Parliament stipulates that this Regulation shall apply to goods in transit through the customs territory of the Union which are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right. Submission of applications : to avoid the filing of multiple applications for the same IPR and parallel submissions of national and Union applications, the persons entitled to submit an application shall only submit one application for each intellectual property right protected in a Member State or in the Union. In order to facilitate the traceability of parallel imports, right-holders and their representatives should provide the customs with all information relevant for the identification of genuine products such as marking and the authorised distributors. The undertaking by the applicant to agree that the data provided by him/her will be processed by the Commission has been deleted. The application shall contain the information that must be provided to the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and the national laws implementing Directive 95/46/EC. Members call for computerised systems for the purpose of receiving and processing applications, applications shall be submitted using electronic data processing techniques. Member States shall make such systems available no later than 1 January 2014 . Processing of applications : where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period, the competent customs department may reject the application. In that event the competent customs department shall provide reasons for its decision and include information on the appeal procedure. Returning samples : the Commission proposal provides that the competent customs department may decide to suspend the actions of the customs authorities until the expiry of the period during which those authorities are to take action, where the holder of the decision does not comply with the requirements on returning samples. Member, however, propose deleting this possibility given that the returning of samples cannot always take place and the text is not precise on who judges if the circumstances allow the returning of samples or not. Suspension of the release of the goods or their detention : Members consider that the suspension of the release or detention of goods pending the decision from the rightholder is not a decision point. Therefore, they propose deleting the word "decision". The customs authorities may also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items , their nature and photographs of those items as appropriate. Where goods suspected to be an imitation or a copy of a product protected in the Union by an intellectual property right are placed under a suspensive procedure , the customs authorities shall request the declarant or holder of the goods to provide adequate evidence that the final destination of the goods is beyond the territory of the Union within three working days of dispatch of that request. Where no adequate evidence to the contrary is provided, customs authorities shall presume the final destination to be the territory of the Union. The additional obligation for customs authorities allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken would create a disproportionate administrative burden for customs authorities, potentially resulting in a decreased level of IPR protection. Therefore, Members propose deleting this obligation . Sharing of information and data between customs authorities : the resolution underlines that cooperation with third countries is essential for countering the proliferation of trade in IPR infringing goods. In order for this cooperation to be effective, EU customs authorities should be able to share information and data on IPR violations with their counterparts in third countries, under confidentiality, and provided stringent data protection safeguards are in place. Destruction of goods and initiation of proceedings : whilst welcoming the proposal from the Commission to make the implementation of the simplified procedure mandatory in all Member States, Members consider that this procedure should be applicable not only to counterfeit and pirated goods, but for all IPR infringements . In addition to confirming his/her agreement to destruction, the right holder should also confirm that an IPR has been infringed and indicate which IPR is concerned , based on the information he/she has received from the customs authorities. Only then, and provided the agreement of the declarant/holder of the goods, may be abandoned for destruction. In order to avoid problems linked to the sending of the notification, the deadline should be set with reference to the receipt of the notification, and not its dispatch. An amendment also states that where the declarant or holder of the goods within the periods set out in regulation has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction nor notified his/her opposition to destruction to the customs authorities that adopted the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction. Where there is no agreement to destruction or the declarant or the holder of the goods objects to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 20 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or their detention. Before the destruction of abandoned goods , the customs authorities may allow the goods to be moved under customs supervision between different places within the customs territory of the Union with a view to their destruction under customs control or their use for education and exhibition purposes accompanied by appropriate security measures. Specific procedure for the destruction of goods in small consignments : the definition of the term "small consignment" constitutes an essential element of the proposed Regulation and should therefore be defined therein. The resolution proposes a definition based on the number of items (less than three) and their total weight (less than 2kg) contained in a single package. Members consider that the specific procedure for small consignments should apply to all IPR infringements in order to simplify its application and to improve the effectiveness of IPR protection. An "opt-in" by the right-holder should be required in order to apply this specific procedure to infringements covered by his/her application, because he/she will also have to pre-finance the costs of storage and destruction. The amended text stipulates that the goods concerned may be destroyed where the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Such destruction shall be carried out under customs control at the expense of the holder of the decision granting the application. Lastly, right holders should obtain access to information about the goods destroyed under this procedure, which they can use for their investigations. Costs : the holder of a decision shall, upon request, be given information by the customs authorities on where and how the detained goods are being stored and on the costs associated with such storage, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on that storage . If the consignee cannot be identified either , is not tangible or unable to pay, the right-holder should be able to seek compensation from intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders (physical holders of the goods), where they have failed to exercise due diligence in the handling of the consignment. Exchange of data on decisions relating to application for action between the Member States and the Commission : the Commission shall make the relevant information available to the customs authorities of the Member States in an electronic form as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 2015. Entry into force and report : by three years after the entry into force of the this Regulation, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation, as well as an analysis of this Regulation's impact on the availability of generic medicines, in the Union as well as globally. If necessary, that report shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals and/or recommendations.
