| Appell | Vorschläge | FAQ | Entscheidung |
Under codecision, Parliament can only accept, reject or amend the Commission's proposal. If it is rejected, Parliament could still call on the Commission to produce a new proposal. It is always open to the Commission itself to withdraw its proposal and submit a new one.
Once the draft report has been submitted to the Legal Affairs Committee, a deadline will be open for members to submit amendments. Those amendments, together with the ones contained in the draft report and those contained in the opinions of the Industry and Cultural Committees will be put to the vote.
If a large number of amendments is tabled, it is possible that the committee will ask the rapporteur to try to reach a compromise on the amendments. The report as adopted will then go to the plenary session, where there will be a further opportunity to submit amendments (although there are rules which mean in practice that only political groups, the lead committee or groups of members may submit amendments). That will conclude the first reading.
Parliament will then await the Council's common position and any amended proposal from the Commission (the Commission usually limits itself to saying which amendments submitted by Parliament it is prepared to endorse) Once the common position has been announced in the plenary session, Parliament will have three (possibly four) months. In that period Ms McCarthy will produce a draft recommendation for second reading for adoption by the Legal Affairs Committee. There will be no further opinions from the other committees. At second reading, Paliament's Rules of Procedure limit the scope of amendments broadly to reinstating what it sought at first reading and/or amending parts of the common position which are new as compared with the original Commission proposal.
| 2002-05-15 | EuroParl 2002-05-15 |
|---|---|
| 2002-05-21 | Internal Market Council session |
| 2002-06-04 | EuroParl meeting on Swpat Directive 2002-06-04 |
| 2002-06-19 | MdEP Arlene McCarthy 2002-06-19: Bericht über den EUK/BSA-Richtlinienvorschlag |
| 2002-11-08 | Council Working Party position paper published |
| 2002-11-07 | JURI Hearing |
| 2002-11-26 | JURI Hearing |
| 2003-01-?? | position papers of parliamentary commissions (JURI, ITRE, CULT) |
| 2003-02-?? | plenary vote in the europarl, possibly leading to further negotiations with CEU and CEC, return to CEC (in case of rejection) or ratification |
On the software patentability directive, COM(2002)92 2002/0047, at http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcViewCTX?lang=2&procid=5974&HighlighType=2&Highlight_Text=patentability they used to say
Probable part-session by the DGI(I) 4/12/2002
| Legal affairs | responsible | McCARTHY Arlene | PSE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | opinion | PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL Elly | ELDR |
| Culture | opinion | ROCARD Michel | PSE |
Green Party and Conservative youth organisations seem to be against
Patent lobby within large parties seem to be well organised and particularly influential in the two concerned committees. They may try to keep silence and then sudenly come up with a conclusion that looks like a compromise but is pro swpat and push this through the europarl very quickly in september.
The temporary Committee of Inquiry shall cease to exist on the submission of its report.
The detailed provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry shall be determined by common accord of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
It could inquire the Comission game or investigate certain EPO abuses but hardly monitor the patent system permanently.
Gesetzgebung kommt nur in Frage, nachdem die RiLi in der EU beschlossen ist. Dann haben die Mitgliedstaaten eine Umsetzungsfrist für die Anpassung nationaler Gesetze zu beachten. Dies erfolgt in der Regel durch einen Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung. Dann läuft die ganze Maschinerie an, man kann aber inhaltlich an der RiLi nichts ändern, die Umsetzung im nationalen Recht hat zwar etwas Spielraum, kann aber nicht in ganz andere Richtung gehen. Sonst würde die Kommission Deutschland vor den EuGH zerren.
Allgemeinpolitische Befassung ist jederzeit möglich. Ausgangspunkt könnte eine Befassung eines Ausschusses sein. Es besteht ein etabliertes Verfahren zur Unterrichtung des Bundestages über Vorhaben in der EU, eben damit man nicht erst mit den Auswirkungen befasst wird.
Wenn sich (vielleicht auch verschiedene Ausschüsse) mit dem Thema befasst haben, könnte eine Fraktion einen Entschließungsantrag einbringen und dadurch seinen Willen im hinblick auf die RiLi äußern. Aber: auch wenn der Bundestag diese Entschließung annimmt, ist er für die Bundesregierung als Verhandlungsführerin in Brüssel nicht verbindlich und hat keinerlei aufschiebende Wirkung für das Verfahren in Brüssel. Es läge jedoch im Sinne der Gewaltenteilung, wenn die Bundesregierung in einer Frage der europäischen Gesetzgebung dem Bundestag folgen würde.
Directive codecision_procedure(EuropeanParliament ep, Comission cec, Council council)
{
// proposal=cec.writeProposal();
Directive proposal=cec.call(bsa);
cec.send(proposal,ep) &
cec.send(proposal,council);
View opinion = ep.reading(proposal);
if ( opinion.ammendments.count == 0 ) {
// agreed
if (council.qualified_majority(proposal) {
proposal.state=PASSED;
return proposal;
}
state = PASSED;
foreach amendment in (opinion.amendments) {
if (! council.qualified_majority(amendment)) {
state=null;
}
};
if ( state == PASSED ) {
proposal.state = PASSED;
return proposal;
};
// disagreeing
View common_position = council.discuss();
while (! council.qualified_majority(common_position)) {
common_position = council.discuss();
};
council.send(common_position,ep);
cec.send(cec.position(common_position), ep);
try {
setTimeout(3*MONTH);
opinion = ep.reading(common_position);
} catch (Timeout e) {
common_position.state = PASSED;
return common_position;
}
}
}
This algorithm may infringe on existing EPO patents. Please tell us if you know any such patent. An improved codification of the algorithm in can be found at http://patents.caliu.org/.