2011/0137(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Changes: 2023/08/03events.docs, events, docs.docs.url, committees.associated, committees, docs, links.National_parliaments.url, events.date, 2021/12/18events.docs, procedure.Modified_legal_basis, events, docs.docs.url, events.docs.url, docs, events.type, procedure.Other_legal_basis, committees.shadows, 2020/01/19docs.body, committees, events.docs.url, docs.docs.url, 2019/07/06council, procedure.Modified_legal_basis, events, procedure.dossier_of_the_committee, activities, committees, procedure.subject, docs, other, commission, procedure.final.url

View current state | View Changes for this date

Procedure completed

2011/0137(COD) Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Lead	IMCO	CREUTZMANN Jürgen (ALDE)	GALLO Marielle (PPE), HEDH Anna (S&D), ENGSTRÖM Christian (Verts/ALE), MCCLARKIN Emma (ECR), DE JONG Dennis (GUE/NGL), SALVINI Matteo (EFD)
Lead	IMCO	CREUTZMANN Jürgen (ALDE)
Opinion	INTA	ANDRÉS BAREA Josefa (S&D)
Opinion	JURI	GALLO Marielle (PPE)

Lead committee dossier: IMCO/7/12006
Legal Basis TFEU 207

Subjects

Links

Activites

2013/06/29 Final act published in Official Journal
- Regulation 2013/608
- OJ L 181 29.06.2013, p. 0015
2013/06/12 Final act signed
2013/06/12 End of procedure in Parliament
2013/06/11 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
- 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.
2013/06/10 Debate in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament
2013/05/31 Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading
- 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.
2013/05/30 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
2013/05/23 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
2013/05/16 Council position published
- 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.
#3231
2013/03/11 Council Meeting
2012/07/03 Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
- 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.
2012/07/02 Debate in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament
2012/04/02 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
- 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.
2012/02/29 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
#3133
2011/12/05 Council Meeting
- 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 rights.
2011/11/17 Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2011/06/07 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2011/05/24 Legislative proposal published
- COM(2011)0285 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.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Taxation and Customs Union'}, ŠEMETA Algirdas

Documents

Legislative proposal published: COM(2011)0285
Debate in Council: 3133
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0046/2012
Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0272/2012
Council position published: 06353/1/2013
Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A7-0185/2013
Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T7-0241/2013
: Regulation 2013/608
: OJ L 181 29.06.2013, p. 0015