  • date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00 type: Council position published body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=6353%2F13&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 06353/1/2013 summary: The Council unanimously adopted its 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. The European Parliament delivered its opinion on 3 July 2012, amending the proposal with 108 amendments . The Council, in its position at first reading, shares the proposal's overall objective with regard to the need to strengthen the enforcement by customs of intellectual property rights. However, it takes the view that: i. the scope of the Regulation should not be extended to parallel trade and overruns; ii. the right to be heard should be granted in accordance with national law, and in addition introduces a number of technical changes to the proposal. The main points of the common position which differ from the Commission's proposal concern: the customs controls and identification measures that customs authorities may carry out to prevent operations in breach of intellectual property laws applicable in the territory of the Union, and in order to cooperate with third countries on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; the common procedure to apply to all IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation, without prejudice to the specific procedure for small consignments; the procedure for small consignments , which only applies upon request from the applicant, and the costs of which the applicant may be requested to cover; the definition of small consignments in the Regulation (as requested by the Parliament), with regard to which the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in view of amending, under certain circumstances, its non-essential elements; the necessary legal basis, in line with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), for the swift exchange of information between customs authorities in the EU and in third countries . Implementing powers are conferred on the Commission to define the elements of the practical arrangements for the exchange of data with third countries; the situations in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a detention of goods; the provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods, exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection.
  • date: 2013-05-23T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-05-30T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading body: EP
  • date: 2013-05-31T00:00:00 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-185&language=EN title: A7-0185/2013 summary: The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted a recommendation for second reading contained in the report by Jürgen CREUTZMANN (ADLE, DE) 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. The committee recommends that the European Parliament approves, unamended, the Council position at first reading.
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130610&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2013-06-11T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-241 title: T7-0241/2013 summary: The European Parliament approved, at second reading of the ordinary legislative procedure, 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. The act is adopted in accordance with the Council position.
