Progress: Awaiting Council's 1st reading position
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | WÖLKEN Tiemo ( S&D) | ZARZALEJOS Javier ( EPP), ZŁOTOWSKI Kosma ( ECR), SAEIDI Arash ( The Left) |
Former Responsible Committee | JURI | ||
Former Committee Opinion | ENVI | ||
Former Committee Opinion | AGRI |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
T, r, e, a, t, y, , o, n, , t, h, e, , F, u, n, c, t, i, o, n, i, n, g, , o, f, , t, h, e, , E, U, , T, F, E, U, , 1, 1, 8, -, p, 1
Legal Basis:
T, r, e, a, t, y, , o, n, , t, h, e, , F, u, n, c, t, i, o, n, i, n, g, , o, f, , t, h, e, , E, U, , T, F, E, U, , 1, 1, 8, -, p, 1Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 406 votes to 192, with 9 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.
As a reminder, the proposed regulation lays down rules on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products protected by a European patent with unitary effect and subject, prior to being placed on the market as a plant protection product, to an administrative authorisation procedure.
The European Parliament's position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure amends the Commission's proposal as follows:
Conditions for obtaining a unitary certificate
A unitary certificate should be granted by the Office on the basis of a basic patent if, in each of the Member States in which that basic patent has unitary effect, all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the product is protected by that basic patent in force;
(b) a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product has been granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;
(c) the product has not already been the subject of a certificate, nor of a unitary certificate;
(d) the authorisation is the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a plan protection product.
Lodging of an application for a unitary certificate
The application for a unitary certificate should be lodged with the Office. If the application for a unitary certificate complies with the provisions of the Regulation, the Office should publish it in the register as soon as possible.
Opposition
Within a period of 2 months following the publication of the examination opinion in respect of an application for a unitary certificate, any person may file with the Office a notice of opposition to that opinion. The notice of opposition should include any evidence the opponent relies on in support of the opposition.
In cases where several oppositions have been filed against an examination opinion, the Office should deal with the oppositions jointly and issue one single decision in respect of all oppositions filed.
The Office should issue a decision on the opposition, including a detailed reasoning for that decision, within 6 months, unless the complexity of the case requires a longer period.
If the opposition panel considers that no ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the examination opinion, it should reject the opposition and notify the opponent of its decision, and the Office should mention this in the Register.
Full transparency should be ensured throughout the whole opposition proceeding, which shall be open, whenever possible, to public participation.
Competent national authorities
On a request made to the Office, any competent national authority may be appointed by the Office as a participating office in the examination procedure. Once a competent national authority is appointed, that authority should designate one or more examiners to be involved in the examination of one or more applications for unitary certificates based on relevant expertise and sufficient experience required for the centralised examination procedure.
Examination panels
The assessments should be conducted by an examination panel including one member of the Office as well as two examiners from two different participating competent national authorities. When setting up an examination panel, the Office should ensure the following:
- relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates, ensuring, in particular, that at least one examiner has a minimum of five years of experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates;
- where possible, geographical balance amongst the participating offices.
Grant of a unitary certificate or rejection of the application for a unitary certificate
After the period during which an appeal or an opposition may be filed has expired without any appeal nor opposition being filed, or after a final decision on the merits has been issued, the Office should implement without undue delay the examination opinion by granting a unitary certificate or rejecting the application, as applicable.
Appeals
Parliament underlined the need to safeguard procedural rights and ensure a complete system of remedies.
In case of an appeal, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, including the evidence supporting those grounds, should be filed within 3 months of the date of notification of the decision. Any reply to the statement of grounds of appeal should be submitted in writing no later than three months from the date of the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal. The Office should, where applicable, fix a date for oral proceedings within three months of the filing of the reply or within six months following the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal, whichever is earlier. The Office should issue a written decision within three months of the date of the oral hearing or of the filing of the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal, as applicable.