Amendments	Dossier
240	2011/0137(COD) 2012/01/10 INTA 27 amendments... Amendment 10 # Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The marketing of goods infringing intellectual property rights does considerable damage to right-holders, law- abiding manufacturers and traders. It is also deceiving consumers, and could in some cases endanger their health and safety. Such goods should, in so far as is possible, be kept off the market and measures should be adopted to deal with this unlawful activity without impeding legitimate trade. For this reason, consumers need to be well informed about the risks involved in purchasing these products. Amendment 11 # Marietje SCHAAKE Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to ~~other types of infringements, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other~~ infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For the same purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive intellectual property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, and utility models ~~and devices to circumvent technological measures~~, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation. Amendment 12 # Marietje SCHAAKE Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) ~~Where goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights are not counterfeit or pirated goods, i~~It may be difficult to determine upon mere visual examination by customs authorities whether an intellectual property right might be infringed. It is therefore appropriate to provide that proceedings should be initiated, unless the parties concerned, namely the holder of the goods and the right-holder, agree to abandon the goods for destruction. It should be for the competent authorities dealing with such proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed and to take appropriate decisions concerning the infringements of intellectual property rights concerned. Amendment 13 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervisionfive working days. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, that period should be significantly extended. Amendment 14 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should~~, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union~~ ensure that any measures taken by them are in line with the EU's international commitments and do not prevent access to medicines. Amendment 15 # Jan ZAHRADIL Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) In line with the Union's goal of strengthening international cooperation in the fight against counterfeiting, piracy and illicit parallel trade in goods infringing on the intellectual property of registered right-holders, the new European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy has a key role to play by providing all customs authorities of Member States with relevant and timely information to conduct appropriate controls of authorised importers and distributors thereof in the Single market as well as exporters thereof to foreign markets. This role could be further enhanced by the creation of a database of genuine Union products and services protected by registered trademarks, designs and patents and which could also be made available to foreign customs authorities cooperating with the Union on better intellectual property rights protection and enforcement; Amendment 16 # Daniel CASPARY Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) Transit through the customs territory of the Union and possible diversion onto the internal market of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, and in particular of counterfeit goods, entail not only considerable losses for legitimate Union businesses but also health and safety risks for consumers. Customs authorities should therefore be empowered to inspect and detain any suspected goods by way of precaution. In order to assess the substantial likelihood of such diversion, customs authorities should take into account circumstances such as an offer for sale or advertising of the goods directed at Union consumers, a lack of information on the manufacturer or consignor of the goods or a lack of information on their destination or consignee. Where the diversion onto the internal market of a counterfeit product nevertheless cannot be ruled out, customs authorities should also be empowered to detain the product concerned where it poses clear health and safety risks for consumers. Amendment 17 # Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) Transit through Union customs and possible distribution on the internal market of goods suspected of being imitations of products protected in the Union by a trademark, or copies of products protected in the Union by copyright, related right or design, entail both considerable losses for legitimate Union businesses and health and safety risks for citizens. Customs authorities should therefore be empowered to inspect and detain any suspected goods by way of precaution where their distribution on the internal market is assumed. Amendment 18 # Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 b (new) (17b) Evidence that the intention is to place these goods on sale in the Union should be considered to exist where they have been sold to a client in the Union or offered for sale or advertised for sale to Union consumers, or where documents or correspondence show that they are to be distributed on the Union's internal market. Where the destination of the goods is not declared, even though such a declaration is required, or in cases where there is a lack of precision or relevant information in order to identify the producer or distributor of the products, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or where documents are discovered showing that they are intended for distribution on the internal market, it should be for the declarant or holder of the goods in question to prove that their intention is not to sell those goods in the Union. Amendment 19 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point e ~~(e) a patent as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 20 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point f ~~(f) a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted Amendment 21 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point g ~~(g) a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted Amendment 22 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point h ~~(h) a Community plant variety right as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94;~~deleted Amendment 23 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point i ~~(i) a plant variety right as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 24 # Marietje SCHAAKE Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) ~~goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right under~~counterfeit goods and pirated goods according to the law of the Union or of that Member State; Amendment 25 # Daniel CASPARY Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right under the law of the Union or of that Member State or where it cannot be ruled out that they are the subject of such an action, and which at the same time pose a clear threat to the health or safety of consumers; Amendment 26 # Marietje SCHAAKE Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point b (b) ~~devices, products or components which circumvent any technology,~~ device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, prevents or restricts acts in respect of works which are not authorised by the right-holder of any copyright or right related to copyright and which infringe an intellectual property right under the law of that Member state; Amendment 27 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. The application and all information relevant to the identification of the goods by customs authorities as well as for the analysis and assessment of the risk of infringement of the intellectual property right(s) concerned, as defined in points (g), (h) and (i) of paragraph 3, shall be made publicly accessible through a website. Amendment 28 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 3. Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the application shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs authorities that granted the decision. Amendment 29 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the extension shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs authorities that granted the decision. Amendment 30 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 3. Once the central database of the Commission referred to in Article 31(3) is in place, all exchanges of data on decisions concerning applications for action, accompanying documents and notifications between the customs authorities of the Member States shall be made publicly available via that database. Amendment 31 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – introductory wording The holder of the decision granting the application shall notify within five working days the competent customs department that adopted that decision of any of the following: Amendment 32 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the goods, the customs authorities shall, communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days ,of dispatch of that communication. Amendment 33 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days of dispatch of that communication. Amendment 34 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where the customs authorities have been notified of the initiation of proceedings to determine whether a design~~, patent,~~ or utility model ~~or plant variety~~ right has been infringed and the period provided for in Article 20 has expired, the declarant or holder of the goods may request the customs authorities to release the goods or put an end to their detention. Amendment 35 # Marietje SCHAAKE Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 8 8. Where the declarant or holder of the goods objects to the destruction of the goods, the customs authorities shall inform the holder of the decision granting the application of such objection and of the number of items and their nature, including images of those items where appropriate. When the declarant or holder of the goods initiates legal proceedings to determine whether the goods infringe an intellectual property right, the goods may not be destroyed within the period referred to in paragraph 5. If a court establishes that the goods do not infringe an intellectual property right, the declarant or holder of the goods can recover his legal costs from the customs authority or party who ordered the destruction of the goods. Amendment 36 # Carl SCHLYTER Proposal for a regulation Article 28 a (new) Article 28a Penalties on applicants Applicants who repeatedly submit applications concerning the alleged intellectual property rights violations that prove to be false in the majority of cases over a period of two years shall lose the right to submit applications for a fixed period and may face penalties. source: PE-478.692 2012/01/18 JURI 14 amendments... Amendment 30 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) The customs authorities should be able to control goods, which are or should have been subject to customs supervision in the customs territory of the Union, with a view to enforcing intellectual property rights. Enforcing intellectual property rights at the border, wherever the goods are, or should have been, under ‘customs supervision’ as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, makes good use of resources. Where goods are detained by customs at the border, one legal proceeding is required, whereas several separate proceedings would be required for the same level of enforcement for goods found on the market, which have been disaggregated and delivered to retailers. An exception should be made for goods released for free circulation under the end- use regime, as such goods remain under customs supervision, even though they have been released for free circulation. It is also ~~appropriate~~essential not to apply the Regulation to goods carried by passengers in their personal luggage as long as thesre ~~goods are for their own personal use and there are no indication~~are no indications on the basis of the applicable legal procedures that a commercial ~~traffic~~purpose is involved. Amendment 31 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to other types of infringements~~, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but~~ not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For th~~e same~~is purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models and ~~devices~~particular devices designed to circumvent technological protection measures (TPMs), as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation. Amendment 32 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to ensure the swift enforcement of intellectual property rights, it should be provided that, where the customs authorities suspect, on the basis of adequate ~~evidence~~indications resulting from the applicable legal procedures, that goods under their supervision infringe intellectual property rights, those customs authorities may suspend the release or detain the goods whether at their own initiative or upon application, in order to enable the persons entitled to submit an application for action of the customs authorities to initiate proceedings for determining whether an intellectual property right has been infringed. Amendment 33 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) In order to reduce to the minimum the administrative burden and costs, without prejudice to the end-consumer's right to be duly informed within a reasonable time of the legal basis for the actions taken by the customs authorities, a specific procedure should be introduced for small consignments of counterfeit and pirated goods, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the right-holder. In order to establish the thresholds under which consignments are to be considered as small consignments, this Regulation should delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is of importance that the Commission carries out appropriate and public consultations during its preparatory work, including with consumer and civil rights organisations and at expert level. Amendment 34 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested theIn the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs ~~author~~formalities, to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment ofhe right to be duly informed within a reasonable time of the legal basis for the actions taken by the customs authorities, as well as the right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken by the customs ~~formal~~authorities, ~~that period should be significantly extend~~should be established. Amendment 35 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point e ~~(e) a patent as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 36 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 6 (6) ‘pirated goods’ means goods ~~which are subject of an action infringing a copyright or related right or~~acquired by acts of piracy as design and which are or contain copies made without the consent of the holder of a copyright or related right or a design, regardless of whether it is registered, or of a person authorised by that holder in the country of productionfined by Article 101 et seq. of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; Amendment 37 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – introductory wording (7) ‘goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right’ means goods with regard to which there isare adequate ~~evidence~~indications on the basis of the applicable legal procedures to satisfy customs authorities that, in the Member State where these goods are found, are prima facie: Amendment 38 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point b (b) particular devices, products or components ~~which~~designed to circumvent technological protection measures (TPMs) in any technology, device or component ~~that,~~, and which in the normal course of ~~its~~their operation, p~~revents or restricts~~erform acts in respect of works ~~which are not authorised by the right-holder of an~~protected by copyright