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 type: Final act signed body: CSL
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2013-06-29T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal summary: PURPOSE: to improve the legal framework regarding customs enforcement of intellectual property rights. LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. CONTENT: t he new Regulation shall replace existing Regulation No 1383/2003. It sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision or customs control within the customs territory of the Union. More specifically, the Regulation: expands the range of IPR infringements covered and maintains the competence of customs authorities to control all goods under customs supervision irrespective of their customs treatment. This Regulation shall not apply to goods of a non- commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage. Infringements resulting from so-called illegal parallel trade and overruns are excluded from the scope of Regulation; it ensures that high quality information is provided to customs to enable a good analysis and assessment of the risk of infringement of IPR; sets out the legal basis for a central database for recording applications for customs action and detentions as well as exchange of information between customs authorities (COPIS). With a view to reducing the administrative burden, the Regulation : sets out a common procedure for all kinds of IPR infringements falling within the scope of the Regulation. Under such common procedure, goods may be destroyed without the need for the right-holder to initiate legal proceedings where he so requests, on condition that the declarant or holder of the goods, after being properly notified of the detention of the goods by the customs authorities, does not object to destruction; establishes that the procedure for small consignments only applies upon previous request from the applicant in that regard, and that the customs authorities have the possibility to require that the applicant covers the costs incurred by the application of this procedure. A small consignment shall mean a postal or express courier consignment, which: (a) contains three units or less; or (b) has a gross weight of less than two kilograms. In addition, the new Regulation: stipulates that national laws shall apply for granting the right to be heard in favour of the persons concerned by the customs detention of goods; broadens and clarifies the list of cases in which the right-holder may use the information that customs disclosed to him following a customs detention of goods under the Regulation; includes provisions in the basic act on data collection, processing, retention periods , exercise of rights and responsibilities in accordance with existing legislation on data protection. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 19/07/2013. APPLICATION: from 01/01/2014, with the exception of certain measures. DELEGATED ACTS: the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts concerning the term small consignments. The power to adopt delegated acts shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 19 July 2013 . A delegated act shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification (this delay may be extended by two months). If the European Parliament or the Council object, the delegated act shall not enter into force. docs: title: Regulation 2013/608 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608 title: OJ L 181 29.06.2013, p. 0015 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2013:181:TOC
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm title: Taxation and Customs Union commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
IMCO/7/12006
New
  • IMCO/7/12006
procedure/final/url
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.10.01 Customs union, tax and duty-free, Community transit
  • 3.50.15 Intellectual property, copyright
  • 3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
  • 6.20.01 Agreements and relations in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
  • 6.20.02 Export/import control, trade defence
New
2.10.01
Customs union, tax and duty-free, Community transit
3.50.15
Intellectual property, copyright
3.50.16
Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
6.20.01
Agreements and relations in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
6.20.02
Export/import control, trade defence, trade barriers
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52011PC0285:EN
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52011PC0285:EN
links/European Commission/title
Old
PreLex
New
EUR-Lex
procedure/subject/0
Old
2.10.01 Customs Union, tax and duty-free, Community transit
New
2.10.01 Customs union, tax and duty-free, Community transit
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/4/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/5/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/10/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/11/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/12/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities
  • date: 2011-05-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=285 celexid: CELEX:52011PC0285:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(2011)0285 body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm title: Taxation and Customs Union Commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2011-06-07T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
  • date: 2011-11-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3133 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3133*&MEET_DATE=05/12/2011 type: Debate in Council title: 3133 council: Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) date: 2011-12-05T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2012-02-29T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
  • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-46&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A7-0046/2012 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle date: 2012-04-02T00:00:00
  • date: 2012-07-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20120702&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2012-07-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=21261&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-272 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0272/2012 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2013-03-11T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3231
  • date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=6353%2F13&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC type: Council position published title: 06353/1/2013 body: CSL type: Council position published
  • date: 2013-05-23T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • date: 2013-05-30T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-185&language=EN type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading title: A7-0185/2013 type: Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen date: 2013-05-31T00:00:00
  • date: 2013-06-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20130610&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2013-06-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-241 type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading title: T7-0241/2013 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 body: CSL type: Final act signed
  • date: 2013-06-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
  • date: 2013-06-29T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608 title: Regulation 2013/608 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2013:181:TOC title: OJ L 181 29.06.2013, p. 0015
committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle group: S&D name: HEDH Anna group: Verts/ALE name: ENGSTRÖM Christian group: ECR name: MCCLARKIN Emma group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis group: EFD name: SALVINI Matteo responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: IMCO date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: CREUTZMANN Jürgen
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2011-06-20T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: PPE name: GALLO Marielle
links
National parliaments
European Commission
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm title: Taxation and Customs Union commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
IMCO/7/12006
reference
2011/0137(COD)
instrument
Regulation
legal_basis
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 207
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Legislation
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
title
Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights
type
COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
final
subject