When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters concerning applications for unitary certificates, due consideration should be given to their previous experience in matters concerning supplementary protection certificates or patent law.
Taking of evidence
If the Office or the relevant panel considers it necessary for a party, witness or expert to give evidence orally, it should issue a summons to the person concerned to appear before it. Where an expert is summonsed, the Office or the relevant panel, as the case may be, should verify that that expert is free of any conflict of interest.
Evaluation
By five years after the date of application, and every five years thereafter, the Commission should evaluate the implementation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and the Council. As part of that evaluation, the Commission should assess the feasibility and benefits of establishing a central authorisation procedure for plant protection products under the European Food Safety Authority.
Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D, DE) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.
As a reminder, the proposed regulation lays down rules on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products protected by a European patent with unitary effect and subject, prior to being placed on the market as a plant protection product, to an administrative authorisation procedure.
The committee responsible recommended that the European Parliament's position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the proposal as follows:
Conditions for obtaining a unitary certificate
A unitary certificate should be granted by the Office on the basis of a basic patent if, in each of the Member States in which that basic patent has unitary effect, all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the product is protected by that basic patent in force;
(b) a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product has been granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;
(c) the product has not already been the subject of a certificate, nor of a unitary certificate;
(d) the authorisation is the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a plan protection product.
Lodging of an application for a unitary certificate
The application for a unitary certificate should be lodged with the Office. If the application for a unitary certificate complies with the provisions of the Regulation, the Office should publish it in the register as soon as possible.
Opposition
Within a period of 2 months following the publication of the examination opinion in respect of an application for a unitary certificate, any person may file with the Office a notice of opposition to that opinion. The notice of opposition should include any evidence the opponent relies on in support of the opposition.
In cases where several oppositions have been filed against an examination opinion, the Office should deal with the oppositions jointly and issue one single decision in respect of all oppositions filed.
The Office should issue a decision on the opposition, including a detailed reasoning for that decision, within 6 months, unless the complexity of the case requires a longer period.
Full transparency should be ensured throughout the whole opposition proceeding, which shall be open, whenever possible, to public participation.
Competent national authorities
On a request made to the Office, any competent national authority may be appointed by the Office as a participating office in the examination procedure. Once a competent national authority is appointed, that authority should designate one or more examiners to be involved in the examination of one or more applications for unitary certificates based on relevant expertise and sufficient experience required for the centralised examination procedure.
Examination panels
The assessments should be conducted by an examination panel including one member of the Office as well as two examiners from two different participating competent national authorities. When setting up an examination panel, the Office should ensure the following:
- relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates, ensuring, in particular, that at least one examiner has a minimum of five years of experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates;
- where possible, geographical balance amongst the participating offices.
Grant of a unitary certificate or rejection of the application for a unitary certificate
After the period during which an appeal or an opposition may be filed has expired without any appeal nor opposition being filed, or after a final decision on the merits has been issued, the Office should implement without undue delay the examination opinion by granting a unitary certificate or rejecting the application, as applicable.
Appeals
The report underlined the need to safeguard procedural rights and ensure a complete system of remedies.
In case of an appeal, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, including the evidence supporting those grounds, should be filed within 3 months of the date of notification of the decision. Any reply to the statement of grounds of appeal should be submitted in writing no later than three months from the date of the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal. The Office should, where applicable, fix a date for oral proceedings within three months of the filing of the reply or within six months following the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal, whichever is earlier. The Office shall issue a written decision within three months of the date of the oral hearing or of the filing of the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal, as applicable.
When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters concerning applications for unitary certificates, due consideration should be given to their previous experience in matters concerning supplementary protection certificates or patent law.
Communications to the Office
Communications addressed to the Office should be made by electronic means.
Evaluation
By five years after the date of application, and every five years thereafter, the Commission should evaluate the implementation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and the Council. As part of that evaluation, the Commission should assess the feasibility and benefits of establishing a central authorisation procedure for plant protection products under the European Food Safety Authority.