or rights related to copyright ~~and~~ which infringe an intellectual property right under the law of that Member sState; Amendment 39 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) intellectual property collective rights management bodies which are ~~regularly recognised as having a right to~~lawfully representing holders of copyrights or related rights; Amendment 40 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c (c) professional defence bodies which are ~~regularly recognised as having a right to~~lawfully representing holders of intellectual property rights; Amendment 41 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 12 Amending the decision with regard to intellectual property rights The competent customs department that adopted the decision granting the application may, at the request of the holder of that decision, modify the list of intellectual property rights in that decision. In the case of a decision granting a Union application, any modification consisting in adding intellectual property rights shall be limited to those intellectual property rights covered by Article 5.rticle 12 deleted Amendment 42 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. When adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, in the case of small consignments, the customs authorities shall within a reasonable time duly inform the end- consumer of the legal basis for the actions taken by them. Amendment 43 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. When adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, in the case of small consignments, the customs authorities shall within a reasonable time duly inform the end- consumer of the legal basis for the actions taken by them. source: PE-478.671 2012/01/26 IMCO 199 amendments... Amendment 100 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) In determining the risk of diversion onto the market of the Union of goods in transit, which the rights holder has identified as counterfeit or infringing intellectual property rights, the declarant, holder or owner of the goods should bear the burden of proving the final destination of the goods. The final destination of the goods should be presumed to be the market of the Union in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary provided by the declarant, holder or owner of the goods. Amendment 101 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) In order to step up action against infringements of intellectual property rights, the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy should play an important role in providing customs authorities with useful information enabling them to act quickly and effectively. Amendment 102 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 a (new) (17a) With regard to dangerous products, and in particular falsified medicines as defined in Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products1, the Union customs authorities should draw on other provisions of Union law, and in particular on the measures provided for in Directive 2011/62/EU. By ..., the Commission should analyse the effectiveness of current customs measures aimed at combating trade in falsified medicines and to propose, if necessary, legislative changes. _______________ 1 OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 74. OJ: please insert the date: 18 months after the adoption of this Regulation. Amendment 103 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 b (new) (17b) Medicines that bear a false trademark or trade description misrepresent their origin and quality level and thus are falsified medicines under Directive 2011/62/EU. Adequate measures should be taken to prevent such products and other health products bearing a false trademark or trade description from reaching patients and consumers in the Union. By ...* the Commission should present a report highlighting the measures it intends to take under Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products1. ______________ 1 OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 74. OJ: please insert the date: 24 months after the date of the adoption of this Regulation. Amendment 104 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 (20) Given that customs authorities take action upon prior application, it is appropriate to provide that the holder of the decision granting an application for action by the customs authorities should reimburse all the costs incurred by the customs authorities in taking action to enforce his/her intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, ~~this should not preclude~~ the holder of the decision ~~from~~should have the right to seek~~ing~~ compensation from the infringer or other persons that might be considered liable according to the legislation of the Member State concerned, for example certain intermediaries such as carriers. Costs and damages incurred by persons other than customs administrations as a result of a customs action, where the goods are detained on the basis of a claim of a third party based on intellectual property, should be governed by the specific legislation in each particular case. Amendment 105 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 (20) Given that customs authorities take action upon prior application, it is appropriate to provide that the holder of the decision granting an application for action by the customs authorities should reimburse all the costs incurred by the customs authorities in taking action to enforce his/her intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, this should not preclude the holder of the decision from seeking compensation from the infringer or other persons, including intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders, that might be considered liable according to the legislation of the Member State concerned. Costs and damages incurred by persons other than customs administrations as a result of a customs action, where the goods are detained on the basis of a claim of a third party based on intellectual property, should be governed by the specific legislation in each particular case. Amendment 106 # Anja WEISGERBER Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 (20) Given that customs authorities take action upon prior application, it is appropriate to provide that the holder of the decision granting an application for action by the customs authorities should reimburse all the costs incurred by the customs authorities in taking action to enforce his/her intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, this should not preclude the holder of the decision from seeking compensation from the infringer or other persons that might be considered liable according to the legislation of the Member State concerned. However, haulage firms should, under certain circumstances, be made directly liable for all reasonable costs incurred by the customs authorities and rights holders when enforcing intellectual property rights. Costs and damages incurred by persons other than customs administrations as a result of a customs action, where the goods are detained on the basis of a claim of a third party based on intellectual property, should be governed by the specific legislation in each particular case. Amendment 107 # Gianluca SUSTA, Pier Antonio PANZERI Proposal for a regulation Recital 20 a (new) (20a) The Member States should establish a system of effective, proportionate, dissuasive and harmonised sanctions in order to ensure that more coherent and better coordinated action is taken to prevent and punish intellectual property right infringements and that EU consumers are properly protected. Amendment 108 # Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 a (new) (21a) The following elements of the database should be defined in Union legislation: the entity which will be controlling and managing the database and the entity in charge of ensuring the security of the processing of the data contained in the database. Introducing any type of possible interoperability or exchange should first and foremost comply with the purpose limitation principle, namely that data should be used for the purpose for which the database has been established, and no further exchange or interconnection should be allowed outside this purpose. Amendment 109 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new) (23a) Member States face increasingly limited resources in the field of customs. Therefore, any new regulation should not result in additional financial burdens for national authorities. The promotion of new risk management technologies and strategies to maximise resources available to national authorities should be supported, Amendment 110 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 1. This Regulation sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods suspected of infringing anthe specific intellectual property rights defined in Article 2 are, or should have been, subject to customs supervision within the customs territory of the Union. Amendment 111 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. This Regulation shall not apply to goods-in-transit, meaning products passing across the territory of the Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, for which transit through the Union is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union. Amendment 112 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 4 4. This Regulation shall not apply to goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage unless there are material indications to suggest that the goods are part of commercial traffic. Amendment 113 # Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 4 4. This Regulation shall not apply to ~~goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage~~a traveller's personal baggage when this contains goods of a non-commercial nature within the limit of the duty-free allowance and when there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic. Amendment 114 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point e ~~(e) a patent as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 115 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point f ~~(f) a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted Amendment 116 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point g ~~(g) a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted Amendment 117 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point h ~~(h) a Community plant variety right as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94;~~deleted Amendment 118 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point i ~~(i) a plant variety right as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 119 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point j ~~(j) a topography of semiconductor product as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 120 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point k ~~(k) a utility model as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 121 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point k (k) a utility model ~~as provided for~~insofar as it is protected as an exclusive intellectual property right by the legislation of a Member State;, Amendment 122 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point l ~~(l) a trade name in so far as it is protected as an exclusive intellectual property right by legislation of a Member State;~~deleted Amendment 123 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point m ~~(m) any other right that is established as an exclusive intellectual property right by Union legislation;~~deleted Amendment 124 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 1 – point m ~~(m) any other right that is established as an exclusive intellectual property right by Union legislation;~~deleted Amendment 125 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 3 – point b (b) a design registered in a Member State or by a multi-state body, such as the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property; Amendment 126 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point a (a) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing a trade mark and which bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark; Amendment 127 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point a (a) goods which arhave been the subject of a~~n action infringing a trade mark~~ trade mark infringement in the Member State where the goods are found and bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark; Amendment 128 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point 5.1 – introductory part ~~5.1~~ goods, including their packaging or wrapping, which are subject of an action infringing a trade mark and bear without authorisation a ~~trade mark~~sign identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods for which the said trade mark is registered, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark; Amendment 129 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point a (a) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing a trade mark and which bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark; Amendment 130 # Anja WEISGERBER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point a (a) gGoods, including packaging, which are subject of an action infringing a trade mark and bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark and therefore infringes the holder’s rights under the national law of the importing state; Amendment 131 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point a (a) any goods ~~which are subject of an action infringing a trade mark and~~, including packaging, bearing without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark, and which thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question in the country of import; Amendment 132 # Bernadette VERGNAUD Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point 5.1 5.1 goods, to include their wrapping, any other trade mark sign (logo, label, sticker, brochure, operating instructions, warranty document bearing the sign in question) even if presented separately, and their packaging which are the subject of an action infringing a trade mark and bear without authorisation a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark; Amendment 133 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point 5.1 a (new) 5.1a. any packaging, label, sticker, brochure, operating instructions, warranty document or other similar item, even if presented separately, which is the subject of an action infringing a trade mark and which includes a sign identical to a validly registered trade mark, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trade mark, for a use for the same type of goods as that for which the trade mark has been registered; Amendment 134 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point b (b) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing a geographical indication and bear or are described by a name or term protected in respect of that geographical indication; Amendment 135 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point b (b) goods which arhave been the subject of a~~n action infringing a~~ geographical indication infringement in the Member State where the goods are found and bear or are described by a name or term protected in respect of that geographical indication; Amendment 136 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 5 – point b (b) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing a geographical indication and bear or are described by a name or term protected in respect of that geographical indication; Amendment 137 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 6 6. ‘pirated goods’ means goods which arhave been the subject of an ~~action~~ infring~~ing a~~ement of copyright or related right or a design in the Member State where the goods are found and which are or contain copies made without the consent of the holder of a copyright or related right or a design, regardless of whether it is registered, or of a person authorised by that holder in the country of production;. Amendment 138 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 6 (6) ‘pirated copyright goods’ means any goods which are subject of an action infringing a copyright or related right or a design and which are or contain copies made without the consent of the holder of a copyright or related right or a design, regardless of whether it is registered, or of a person authorised by that holder incopies made without the consent of the right holder in the country of production and which are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or related right under the law of the country of ~~produc~~importation; Amendment 139 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – introductory part (7) ‘goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right’ means goods with regard to which there is ~~adequate evidence~~reasonable grounds to satisfy customs authorities that, in the Member State where these goods are found, are prima facie: Amendment 140 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – introductory part 7. ‘"goods ~~suspected of~~ infringing an intellectual property right’" means goods with regard to which there ~~is adequate evidence~~are sufficient reasons to satisfy customs authorities that, in the Member State where these goods are found, are prima facie: Amendment 141 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – introductory part (7) ‘goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right’ means goods with regard to which there isare adequate ~~evidence~~indications on the basis of the applicable legal procedures to satisfy customs authorities that, in the Member State where these goods are found, are prima facie: Amendment 142 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing an intellectual property right under the law of the Union or of that Member State; Amendment 143 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right ~~under the law of the Union or of that Member State~~in the Member State where the goods are found; Amendment 144 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) goods ~~which are subject of an action~~ infringing an intellectual property right under the law of the Union or of that Member State, or of the countries of origin or destination of the goods; Amendment 145 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point a (a) ~~goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right~~counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods which are subject of an action under the law of the Union or of that Member State; Amendment 146 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point b (b) particular devices, products or components ~~which~~designed to circumvent technological protection measures (TPMs) in any technology, device or component that, and which in the normal course of ~~its~~their operation, p~~revents or restricts~~erform acts in respect of works ~~which are not authorised by the right-holder of an~~protected by copyright or rights related to copyright ~~and~~ which infringe an intellectual property right under the law of that Member state; Amendment 147 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 – point c (c) any mould or matrix which is specifically designed or adapted for the manufacture of goods infringing an intellectual property right, if such moulds or matrices infringe the right-holder's rights ~~under Union law or the law of that Member State~~in the Member State where the goods are found; Amendment 148 # Małgorzata HANDZLIK Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 7 a (new) 7a. ‘small consignment’ means an individual package weighing up to two kilograms or containing no more than five items; Amendment 149 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 12 (12) ‘holder of the goods’ means the person who is the owner of the goods or who has a similar right of disposal over ~~them or who has physical control over~~ them; Amendment 150 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 12 (12) ‘holder of the goods’ means the person who is the owner of the goods or who has a similar right of disposal over ~~them or who has physical control over~~ them; Amendment 151 # Anja WEISGERBER Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 12 a (new) (12 a) ‘intermediary’ means a person who is involved in the transport of goods, such as an importer, haulier, recipient of goods, sender of goods or customs declarant, or freight operator; Amendment 152 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 13 a (new) (13a) 'small consignment' means a consignment that is not obviously imported for commercial purposes. Amendment 153 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 17 a (new) (17a) 'perishable good' means a good that is liable to significantly reduce in value over time or, because of its nature, is in danger of being destroyed. Amendment 154 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 Without prejudice to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 864/200725, the law of the Member State where the goods are found in one of the situations referred to in Article 1(1) shall apply for the purpose of determining whether the use of those goods gives rise to suspicion of infringement of an intellectual property right or has infringed an intellectual property right. The law of the Member State may not be applied to goods-in-transit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of imminent, intended entry onto the market of the Union, meaning intended sale to and consumption by Union residents. Under no circumstances shall a Member State apply a "manufacturing fiction" to determine the intellectual property status of the challenge goods. Amendment 155 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new) When there are indications suggesting that non-Union goods in transit will be put on sale in the territory of the Union, such goods shall be considered as imports under the intellectual property laws of the Member State where they are found or where an application is made. Amendment 156 # Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new) When there are indications suggesting that non-Union goods in transit will be put on sale in the territory of the Union, such goods shall be considered as imports under the intellectual property laws of the Member State where they are found or where an application is made. Amendment 157 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 b (new) Indications suggesting that these goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to Union consumers. Amendment 158 # Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 b (new) Indications suggesting that these goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to Union consumers. Amendment 159 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new) When there are indications suggesting a likelihood of diversion of the goods to the territory of the Union and when proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed are underway before the competent authority, the declarant or holder of the goods shall establish that such goods are not intended for the territory of the Union. Amendment 160 # Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 c (new) When there are indications suggesting a likelihood of diversion of the goods to the territory of the Union and when proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed are underway before the competent authority, the declarant or holder of the goods shall establish that such goods are not intended for the territory of the Union. Amendment 161 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 3 a (new) Article 3a Medicinal products, medical devices and other health products There will be an assumption that medicinal products, medical devices and other health products whose destination is not declared, or whose supply chain is otherwise unclear, are intended to enter the territory of the Union. Amendment 162 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) intellectual property collective rights management bodies which are ~~regularly recognised as having a right to~~lawfully representing holders of copyrights or related rights; Amendment 163 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c (c) professional defence bodies which are ~~regularly recognised as having a right to~~lawfully representing holders of intellectual property rights; Amendment 164 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 A Union application may be submitted with respect to ~~any~~the intellectual property rights of Article 2 applying throughout the Union. Amendment 165 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 The Commission shall establish an application form by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 29(2). When exercising its implementing power, the Commission shall consult the European Data Protection Supervisor. Amendment 166 # Rolandas PAKSAS Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 The Commission shall establish an application form by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 29(2). In exercising its implementing powers, the Commission shall consult the European Data Protection Supervisor. Amendment 167 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new) The form shall include the information to be provided to the data subject pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. Amendment 168 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4 4. Wheren computerised systems are available for the purpose of receiving and processing applications by January 2014, applications shall be ~~submitted~~made available using electronic data- processing techniques. Amendment 169 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4 4. Where computerised systems are available 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. Amendment 170 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. The application and all information relevant to the identification of the goods by customs authorities, as well as for the analysis and assessment of the risk of infringement of the intellectual property right(s) concerned, as defined in points (g), (h) and (i) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, shall be made publicly accessible through a website. Amendment 171 # Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 2. Where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period referred to in paragraph 1, the competent customs department ~~shall~~may reject the application. Amendment 172 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 2. Where the applicant does not provide the missing information within the period referred to in paragraph 1, the competent customs department shall reject the application. In that event the competent customs department shall provide reasons for its decision and include information on the appeal procedure. Amendment 173 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 3. Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the application shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs autohorities that granted the decision. Amendment 174 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the extension shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs authorities that granted the decision. Amendment 175 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 12 Amending the decision with regard to intellectual property rights The competent customs department that adopted the decision granting the application may, at the request of the holder of that decision, modify the list of intellectual property rights in that decision. In the case of a decision granting a Union application, any modification consisting in adding intellectual property rights shall be limited to those intellectual property rights covered by Article 5.deleted Amendment 176 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 3. Once the central database of the Commission referred to in Article 31(3) is in place, all exchanges of data on decisions concerning applications for action, accompanying documents and notifications between the customs authorities of the Member States shall be made publicly available via that database. Amendment 177 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The holder of the decision granting the application shall notify within five working days the competent customs department that adopted that decision of any of the following: Amendment 178 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b ~~(b) does not comply with the requirements of Article 18(2) on returning samples;~~deleted Amendment 179 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point d ~~(d) does not initiate proceedings as provided for in Articles 20(1), 23(4) or 24(9).~~deleted Amendment 180 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 1. Where the customs authorities of a Member State identify, in one of the situations referred to in Article 1(1), goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right covered by a decision granting an application for action, they shall ~~take a decision to~~ suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 181 # Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. In order for the competent authority to take a substantive decision, it may examine whether proof that goods are intended to be put on sale in the Union and the other elements constituting an infringement of the intellectual property right relied upon exist. To this end, the competent authority may refer to the indications provided for in Article 3. Amendment 182 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 2 2. Before ~~adopting the decision of suspension of~~suspending the release or det~~ention of~~aining the goods, the customs authorities may ask the holder of the decision granting the application to provide them with any relevant information. The customs authorities may also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items, their nature and images of those items as appropriate. Amendment 183 # Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 2 2. Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the goods, the customs authorities may ask the holder of the decision granting the application to provide them with any relevant information. The customs authorities ~~may~~shall also provide the holder of the decision with information about the actual or supposed number of items, their nature and images of those items as appropriate. Amendment 184 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of dispatch of that communication.deleted Amendment 185 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the goods, the customs authorities shall, communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of dispatch of that communication.deleted Amendment 186 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. ~~Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the~~Where goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights are not counterfeit or pirated goods, ~~the~~ customs authorities shall, communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, the holder of the goods before suspending the release or detaining the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of dispatch of that communication. Or. en (See amendments to Recitals 15 and 16) Amendment 187 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of that communication. Amendment 188 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the goods, the customs authorities shall, communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days of dispatch of that communication. Amendment 189 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. 