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
PURPOSE: to simplify the EU Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system and improve its transparency and efficiency, by creating a unitary certificate for plant protection products.
PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
BACKGROUND: a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is an intellectual property right that extends the term of a patent (up to five years) for a human or veterinary pharmaceutical or plant protection product that has been authorised by regulatory authorities, thereby encouraging innovation and promoting growth and employment in these sectors.
However, SPC protection is only available at national level. As a result, the current system suffers from fragmentation, leading to complex and costly procedures and legal uncertainty.
The Commission’s intellectual property action plan of November 2020, which builds on the SPC evaluation, highlighted the need to tackle the remaining fragmentation of the EU’s intellectual property system.
Pharmaceutical research plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health. Medicinal products, in particular those that are the result of long, costly research will not continue to be developed in the Union unless they are covered by favourable rules that provide for sufficient protection to encourage such research.
There is a clear need to complement the unitary patent (‘European patent with unitary effect’) with a unitary SPC . The proposed creation of a unitary SPC will be fully compatible with the unitary patent system provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The unitary patent will enter into force on 1 June 2023, allowing a single patent covering all participating Member States in a unitary manner.
This proposal is part of the ‘EU patent package’ announced in 2023 which, besides the revision, modernisation and introduction of a system for unitary SPCs , includes a new initiative on compulsory licensing and legislation on standard-essential patents . The proposal also complements the unitary patent system, which is a major step towards the completion of the single market for patents.
In addition to this proposal, parallel proposals are being made to create a centralised procedure for the grant of national certificates for medicinal products, a centralised procedure for the grant of national certificates for plant protection products, and a unitary certificate for medicinal products.
CONTENT: this proposal lays down rules on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products protected by a European patent with unitary effect and subject, prior to being placed on the market as a plant protection product, to an administrative authorisation procedure.
The proposed SPC reform includes the creation of a unitary SPC , complementing the unitary patent that will enter into force on 1 June 2023. In the absence of a unitary SPC, a unitary patent could be extended only by means of national SPCs, i.e. in a non-unitary manner, leading to greater administrative burden and costs.
The SPC reform introduces a centralised examination procedure, implemented by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in close cooperation with the EU's national intellectual property (IP) offices. Under this scheme, a single application will be subject to a single examination process which, if positive, will result in the grant of a unitary SPC and of national SPCs in further Member States.
The SPC centralised procedure can be used by any company, start-up, research organisation, innovator, etc. that holds a valid patent on a medicinal product or a plant protection product, and a corresponding marketing authorisation in the EU. Applicants will be able to file a ‘ combined application ' with a view to the grant of both a unitary SPC and national SPC for additional Member States not covered by the unitary patent. This application will be subject to a single examination which, if positive, will result in the grant of a unitary SPC (for those 17 Member States participating in the unitary patent system at the moment) and of national SPCs in further Member States.
Legislative proposal
PURPOSE: to simplify the EU Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system and improve its transparency and efficiency, by creating a unitary certificate for plant protection products.
PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.
ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.
BACKGROUND: a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) is an intellectual property right that extends the term of a patent (up to five years) for a human or veterinary pharmaceutical or plant protection product that has been authorised by regulatory authorities, thereby encouraging innovation and promoting growth and employment in these sectors.
However, SPC protection is only available at national level. As a result, the current system suffers from fragmentation, leading to complex and costly procedures and legal uncertainty.
The Commission’s intellectual property action plan of November 2020, which builds on the SPC evaluation, highlighted the need to tackle the remaining fragmentation of the EU’s intellectual property system.
Pharmaceutical research plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health. Medicinal products, in particular those that are the result of long, costly research will not continue to be developed in the Union unless they are covered by favourable rules that provide for sufficient protection to encourage such research.
There is a clear need to complement the unitary patent (‘European patent with unitary effect’) with a unitary SPC . The proposed creation of a unitary SPC will be fully compatible with the unitary patent system provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA). The unitary patent will enter into force on 1 June 2023, allowing a single patent covering all participating Member States in a unitary manner.