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. Within one year after the entry into force of this Regulation the Commission shall adopt guidelines for customs authorities to assess the risk of deviation of these goods onto the market of the Union in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 29(2). Amendment 190 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. In order that the authority competent to take a substantive decision may profitably examine whether proof that goods are intended to be put on sale in the Union and the other elements constituting an infringement of the intellectual property right relied upon exist, the customs authority to which an application for action is made shall, as soon as there are indications before it giving grounds for suspecting that such an infringement exists, suspend the release of or detain those goods. Indications suggesting that those goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to Union consumers. Amendment 191 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. When adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, in the case of small consignments, the customs authorities shall within a reasonable time duly inform the end- consumer of the legal basis for the actions taken by them. Amendment 192 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 The customs authorities shall notify the holder of the decision granting the application and the declarant or holder of the goods of the~~ir decision to suspend~~ suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention within one working day ~~of the adoption of their decis~~. Alternatively, the customs authorities may request the holder of the decision granting the application to notify the declarant or holder of the goods accordingly, where the holder of the decision granting the application guarantees that he/she will comply with the time limits and obligations laid down in this Regulation. Amendment 193 # Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. When indications suggest that non- community goods in transit will be put on sale in the territory of the Union, such goods shall be considered as imports into the internal market of the Union. The intellectual property laws of the Member State where they are found will be applied when considering infringements of intellectual property rights. Indications suggesting that these goods will be put on sale in the territory of the Union may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared, or is not fully declared, and whereas there is a lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity of the manufacturer or consignor. Amendment 194 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 2 2. Before ~~adopting the decision of suspension of~~suspending the release of or det~~ention of~~aining the goods, the customs authorities may, without disclosing any information other than the actual or supposed number of items, their nature and images of those items as appropriate, request any person entitled to submit an application concerning the alleged infringement of intellectual property rights to provide them with any relevant information. Amendment 195 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of dispatch of that communication.deleted Amendment 196 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of dispatch of that communication.deleted Amendment 197 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within three working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of that communication. Amendment 198 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days of dispatch of that communication. Amendment 199 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. 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. Within one year after the entry into force of this Regulation the Commission shall adopt guidelines for customs authorities to assess the risk of deviation of these goods onto the market of the Union in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 29(2). Amendment 200 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. When adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, in the case of small consignments, the customs authorities shall within a reasonable time duly inform the end- consumer of the legal basis for the actions taken by them. Amendment 201 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Where no person entitled to submit an application can be identified, customs authorities shall cooperate with the competent authorities in order to identify a person entitled to submit an application. Amendment 202 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 The customs authorities shall notify the declarant or holder of the goods of the~~ir decision to suspend~~ suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention within one working day ~~of the adoption of their decision~~. Amendment 203 # Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 6 ~~6. This Article shall not apply to perishable goods.~~deleted Amendment 204 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The customs authorities may take samples and may provide or send samples to the holder of the decision granting the application, at his/her request, strictly for the purposes of analysis and to facilitate the subsequent procedure in relation to counterfeit and pirated goods. Any analysis of those samples shall be carried out under the sole responsibility of the holder of the decision granting the application. Amendment 205 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The customs authorities may take samples representative of the goods as a whole and may provide such samples to the holder of the decision granting the application, at his/her request, strictly for the purposes of analysis and to facilitate the subsequent procedure in relation to counterfeit and pirated goods. Any analysis of those samples shall be carried out under the sole responsibility of the holder of the decision granting the application. Amendment 206 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 3 3. The customs authorities shall, upon request and if known, provide the holder of the decision granting the application with the names and addresses of the consignee, the consignor, the declarant or the holder of the goods, the customs procedure and the origin, provenance and destination of goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right. For goods in transit that are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right in the country of destination, the customs authorities may communicate this information to the customs authorities in the destination country using inter alia the World Customs Organisation SAFE Framework. Amendment 207 # Phil PRENDERGAST Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 3 3. The customs authorities shall, upon request and if known, provide the holder of the decision granting the application and, where relevant, law enforcement authorities and agencies with the names and addresses of the consignee, the consignor, the declarant or the holder of the goods, the customs procedure and the origin, provenance and destination of goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right. For goods in transit that are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right in the country of destination, the customs authorities may communicate this information to the customs authorities in the country of destination. Amendment 208 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – point a (a) to initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed or in the course of such proceedings; Amendment 209 # Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – point a a (new) (aa) to initiate criminal proceedings; Amendment 210 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – point b (b) to seek compensation from the infringer or other persons where goods are destroyed in accordance with Articles 20(3) ~~or 23(3).~~ . Or. en (See amendment 42 of draft report) Amendment 211 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – point b a (new) (ba) to use the information for or in connection with a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding, including those related to an intellectual property right. Amendment 212 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 19 – point b b (new) (bb) to use the information in settlement negotiations out of court. Amendment 213 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where goods other than those covered by Articles 23 and 24 are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days of ~~dispatch of the decision to suspend~~the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention. Amendment 214 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where goods other than those covered by Articles 23 and 24 are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 215 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where goods ~~other than those covered by Articles 23 and 24~~ are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 216 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 In the case of perishable goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the period for initiating the proceedings referred to in the first subparagraph shall be three working days of ~~dispatch of the decision to suspend~~the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention. Amendment 217 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 In the case of perishable goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the period for initiating the proceedings referred to in the first subparagraph shall be three working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 218 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2 – point b (b) a written agreement between the holder of the decision granting the application and the declarant or holder of the goods to abandon the goods for destruction. Amendment 219 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Where the customs authorities have been notified of the initiation of proceedings to determine whether a design~~, patent, utility model or plant variety~~ right has been infringed and the period provided for in Article 20 has expired, the declarant or holder of the goods may request the customs authorities to release the goods or put an end to their detention. Amendment 220 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Goods abandoned for destruction ~~under Articles 20, 23 or 24~~ shall not be: Amendment 221 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. By way of exception to the provisions of paragraph 1, the customs authorities may authorise the public or private organisations, which aim at combating against counterfeiting and have been individually authorised prior to these operations, to use the above-mentioned measures. Prior to the destruction of the abandoned goods, the authorised organisations may stock them, in the conditions defined in the authorisation, for the purposes of analysis and establishment of a database of information intended to fight against counterfeiting. The authorised organisations shall be published on the website of the Commission. Amendment 222 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 23 Destruction and initiation of proceedings 1. Goods suspected of being counterfeit goods or pirated goods may be destroyed under customs control, without there being any need to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed under the law of the Member State where the goods are found, where all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the holder of the decision granting the application has informed the customs authorities in writing of his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them; (b) the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. 2. Where the declarant or holder of the goods has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction within the periods set out in paragraph 1(b) 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 may deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction. The customs authorities shall inform the holder of the decision granting the application accordingly. Where the declarant or holder of the goods objects to the destruction of the goods, the customs authorities shall inform the holder of the decision granting the application of such objection. 3. The destruction shall be carried out under customs control, at the expense and under the responsibility of the holder of the decision granting the application, unless otherwise specified in the legislation of the Member State where the goods are destroyed. Samples may be taken prior to destruction. 4. Where there is no agreement to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. The customs authorities may extend the periods referred to in the first subparagraph by a maximum of 10 working days upon request by the holder of the decision granting the application in appropriate cases. In the case of perishable goods those periods shall not be extended. 5. The customs authorities shall grant the release of the goods or put an end to their detention, as appropriate, immediately after completion of all customs formalities, where they have not received information from the holder of the decision granting the application on any of the following: (a) his/her agreement to the destruction within the periods referred to in paragraph 1(a); (b) the initiation of proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within the period referred to in paragraph 4.Article 23 deleted Amendment 223 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) the holder of the decision granting the application has informed the customs authorities in writing of his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch of the decision to suspend~~the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them;~~heir detention. Amendment 224 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) the holder of the decision granting the application has informed the customs authorities in writing of his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them;. Amendment 225 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch of the decision to suspend~~the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention. Amendment 226 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed in writing to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 227 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 Where the declarant or holder of the goods has not confirmed his/her agreement to destruction within the periods set out in paragraph 1(b) 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 ~~may~~shall deem that the declarant or holder of the goods has agreed to their destruction. Amendment 228 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 3 3. The destruction shall be carried out under customs control, at the expense and under the responsibility of the holder of the decision granting the application, unless otherwise specified in the legislation of the Member State where the goods are destroyed. Samples representative of the goods as a whole may be taken prior to destruction. Amendment 229 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 Where there is no agreement to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch of the decision to suspend~~the receipt of the notification of the suspension of the release of the goods or t~~o detain them~~heir detention. Amendment 230 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 Where there is no agreement to destruction, the holder of the decision granting the application shall initiate proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed within 10 working days, or three working days in the case of perishable goods, of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 231 # Konstantinos POUPAKIS Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Customs authorities may donate non- hazardous manufactured products such as clothes and shoes to schools, nursing homes, orphanages, non-governmental organisations or any other social or welfare services. In such cases, no duties or other national taxes should be levied. Amendment 232 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) goods ~~suspected of being~~that are obviously counterfeit or pirated goods;. Amendment 233 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) goods suspected of being counterfeit ~~or pira~~trademark goods or pirated copyrighted goods; Amendment 234 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) (ba) it has been confirmed by the holder, after having been informed, that the goods are counterfeit or pirated goods; Amendment 235 # Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 2 2. Article 16 ~~(3),~~ (4) and (5) and Article 18(2) shall not apply. Amendment 236 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 4 4. The declarant or holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her point of view within 20 working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 237 # Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 4 4. The declarant or holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her point of view within 20five working days of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them. Amendment 238 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 5 5. The goods concerned may be destroyed where, within 20 working days of ~~dispatch~~receipt of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Amendment 239 # Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 5 5. The goods concerned may be destroyed where, within 210 working days of dispatch of the decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the declarant or holder of the goods has confirmed to the customs authorities his/her agreement to the destruction of the goods. Amendment 240 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 7 7. The destruction shall be carried out under customs control ~~and~~ at the expense of the ~~customs authorities~~holder of the decision granting the application. Amendment 241 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 8 8. Where the declarant or holder of the goods objects to the destruction of the goods, the customs authorities shall inform the holder of the decision granting the application of such objection and of the number of items and their nature, including images of those items or samples where appropriate. Amendment 242 # Evelyne GEBHARDT Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 10 ~~10. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt~~ delegated ~~acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning the thresholds that define small consignments for the purpose of this Article.~~ Amendment 243 # Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. When considering the potential workload of the customs enforcement created by this proposal, the customs authorities shall give preference to handling large consignments. Amendment 244 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1 1. Where requested by the customs authorities, the holder of the decision granting the application shall reimburse all costs incurred by the customs administration in keeping goods under customs supervision in accordance with Articles 16 and 17 and in destroying goods in accordance with Articles 20 and 23. 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 this storage, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on this storage. Amendment 245 # Anja WEISGERBER Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1 1. Where requested by the customs authorities, the holder of the decision granting the application shall reimburse all costs incurred by the customs administration in keeping goods under customs supervision in accordance with Articles 16 and 17 and in destroying goods in accordance with Articles 20 and 23 and in intercepting goods, providing the intermediaries are not liable under Article 27(2)(b). Amendment 246 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2 2. This Article shall be without prejudice to the right of the holder of the decision granting the application to seek compensation from the infringer or other persons, including intermediaries such as carriers or freight forwarders, in accordance with the legislation of the Member State where the goods were found. Amendment 247 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN, Morten LØKKEGAARD Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States shall adopt provisions in their national law enabling the holder of the decision granting the application to seek compensation from the declarant or the person who has physical control over the goods where both the infringer and the owner of the goods or the person who has a similar right of disposal over them cannot be identified, are not liable to prosecution in their territory or are unable to provide compensation, and where the declarant or the person who has physical control over the goods cannot produce names, addresses and VAT numbers (if applicable) of the consignor and the consignee. Or. en (See amendment 13 of the rapporteur.) Amendment 248 # Gianluca SUSTA, Pier Antonio PANZERI Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – title ~~Administrative s~~Sanctions Amendment 249 # Gianluca SUSTA, Pier Antonio PANZERI Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 The Member States shall lay down the rules on ~~administrative~~ sanctions applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The ~~administrative~~ sanctions provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Amendment 250 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 TWithout prejudice to their national law, the Member States shall ~~lay down~~apply the rules on administrative sanctions applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The administrative sanctions provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Amendment 251 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Article 28 a (new) Article 28a Penalties imposed on applicants Applicants who repeatedly submit applications concerning the alleged intellectual property rights violations that prove to be false in the majority of cases over a period of two years shall lose the right to submit applications for a fixed period. Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to those applicants. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Amendment 252 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 3 3. All information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be stored in a central database of the Commission. In order to establish a legal basis for that database, the Commission shall adopt a separate proposal for adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure within one year after entry into force of this Regulation. When preparing its proposal, the Commission shall consult the European Data Protection Supervisor. The database shall be operational not later than 1 January 2015. Amendment 253 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 4 4. The Commission shall make the relevant information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 available to the customs authorities of the Member States in an electronic form as soon as possible and not later than 1 January 2015. Amendment 254 # Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 1 1. The processing of personal data in the central database of the Commission shall be carried out in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/200126 and under the supervision of the European Data Protection Supervisor. In any event, the implementing measures to be adopted should specify in detail the functional and technical characteristics of the database. Amendment 255 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Retention of personal data by the Commission and Member States shall be limited to the duration of the period of validity of the decision granting the application. Amendment 256 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Article 32 a (new) Article 32a Reporting By ... the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, a report on its enforcement by the Member States, including in particular whether the computerised database is fully functional throughout the Union. ____________ * OJ: please insert the date: 36 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. Amendment 257 # Małgorzata HANDZLIK Proposal for a regulation Article 32 a (new) Article 32a Report No later than three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall submit a report on its implementation to the European Parliament and the Council. The report shall focus in particular on the preparations made by Member States for implementing this Regulation. Amendment 258 # Małgorzata HANDZLIK Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 1 Applications for action granted in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 shall remain valid for the period specified in the decision granting the application during which the customs authorities are to take action and ~~shall not be extended~~may be extended in accordance with Article 11 of this Regulation. When submitted for the first time, applications for the extension of the period during which the customs authorities may take action shall be supplemented by the information required under Article 6(3). Amendment 259 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 a (new) By ...* the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation. If necessary, the report shall be accompanied by appropriate proposals and/or recommendations. _______________ * OJ: please insert the date: 36 months after the entry into force of this Regulation. Amendment 61 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The marketing of goods infringing intellectual property rights does considerable damage to right-holders, law- abiding manufacturers and traders. It is also deceiving consumers, and could in some cases endanger their health and safety. Such goods should, in so far as is possible, be prevented from entering the customs territory and be kept off the market and measures should be adopted to deal with this unlawful activity without impeding legitimate trade. Amendment 62 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The marketing of goods infringing ~~intellectual property~~ trademark rights and copyrights does considerable damage to right-holders, law- abiding manufacturers and traders. It is also deceiving consumers, and could in some cases endanger their health and safety. Such goods should, in so far as is possible, be kept off the market and measures should be adopted to deal with this unlawful activity without impeding legitimate trade. Amendment 63 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) 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 by customs authorities, as well as to ensure appropriate legal clarity, thereby taking into account developments in the economic, commercial and legal areas. The Commission should take all measures to ensure a harmonised application, without unnecessary delay, by the customs authorities of the new legal framework throughout the Union to ensure an efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights, which would protect rightholders without hampering trade. The implementation of the Modernised Customs Code and in particular an inter- operable 'eCustoms' system could, in the future, facilitate such enforcement. Amendment 64 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) The review of Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 showed that certain improvements to the legal framework were necessary to strengthen the enforcement of selected intellectual property rights, particularly trademark and copyright, as well as to ensure appropriate legal clarity, thereby taking into account developments in the economic, commercial and legal areas. That review also showed that border measures should not be applicable to other intellectual property rights, particularly patents and supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products where proper determination of infringement is dependent on highly technical judicial proceedings. Likewise, it was determined that border measures should not be applied to goods-in-transit. Amendment 65 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) The customs authorities should be able to control goods, which are or should have been subject to customs supervision in the customs territory of the Union, including goods placed under a suspensive procedure, with a view to enforcing intellectual property rights. Enforcing intellectual property rights at the border, wherever the goods are, or should have been, under ‘customs supervision’ as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, makes good use of resources. Where goods are detained by customs at the border, one legal proceeding is required, whereas several separate proceedings would be required for the same level of enforcement for goods found on the market, which have been disaggregated and delivered to retailers. An exception should be made for goods released for free circulation under the end- use regime, as such goods remain under customs supervision, even though they have been released for free circulation. It is also appropriate not to apply the Regulation to goods carried by passengers in their personal luggage as long as these goods are for their own personal use and there are no indications that commercial traffic is involved. Amendment 66 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) The customs authorities should be able to control goods, which are or should have been subject to customs supervision in the customs territory of the Union, with a view to enforcing intellectual property rights. Enforcing intellectual property rights at the border, wherever the goods are, or should have been, under ‘customs supervision’ as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, makes good use of resources. Where goods are detained by customs at the border, one legal proceeding is required, whereas several separate proceedings would be required for the same level of enforcement for goods found on the market, which have been disaggregated and delivered to retailers. An exception should be made for goods released for free circulation under the end- use regime, as such goods remain under customs supervision, even though they have been released for free circulation. ~~It is also appropriate not to apply the Regulation to goods carried by passengers in their personal luggage as long as these goods are for their own personal us~~When a traveller's personal baggage contains goods of a non-commercial nature within the limit of the duty-free allowance and there are no material indications t~~hat commercial traffic is involved~~o suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Member States should consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Regulation. Amendment 67 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) The customs authorities should be able to control goods, which are or should have been subject to customs supervision in the customs territory of the Union, with a view to enforcing ~~intellectual property~~ trademark rights and copyrights. Enforcing such intellectual property rights at the border, wherever the goods are, or should have been, under ‘'customs supervision’' as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, makes good use of resources. Where goods are detained by customs at the border, one legal proceeding is required, whereas several separate proceedings would be required for the same level of enforcement for goods found on the market, which have been disaggregated and delivered to retailers. An exception should be made for goods released for free circulation under the end- use regime, as such goods remain under customs supervision, even though they have been released for free circulation. It is also ~~appropriate~~essential not to apply the Regulation to goods carried by passengers in their personal luggage as long as thesre ~~goods are for their own personal use and there are no indication~~are no indications on the basis of the applicable legal procedures that a commercial ~~traffic~~purpose is involved. Amendment 68 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to other types of infringements~~, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but~~ not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For th~~e same~~is purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models and devices to circumvent technological measures~~, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation~~. Amendment 69 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to other types of infringements~~, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but~~ not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For the same purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation. Amendment 70 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to other types of infringements, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For the same purposeFor that reason it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation. Amendment 71 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to ~~strengthen the~~ensure efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to