This proposal is part of the ‘EU patent package’ announced in 2023 which, besides the revision, modernisation and introduction of a system for unitary SPCs , includes a new initiative on compulsory licensing and legislation on standard-essential patents . The proposal also complements the unitary patent system, which is a major step towards the completion of the single market for patents.
In addition to this proposal, parallel proposals are being made to create a centralised procedure for the grant of national certificates for medicinal products, a centralised procedure for the grant of national certificates for plant protection products, and a unitary certificate for medicinal products.
CONTENT: this proposal lays down rules on the unitary supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products protected by a European patent with unitary effect and subject, prior to being placed on the market as a plant protection product, to an administrative authorisation procedure.
The proposed SPC reform includes the creation of a unitary SPC , complementing the unitary patent that will enter into force on 1 June 2023. In the absence of a unitary SPC, a unitary patent could be extended only by means of national SPCs, i.e. in a non-unitary manner, leading to greater administrative burden and costs.
The SPC reform introduces a centralised examination procedure, implemented by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in close cooperation with the EU's national intellectual property (IP) offices. Under this scheme, a single application will be subject to a single examination process which, if positive, will result in the grant of a unitary SPC and of national SPCs in further Member States.
The SPC centralised procedure can be used by any company, start-up, research organisation, innovator, etc. that holds a valid patent on a medicinal product or a plant protection product, and a corresponding marketing authorisation in the EU. Applicants will be able to file a ‘ combined application ' with a view to the grant of both a unitary SPC and national SPC for additional Member States not covered by the unitary patent. This application will be subject to a single examination which, if positive, will result in the grant of a unitary SPC (for those 17 Member States participating in the unitary patent system at the moment) and of national SPCs in further Member States.
Legislative proposal
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2024)270
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading: T9-0096/2024
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Debate in Parliament: Go to the page
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading: A9-0020/2024
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE756.100
- Committee draft report: PE753.702
- ESC: CES2306/2023
- Specific opinion: PE750.122
- EDPS: OJ C 000 14.11.2023, p. 0000
- EDPS: N9-0084/2023
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2023)0118
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2023)0117
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SEC(2023)0172
- Legislative proposal: COM(2023)0221
- Legislative proposal: Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2023)0119
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2023)0221
- Legislative proposal published: Go to the page Eur-Lex
- Specific opinion: PE750.122
- Committee draft report: PE753.702
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE756.100
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex SWD(2023)0118
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex SWD(2023)0117
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex SEC(2023)0172
- Legislative proposal: COM(2023)0221 Go to the pageEur-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: Go to the pageEur-Lex SWD(2023)0119
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2024)270
- EDPS: OJ C 000 14.11.2023, p. 0000 N9-0084/2023
- ESC: CES2306/2023
Votes
A9-0020/2024 – Tiemo Wölken – Commission proposal #
Amendments | Dossier |
148 |
2023/0126(COD)
2023/11/13
JURI
148 amendments...
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The period that elapses between the filing of an application for a patent for a new plant protection product and the authorisation to place that product on the market makes the period of effective protection under the patent insufficient to cover the investment put into the research. Whereas such considerations, governing the grant of supplementary certificate protection, according to Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, should still apply regardless of its territorial scope.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) The period that elapses between the filing of an application for a patent for a new plant protection product and the authorisation to place that product on the market makes the period of effective protection under the patent insufficient to cover the investment put into the research. Whereas such considerations, governing the grant of supplementary certificate protection, according to Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, should still apply regardless of its territorial scope.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2 a) That situation leads to a lack of protection which penalises plant protection research and the competitiveness of the sector.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2 a) That situation leads to a lack of protection which penalises plant protection research and the competitiveness of the sector.
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 (14) The fact that marketing authorisations in respect of a given plant protection product may be granted at different dates in different Member States would in many cases make the grant of a unitary certificate for a given plant protection product impossible, if it was required that authorisations must have been granted in all relevant Member States – i.e. those in which the basic patent has unitary effect – by the time of the filing of the application. An applicant should therefore be allowed to file an application for a unitary certificate where a marketing authorisation
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 (14) The fact that marketing authorisations in respect of a given plant protection product may be granted at different dates in different Member States would in many cases make the grant of a unitary certificate for a given plant protection product impossible, if it was required that authorisations must have been granted in all relevant Member States – i.e. those in which the basic patent has unitary effect – by the time of the filing of the application. An applicant should therefore be allowed to file an application for a unitary certificate where a marketing authorisation
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) One of the conditions for the grant of a certificate should be that the product should be protected by the basic patent, in the sense that the product should fall within the scope of one or more claims of that patent, as interpreted by the person skilled in the art
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) One of the conditions for the grant of a certificate should be that the product should be protected by the basic patent, in the sense that the product should fall within the scope of one or more claims of that patent, as interpreted by the person skilled in the art
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) To avoid overprotection, it should be provided that no more than one certificate, whether national or unitary, may protect the same product in a Member State. Therefore it should be required that the product, or any derivative such as salts, esters, ethers, isomers, mixtures of isomers, or complexes, equivalent to the product from a phytosanitary perspective, should not have already been the subject of a prior certificate,
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) To avoid overprotection, it should be provided that no more than one certificate, whether national or unitary, may protect the same product in a Member State. Therefore it should be required that the product, or any derivative such as salts, esters, ethers, isomers, mixtures of isomers, or complexes, equivalent to the product from a phytosanitary perspective, should not have already been the subject of a prior certificate,
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 (21) As a further measure to ensure that no more than one certificate may protect the same product in any Member State, the holder of more than one patent for the same product should not be granted more than one certificate for that product. However, where two patents protecting the product are held by two holders, one certificate for that product should be allowed to be granted to each of those holders, where they can demonstrate that they are not
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 21 (21) As a further measure to ensure that no more than one certificate may protect the same product in any Member State, the holder of more than one patent for the same product should not be granted more than one certificate for that product. However, where two patents protecting the product are held by two holders, one certificate for that product should be allowed to be granted to each of those holders, where they can demonstrate that they are not
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24 (24) To guarantee a fair and transparent process, ensure legal certainty and reduce the risk of subsequent validity challenges, third parties should have the possibility, after the publication of the unitary certificate application, to submit within 3 months observations to the Office while the centralised examination is being performed. These third parties allowed to submit observations should also include Member States. This, however, should not affect the rights of third parties to initiate subsequent invalidity proceedings before the
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 24 (24) To guarantee a fair and transparent process, ensure legal certainty and reduce the risk of subsequent validity challenges, third parties should have the possibility, after the publication of the unitary certificate application, to submit within 3 months observations to the Office while the centralised examination is being performed. These third parties allowed to submit observations should also include Member States. This, however, should not affect the rights of third parties to initiate subsequent invalidity proceedings before the
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 (25) The examination of an application for a unitary certificate should be conducted, under supervision of the Office, by an examination panel including one member of the Office as well as two examiners employed by the national patent offices. This would ensure that optimal use be made of expertise in supplementary protection certificates and related patent matters, located today at national offices only. To ensure an optimal quality of the examination, and related patent matters, located today at national offices only. To ensure an optimal quality of the examination, the Office and the competent national authorities should make sure that designated examiners have the relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the assessment of supplementary protection certificates. Additional suitable criteria should be laid down in respect of the participation of specific examiners in the procedure, in particular as regards qualification and conflicts of interest.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 25 (25) The examination of an application for a unitary certificate should be conducted, under supervision of the Office, by an examination panel including one member of the Office as well as two examiners employed by the national patent offices. This would ensure that optimal use be made of expertise in supplementary protection certificates and related patent matters, located today at national offices only. To ensure an optimal quality of the examination, and related patent matters, located today at national offices only. To ensure an optimal quality of the examination, the Office and the competent national authorities should make sure that designated examiners have the relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the assessment of supplementary protection certificates. Additional suitable criteria should be laid down in respect of the participation of specific examiners in the procedure, in particular as regards qualification and conflicts of interest.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28) After the completion of the examination of a unitary certificate application, and after the time limits for appeal
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28) After the completion of the examination of a unitary certificate application, and after the time limits for appeal
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 (29)
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 (29)