other types of infringements, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003arget selected infringements. For th~~e same~~at purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, utility models and devices to circumvent technological measures, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislationparticular devices designed to circumvent technological protection measures (TPMs). Amendment 72 # Louis GRECH Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 a (new) (5a) This Regulation, when fully implemented, should further contribute to a single market which ensures more effective protection to rights holders, fuels creativity and innovation and provides consumers with reliable and high- quality products, which should in turn strengthen cross-border transactions between consumers, businesses and traders; Amendment 73 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) Any person, whether or not the holder of a~~n intellectual property~~ trademark right or copyright right, who is able to initiate legal proceedings in his/her own name with respect to a possible infringement of that right, should be entitled to submit an application for action by the customs authorities. Amendment 74 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) In order to ensure ~~that~~effective enforcement of intellectual property rights ~~are enforced~~ throughout the Union, it is appropriate to provide that, where a person entitled to submit an application for action seeks enforcement of an relevant intellectual property right covering the whole territory of the Union, that person may request the customs authorities of a Member State to take a decision requiring action by the customs authorities of that Member State and of any other Member State where enforcement of ~~the~~such intellectual property right is sought. Amendment 75 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to ensure the swift enforcement of intellectual property rights, it should be provided that, where the customs authorities suspect, on the basis of ~~adequate evidence~~having sufficient reason to believe this, that goods under their supervision infringe intellectual property rights, those customs authorities may suspend the release or detain the goods whether at their own initiative or upon application, in order to enable the persons entitled to submit an application for action of the customs authorities to initiate proceedings for determining whether an intellectual property right has been infringed. Amendment 76 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) In order to ensure ~~the swift~~effective and lawful enforcement of intellectual property rights, it should be provided that, where the customs authorities suspect, on the basis of adequate ~~evidence~~indications resulting from the applicable legal procedures, that goods under their supervision infringe relevant intellectual property rights, those customs authorities may suspend the release or detain the goods whether at their own initiative or upon application, in order to enable the persons entitled to submit an application for action of the customs authorities to initiate proceedings for determining whether ansuch intellectual property right has been infringed. Amendment 77 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 a (new) (10a) Where goods in transit are suspected to be an imitation or a copy of a product protected in the Union by an intellectual property right, customs authorities should ask 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. In the absence of adequate evidence to the contrary being provided, customs authorities should presume a substantial likelihood of diversion of those goods onto the market of the Union. The Commission should adopt guidelines which will provide criteria for customs authorities to effectively assess their risk of deviation onto the market of the Union, taking into account the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Or. en (See amendments to Articles 16 and 17) Amendment 78 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Where goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights are not counterfeit or pirated goods, it may be difficult to determine upon mere visual examination by customs authorities whether an intellectual property right might be infringed. It is therefore appropriate to provide that proceedings should be initiated, unless the parties concerned, namely the declarant or the holder of the goods and the right-holder, agree to abandon the goods for destruction. It should be for the competent authorities dealing with such proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed and to take appropriate decisions concerning the infringements of intellectual property rights concerned. Amendment 79 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) Where goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights are not counterfeit or pirated goods, it may be difficult to determine upon mere visual examination by customs authorities whether another intellectual property right might be infringed. It is therefore appropriate to provide that proceedings should be initiated~~, unless the parties concerned, namely the holder of the goods and the right-holder, agree to abandon the goods for destruction~~. It should be for the competent authorities dealing with such proceedings to determine whether an relevant intellectual property right has been infringed and to take appropriate decisions ~~concerning the infringements of intellectual property rights concerned~~. Amendment 80 # Evelyne GEBHARDT Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) In order to reduce to the minimum the administrative burden and costs, a specific procedure should be introduced for small consignments of counterfeit and pirated goods, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the right-holder. In order to establish the thresholds under which consignments are to be considered as small consignments, this Regulation should delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is of importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. Amendment 81 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) In order to reduce to the minimum the administrative burden and costs, a specific procedure should be introduced for small consignments of counterfeit and pirated goods, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the right-holder. In order to establish the thresholds under which consignments are to be considered as small consignments, this Regulation should delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is of importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. Amendment 82 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) In order to reduce to the minimum the administrative burden and costs, a specific procedure should be introduced for small consignments of counterfeit and pirated goods, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the right-holder. In order to establish the thresholds under which consignments are to be considered as small consignments, this Regulation should delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is of importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. Amendment 83 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) In order to reduce to the minimum the administrative burden and costs, without prejudice to the end consumer's right to be duly informed within a reasonable time of the legal basis of the actions taken by the customs authorities, a specific procedure should be introduced for small consignments of counterfeit and pirated goods, which would allow for goods to be destroyed without the agreement of the right-holder. In order to establish the thresholds under which consignments are to be considered as small consignments, this Regulation should delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non- legislative acts of general application in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is of importance that the Commission carries out appropriate and public consultations during its preparatory work, including with consumer and civil rights organisations and at expert level. Amendment 84 # Evelyne GEBHARDT Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 ~~(14) The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up~~ delegated ~~acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.~~ Amendment 85 # Emma McCLARKIN Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 ~~(14) The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up~~ delegated ~~acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.~~ Amendment 86 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15) For further legal clarity and in order to protect the interests of legitimate traders from possible abuse of the border enforcement provisions, it is appropriate to modify the timelines for detaining goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the conditions in which information about consignments is to be passed on to right-holders by customs authorities, and 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 counterfeit and pirated goods ~~and to introduce a provision allowing the holder of the goods to express his/her views before the customs administration takes a decision which would adversely affect him/her~~. Amendment 87 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15) For further legal clarity and in order to protect the interests of legitimate traders from possible abuse of the border enforcement provisions, it is appropriate to modify the timelines for detaining goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, the conditions in which information about consignments is to be passed on to right-holders by customs authorities, and 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 counterfeit and pirated goods and~~. Where customs authorities take action following the granting of an application, it is also appropriate to introduce a provision allowing the holder of the goods to express his/her views before the customs administration ~~takes a decision which would adversely affect him/her.~~ suspends the release or detains goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights that are not counterfeit or pirated goods, as it may be difficult for customs authorities to determine upon mere visual examination whether an intellectual property right might be infringed. Or. en (See amendment to Article 16 (3)) Amendment 88 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15) For further legal clarity and in order to protect the interests of legitimate traders from possible abuse of the border enforcement provisions, it is appropriate to modify the timelines for detaining goods suspected of infringing an relevant intellectual property right, the conditions in which information about consignments is to be passed on to right-holders by customs authorities, 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 counterfeit and pirated goods and to introduce a provision allowing the holder of the goods to express his/her views before the customs administration takes a decision which would adversely affect him/her. Amendment 89 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, th~~at period should be significantly extend~~e right for consumers to be heard before a decision is taken by the customs authority should be established. Amendment 90 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those ~~are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties~~have been received. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days after receipt, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, that period should be significantly extended. Amendment 91 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, that period should be significantly extended. When considering the potential workload of the customs enforcement created by this Regulation, the customs authorities should give preference to handling large consignments. Amendment 92 # Jürgen CREUTZMANN Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before ~~an adverse decision is taken~~the suspension of release or detention of goods other than counterfeit or pirated goods should be three working days~~, given that~~ where the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and given that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, th~~at period should be significantly extended.~~ e right to be heard should be granted for all types of goods and the period allowing for that right should be significantly extended. Or. en (See amendment to Article 16 (3)) Amendment 93 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested theIn the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs ~~author~~formalities, to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervision. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment ofhe right to be duly informed within a reasonable time of the legal basis for the actions taken by the customs authorities, as well as the right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken by the customs ~~formal~~authorities, ~~that period should be significantly extend~~should be established. Amendment 94 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new) (16a) The customs authority in receipt of an application for action shall suspend the release of or shall detain those goods from a non-Community country placed under a suspensive procedure as soon as it has sufficient reason to suspect an intellectual property right has been infringed. Amendment 95 # Matteo SALVINI Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union. With regard to dangerous products, and in particular falsified medicines as defined in Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products1 the Union customs authorities should be able to draw on other provisions of Union law, and in particular on the measures provided for in Directive 2011/62/EU. The Commission should analyse, within 18 months following the adoption of this Regulation, the effectiveness of current customs measures aiming at combating falsified medicines, and to propose, if necessary, legislative changes. _____________ 1 OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 74. Amendment 96 # Anna HEDH Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account ~~of any substantial likelihood~~the risk of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union. Amendment 97 # Andreas SCHWAB Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the "Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health" adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. ~~In particular with regard to~~Without prejudice to Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products1, for medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union. Within two years of the adoption of this Regulation, the Commission shall assess the effectiveness of actions by Customs against falsified medicinal products. _______________ 1 OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 74. Amendment 98 # Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should~~, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Un~~ not interfere in any way with the rights of third countries concerning access to medication. Amendment 99 # Christian ENGSTRÖM Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) Under the ‘'Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’' adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial Conference on 14 November 2001, the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In particular with regard to medicines the passage of which across this territory of the European Union, with or without transshipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, customs authorities should~~, when assessing a risk of infringement of intellectual property rights, take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of these goods onto the market of the Union~~ ensure that any measures taken by them are in line with the Union's international commitments. In particular, no detention of generic medicines should be allowed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of imminent, intended entry onto the market of the Union, meaning intended sale to and consumption by Union residents. source: PE-480.583