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding applications for unitary certificates, their relevant expertise, independence and sufficient prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding applications for unitary certificates, their relevant expertise, independence and sufficient prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding applications for unitary certificates, their relevant expertise and sufficient prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding applications for unitary certificates, their relevant expertise and sufficient prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 (31) Any person may challenge the validity of a unitary certificate by lodging with the
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 (31) Any person may challenge the validity of a unitary certificate by lodging with the
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 (32) The Office should have the possibility to charge a fee for the application for a unitary certificate, as well as other procedural fees such as those for
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 (32) The Office should have the possibility to charge a fee for the application for a unitary certificate, as well as other procedural fees such as those for
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. A unitary certificate shall be granted by the Office on the basis of a basic patent if
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. A unitary certificate shall be granted by the Office on the basis of a basic patent if
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (a a) the product is approved in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (a a) the product is approved in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product has been granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, in at least one of the Member States in which that basic patent has unitary effect;
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) a valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product has been granted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, in at least one of the Member States in which that basic patent has unitary effect;
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 Where two or more applications, whether national or centralised applications for certificates, or applications for unitary certificates, concerning the same product and submitted by two or more holders of different patents are pending for a given Member State, one certificate or unitary certificate for that product may be granted to each of those holders, where they are not
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 Where two or more applications, whether national or centralised applications for certificates, or applications for unitary certificates, concerning the same product and submitted by two or more holders of different patents are pending for a given Member State, one certificate or unitary certificate for that product may be granted to each of those holders, where they are not
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4 Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 4 Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iii a (new) (iii a) the number and date of the approval of the product, as referred to in Article 3(1), point (aa);
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iii a (new) (iii a) the number and date of the approval of the product, as referred to in Article 3(1), point (aa);
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information and documentation submitted in relation to its application.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information and documentation submitted in relation to its application.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 If the application for a unitary certificate complies with Article 11(1), the Office shall publish the application in the Register without undue delay.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 If the application for a unitary certificate complies with Article 11(1), the Office shall publish the application in the Register without undue delay.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 1. The Office shall assess the application on the basis of all the conditions in Article 3
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 1 1. The Office shall assess the application on the basis of all the conditions in Article 3
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 2. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates comply with Article 3
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 2 2. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates comply with Article 3
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 3. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates does not comply with Article 3
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 13 – paragraph 3 3. Where the application for a unitary certificate and the product to which it relates does not comply with Article 3
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 1. On a request made to the Office, any competent national authority may be appointed by the Office as a participating office in the examination procedure. Once a competent national authority is appointed in accordance with this Article, that authority shall designate one or more examiners to be involved in the examination of one or more applications for unitary certificates on the basis of their relevant expertise and experience in the field.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 1. On a request made to the Office, any competent national authority may be appointed by the Office as a participating office in the examination procedure. Once a competent national authority is appointed in accordance with this Article, that authority shall designate one or more examiners to be involved in the examination of one or more applications for unitary certificates on the basis of their relevant expertise and experience in the field.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Once a competent national authority is appointed by the Office as a participating office, it shall appoint its designated examiners based on relevant expertise and whether they have sufficient experience for the centralised examination procedure.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Once a competent national authority is appointed by the Office as a participating office, it shall appoint its designated examiners based on relevant expertise and whether they have sufficient experience for the centralised examination procedure.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 1. The assessment
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 1 1. The assessment
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point -a (new) (-a) relevant expertise, independence and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates;
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point -a (new) (-a) relevant expertise, independence and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates;
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new) (a a) relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates, ensuring, in particular, that at least one of them has a minimum of 5 years of experience in patent and supplementary protection certificate examination;
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a a (new) (a a) relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the examination of patents and supplementary protection certificates, ensuring, in particular, that at least one of them has a minimum of 5 years of experience in patent and supplementary protection certificate examination;
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c (c)
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c (c)
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c (c) no