Amendments

Dossier

240

2011/0137(COD)

2012/01/10 INTA 27 amendments...

Amendment 10 #

Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) The marketing of goods infringing intellectual property rights does considerable damage to right-holders, law- abiding manufacturers and traders. It is also deceiving consumers, and could in some cases endanger their health and safety. Such goods should, in so far as is possible, be kept off the market and measures should be adopted to deal with this unlawful activity without impeding legitimate trade. For this reason, consumers need to be well informed about the risks involved in purchasing these products.

Amendment 11 #

Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 does not cover certain intellectual property rights and excludes certain infringements. In order to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights, customs control should therefore be extended to ~~other types of infringements, such as infringements resulting from parallel trade, as well as other~~ infringements of rights already enforced by customs authorities but not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003. For the same purpose it is appropriate to include in the scope of this Regulation, in addition to the rights already covered by Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, trade names in so far as they are protected as exclusive intellectual property rights under national law, topographies of semiconductor products, and utility models ~~and devices to circumvent technological measures~~, as well as any exclusive intellectual property right established by Union legislation.

Amendment 12 #

Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) ~~Where goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights are not counterfeit or pirated goods, i~~It may be difficult to determine upon mere visual examination by customs authorities whether an intellectual property right might be infringed. It is therefore appropriate to provide that proceedings should be initiated, unless the parties concerned, namely the holder of the goods and the right-holder, agree to abandon the goods for destruction. It should be for the competent authorities dealing with such proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed and to take appropriate decisions concerning the infringements of intellectual property rights concerned.

Amendment 13 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) Taking into account the provisional and preventive character of the measures adopted by the customs authorities in this field and the conflicting interests of the parties affected by the measures, some aspects of the procedures should be adapted to ensure a smooth application of the Regulation, whilst respecting the rights of the concerned parties. Thus, with respect to the various notifications envisaged by this Regulation, the customs authorities should notify the most appropriate person, on the basis of the documents concerning the customs treatment or of the situation in which the goods are placed. The periods laid down in this Regulation for the required notifications should be counted from the time those are sent by the customs authorities in order to align all periods of notifications sent to the concerned parties. The period allowing for a right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken should be three working days, given that the holders of decisions granting applications for action have voluntarily requested the customs authorities to take action and that the declarants or holders of the goods must be aware of the particular situation of their goods when placed under customs supervisionfive working days. In the case of the specific procedure for small consignments, where consumers are likely to be directly concerned and cannot be expected to have the same level of diligence as other economic operators usually involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities, that period should be significantly extended.

Amendment 14 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

Amendment 15 #

Jan ZAHRADIL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)

(17a) In line with the Union's goal of strengthening international cooperation in the fight against counterfeiting, piracy and illicit parallel trade in goods infringing on the intellectual property of registered right-holders, the new European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy has a key role to play by providing all customs authorities of Member States with relevant and timely information to conduct appropriate controls of authorised importers and distributors thereof in the Single market as well as exporters thereof to foreign markets. This role could be further enhanced by the creation of a database of genuine Union products and services protected by registered trademarks, designs and patents and which could also be made available to foreign customs authorities cooperating with the Union on better intellectual property rights protection and enforcement;

Amendment 16 #

Daniel CASPARY

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)

(17a) Transit through the customs territory of the Union and possible diversion onto the internal market of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, and in particular of counterfeit goods, entail not only considerable losses for legitimate Union businesses but also health and safety risks for consumers. Customs authorities should therefore be empowered to inspect and detain any suspected goods by way of precaution. In order to assess the substantial likelihood of such diversion, customs authorities should take into account circumstances such as an offer for sale or advertising of the goods directed at Union consumers, a lack of information on the manufacturer or consignor of the goods or a lack of information on their destination or consignee. Where the diversion onto the internal market of a counterfeit product nevertheless cannot be ruled out, customs authorities should also be empowered to detain the product concerned where it poses clear health and safety risks for consumers.

Amendment 17 #

Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)

(17a) Transit through Union customs and possible distribution on the internal market of goods suspected of being imitations of products protected in the Union by a trademark, or copies of products protected in the Union by copyright, related right or design, entail both considerable losses for legitimate Union businesses and health and safety risks for citizens. Customs authorities should therefore be empowered to inspect and detain any suspected goods by way of precaution where their distribution on the internal market is assumed.

Amendment 18 #

Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 b (new)

(17b) Evidence that the intention is to place these goods on sale in the Union should be considered to exist where they have been sold to a client in the Union or offered for sale or advertised for sale to Union consumers, or where documents or correspondence show that they are to be distributed on the Union's internal market. Where the destination of the goods is not declared, even though such a declaration is required, or in cases where there is a lack of precision or relevant information in order to identify the producer or distributor of the products, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or where documents are discovered showing that they are intended for distribution on the internal market, it should be for the declarant or holder of the goods in question to prove that their intention is not to sell those goods in the Union.

Amendment 19 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1 – point e

~~(e) a patent as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted

Amendment 20 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1 – point f

~~(f) a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted

Amendment 21 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1 – point g

~~(g) a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~deleted

Amendment 22 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1 – point h

~~(h) a Community plant variety right as provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94;~~deleted

Amendment 23 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point i

~~(i) a plant variety right as provided for by the legislation of a Member State;~~deleted

Amendment 24 #

Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 7 – point a

(a) ~~goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right under~~counterfeit goods and pirated goods according to the law of the Union or of that Member State;

Amendment 25 #

Daniel CASPARY

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 7 – point a

(a) goods which are subject of an action infringing an intellectual property right under the law of the Union or of that Member State or where it cannot be ruled out that they are the subject of such an action, and which at the same time pose a clear threat to the health or safety of consumers;

Amendment 26 #

Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 7 – point b

(b) ~~devices, products or components which circumvent any technology,~~ device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, prevents or restricts acts in respect of works which are not authorised by the right-holder of any copyright or right related to copyright and which infringe an intellectual property right under the law of that Member state;

Amendment 27 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The application and all information relevant to the identification of the goods by customs authorities as well as for the analysis and assessment of the risk of infringement of the intellectual property right(s) concerned, as defined in points (g), (h) and (i) of paragraph 3, shall be made publicly accessible through a website.

Amendment 28 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3

3. Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the application shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs authorities that granted the decision.

Amendment 29 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2

Where an intellectual property right ceases to have effect or where the applicant ceases for other reasons to be the person entitled to submit an application, nothe applicant shall notify the customs authorities thereof and no further action shall be taken by the customs authorities. The decision granting the extension shall be revoked or amended accordingly by the customs authorities that granted the decision.

Amendment 30 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3

3. Once the central database of the Commission referred to in Article 31(3) is in place, all exchanges of data on decisions concerning applications for action, accompanying documents and notifications between the customs authorities of the Member States shall be made publicly available via that database.

Amendment 31 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – introductory wording

The holder of the decision granting the application shall notify within five working days the competent customs department that adopted that decision of any of the following:

Amendment 32 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3

3. Before adopting the decision of suspension of release or detention of the goods, the customs authorities shall, communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days ,of dispatch of that communication.

Amendment 33 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3

3. Before adopting a decision to suspend the release of the goods or to detain them, the customs authorities shall communicate their intention to the declarant or, in cases where goods are to be detained, to the holder of the goods. The declarant or the holder of the goods shall be given the opportunity to express his/her views within ~~thre~~five working days of dispatch of that communication.

Amendment 34 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Where the customs authorities have been notified of the initiation of proceedings to determine whether a design~~, patent,~~ or utility model ~~or plant variety~~ right has been infringed and the period provided for in Article 20 has expired, the declarant or holder of the goods may request the customs authorities to release the goods or put an end to their detention.

Amendment 35 #

Marietje SCHAAKE

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 8

8. Where the declarant or holder of the goods objects to the destruction of the goods, the customs authorities shall inform the holder of the decision granting the application of such objection and of the number of items and their nature, including images of those items where appropriate. When the declarant or holder of the goods initiates legal proceedings to determine whether the goods infringe an intellectual property right, the goods may not be destroyed within the period referred to in paragraph 5. If a court establishes that the goods do not infringe an intellectual property right, the declarant or holder of the goods can recover his legal costs from the customs authority or party who ordered the destruction of the goods.

Amendment 36 #

Carl SCHLYTER

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 a (new)

Article 28a Penalties on applicants Applicants who repeatedly submit applications concerning the alleged intellectual property rights violations that prove to be false in the majority of cases over a period of two years shall lose the right to submit applications for a fixed period and may face penalties.

source: PE-478.692

2012/01/18 JURI 14 amendments...

Amendment 30 #

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 url: http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/dossier/dossier.do?code=COD&year=2011&number=0137&appLng=EN title: IPEX European Commission url: http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/liste_resultats.cfm?CL=en&ReqId=0&DocType=COD&DocYear=2011&DocNum=0137 title: PreLex
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 url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32013R0608 title: Regulation 2013/608 subject 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

Activites

Documents

History

ParlTrack - 2011-2024