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point c (c) no
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 4 4. The Office shall publish a yearly overview of the number of procedures, including those for examination
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 17 – paragraph 4 4. The Office shall publish a yearly overview of the number of procedures, including those for examination
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new) The Office shall inform the applicant of its decision without undue delay.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 18 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new) The Office shall inform the applicant of its decision without undue delay.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 1. Any person may
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 1 1. Any person may
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. When the decision taken on the action for declaration of invalidity becomes final, the Unified Patent Court shall without delay send a copy of the judgment to the Office. The Office or any other interested party may request information about such transmission. The Office shall mention the judgment in the Register and shall take the necessary measures to comply with its operative part.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. When the decision taken on the action for declaration of invalidity becomes final, the Unified Patent Court shall without delay send a copy of the judgment to the Office. The Office or any other interested party may request information about such transmission. The Office shall mention the judgment in the Register and shall take the necessary measures to comply with its operative part.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3 Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 3 Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4 Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 4 Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5 Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 5 Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 6 Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 6 Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 7 Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 7 Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 8 Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 8 Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 9 Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 9 Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 10 Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 10 Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 11 Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 11 Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 12 12. To the extent that it has been declared invalid, the unitary certificate shall be deemed not to have had, as from the outset, the effects specified in this Regulation
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 12 12. To the extent that it has been declared invalid, the unitary certificate shall be deemed not to have had, as from the outset, the effects specified in this Regulation
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 13 Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 22 – paragraph 13 Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 2. The competent court of a Member State shall reject a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity if a decision taken by the
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 2. The competent court of a Member State shall reject a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity if a decision taken by the
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 4 4. The competent court of a Member State with which a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the unitary certificate has been filed shall not proceed with the examination of the counterclaim, until either the interested party or the court has informed the
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 4 4. The competent court of a Member State with which a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the unitary certificate has been filed shall not proceed with the examination of the counterclaim, until either the interested party or the court has informed the
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 6 Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 6 Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 3. Notice of appeal shall be filed in writing at the Office within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision. The notice shall be deemed to have been filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid. In case of an appeal, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 3. Notice of appeal shall be filed in writing at the Office within 2 months of the date of notification of the decision. The notice shall be deemed to have been filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid. In case of an appeal, a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Any written statement in reply to the grounds of appeal shall be filed within 3 months from the date of notification of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. A date for oral hearing shall be set by the Office within 3 months after the filing of the reply to the grounds of appeal or within 6 months of the filing of grounds of appeal, whichever is earlier. A written decision of the Office shall be issued within 3 months after the date of the oral hearing.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Any written statement in reply to the grounds of appeal shall be filed within 3 months from the date of notification of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. A date for oral hearing shall be set by the Office within 3 months after the filing of the reply to the grounds of appeal or within 6 months of the filing of grounds of appeal, whichever is earlier. A written decision of the Office shall be issued within 3 months after the date of the oral hearing.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 5 5. Where an appeal results in a decision which is not in line with the examination opinion, the decision of the Boards
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 26 – paragraph 5 5. Where an appeal results in a decision which is not in line with the examination opinion, the decision of the Boards
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 4 4. Members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding unitary certificates shall be appointed in accordance with Article 166 (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding unitary certificates, their prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 4 4. Members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding unitary certificates shall be appointed in accordance with Article 166 (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. When appointing members of the Boards of Appeal in matters regarding unitary certificates, their prior experience in supplementary protection certificate or patent matters should be taken into account.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 2. The Office shall charge a fee for appeals
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 2 2. The Office shall charge a fee for appeals
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new) The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information and documentation submitted in respect of its application.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new) The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information and documentation submitted in respect of its application.
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point k Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 33 – paragraph 1 – point k Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 An employee of a legal person may also represent other legal persons which are
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 36 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 An employee of a legal person may also represent other legal persons which are
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point d Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point d Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 2 2. Oral proceedings before an examination
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 39 – paragraph 2 2. Oral proceedings before an examination
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3 3. If the Office or the relevant panel considers it necessary for a party, witness or expert to give evidence orally, it shall issue a summons to the person concerned to appear before it. Where an expert is summoned, it shall be verified that that expert is free of any conflict of interest. The period of notice provided in such summons shall be at least 1 month, unless they agree to a shorter period.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 3 3. If the Office or the relevant panel considers it necessary for a party, witness or expert to give evidence orally, it shall issue a summons to the person concerned to appear before it. Where an expert is summoned, it shall be verified that that expert is free of any conflict of interest. The period of notice provided in such summons shall be at least 1 month, unless they agree to a shorter period.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 5 5. This Article shall not be applicable to the time limits referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 44 – paragraph 5 5. This Article shall not be applicable to the time limits referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1 1. The losing party in
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 46 – paragraph 1 1. The losing party in
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 2 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 3 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 3 3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 6 6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 49 – paragraph 6 6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 By xxxxxx [OP, please insert: five years after the date of application], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and to the Council. In its report, the Commission shall evaluate and assess whether the creation of a central authorisation procedure for plant protection products under the European Food Safety Authority is appropriate and also whether it is efficient and necessary.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 By xxxxxx [OP, please insert: five years after the date of application], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and to the Council. In its report, the Commission shall evaluate and assess whether the creation of a central authorisation procedure for plant protection products under the European Food Safety Authority is appropriate and also whether it is efficient and necessary.
source: 756.100
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1/type |
Old
Responsible CommitteeNew
Former Responsible Committee |
committees/3/rapporteur |
|
docs/0 |
|
docs/0 |
|
docs/0/body |
Old
EPNew
European Parliament |
docs/1 |
|
docs/1 |
|
docs/1/body |
Old
EPNew
European Parliament |
docs/2 |
|
docs/2 |
|
docs/2/body |
Old
EPNew
European Parliament |
docs/3 |
|
docs/3 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/6 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8/body |
Old
ECNew
European Commission |
docs/9 |
|
docs/9 |
|
docs/10 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/3/summary/32 |
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
|
events/4/docs/0/title |
Old
Debate in ParliamentNew
Go to the page |
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5/summary/33 |
Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
|
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=61271&l=enNew
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/sda-vote-result?sdaId=61271 |
events/7 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
New
JURI/9/11900 |
procedure/legal_basis |
Old
New
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 118-p1 |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
docs/9/docs/0/url |
Old
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=61271&j=0&l=enNew
nulldistribution/doc/SP-2024-270-TA-9-2024-0096_en.docx |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
committees/3 |
|
committees/3/type |
Old
Committee OpinionNew
Former Committee Opinion |
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
links |
|
docs/9 |
|
docs/9 |
|
procedure/Legislative priorities |
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
procedure/Legislative priorities |
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
procedure/Other legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 159New
Rules of Procedure EP 165 |
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
events/5 |
|
docs/9 |
|
events/5/summary |
|
docs/9 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/5 |
|
forecasts |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st readingNew
Awaiting Council's 1st reading position |
docs/9 |
|
events/3/summary |
|
forecasts/0 |
|
forecasts/0 |
|
docs/9 |
|
events/3/docs |
|
events/3 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading |
events/2 |
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/5 |
|
docs/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
forecasts |
|
events/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
committees/0/shadows |
|
procedure/Legislative priorities |
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2/opinion |
False
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/0/docs/0 |
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
commission |
|
docs/0 |
|
events/0/summary |
|