IPRED2 workgroup

IPRED2 workgroup description

The goal of this workgroup is to make IPRED2 known to the public, provide analysis and to influence the European Parliament's decision process from preparatory work in committees to final Plenary vote.

• Commission proposal (all EU language versions available)

• European Parliament's procedural overview for IPRED2

• Project mailing list (open to external parties, subject to subscription approval)

• FFII position paper and amendments

The "2" in IPRED2 refers to the fact that this is the second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive. The first one is currently being implemented in European Union member states, and provides for (harsh) civil sanctions, criminal measures were taken out. IPRED2 proposes to add criminal sanctions "for all intentional IPR infringements on a commercial scale". Before IPRED2 became a 1st pillar directive, it was a 3rd pillar framework decision. The reason for the change of legal basis is an extensive interpretation by the Commission of an environmental verdict by the European Court of Justice in 2005.

The full formal name of IPRED2 is Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (COM/2006/0168 final - COD 2005/0127).

Main present developments

• On 25 April 2007 the European Parliament concluded its first reading. FFII/EFF/EBLIDA/BEUC Coalition Report on the EP vote (PDF format) (wiki)

• The proposal moved to the Council

• Commission withholds key study on criminal measures from European Parliament

• Mistake in EP provisional consolidated text Criminal Measures IP directive. Despite formal objections raised on 4 December 2007 by MEP and shadow rapporteur Eva Lichtenberger the Official Journal of the European Union published the controversial and contested version.

FFII position papers, amendments, press releases and presentations

• To Lisbon or to prison? -- Presentation of impact/issues/solution (pdf, as of 6 December 2006)

• FFII/EFF/EBLIDA/BEUC Coalition Report on EP vote (PDF format) (wiki)

• FFII position paper and amendments, press releases and letters

Council of the European Union

• Council documents

• Council Agenda

• Substantive Criminal Law Working Groups' agenda

Selected key Council documents

• Council documents

• 20 Jul 2006: st11856: Presidency to CATS (Article 36 Group) raises serious competence doubts.

• study needed

FFII analysis and voting recommendations 2006, 2007

• Amendments tabled for Plenary (debate: 23 April 2007; vote: 25 April)

• Analysis of tabled JURI amendments (vote: 20 March, 2007 -- result available on analysis page)

• Analysis of tabled LIBE amendments (vote: 11 December 2006 -- result available on analysis page)

• Analysis of tabled ITRE amendments (vote: 28 November 2006 -- result available on analysis page)

• Article 35 - JURI verification of legal basis

EP committee draft reports, amendments and other official documents

• Amendments tabled for first plenary reading

• JURI documents

• LIBE documents

• ITRE documents

• Letter from the Dutch Parliament to the President of the European Parliament

• Written Priority Question MEP Monica Frassoni Misuse of criminal penalties for violation of intellectual property rights - French answer from Frattini

• Written Priority Question by MEP Evelin Lichtenberger (Greens/EFA), Answer in German

• P6_QE(2005)4286 Christopher Heaton-Harris Written Question to Commission

External opinions

• Law Society of England and Wales (English, pdf)

• Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (English, pdf)

• Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (English, pdf)

• The Dutch Parliament (English, doc) - serious competence concerns

• EPO Scenarios Prof. Paul A. David (Oxford, Stanford) (En, pdf). To his mind IPRED2 "... clearly passes the basic test for "policy fanaticism" – fanatics being people who, having lost sight of the original objective, redouble their efforts."

• ECIS - Exclude patents, counterfeit+piracy, get out abetting inciting

• FIPR - "disabled could be hit as the tools necessary to read copy-protected books" and other interoperability concerns etc.

• FSFE - weak limits: "intentional" & "commercial scale" and Disproportionate access for rights holders (Joint Investigation Teams)

• CPTECH - scope of the offence and its application are unclear.

• BEUC - imit ...to infringements which assist organised crime or which threaten... health or safety.

• LACA - remove ... the offences of ‘attempting’ and ‘inciting’ infringements,... restrict the range of infringements within the scope by limiting them to infringements which assist organised crime or which threaten or compromise health or safety.

• Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (directive is redundant, if not rejected then limit scope to counterfeiting and piracy)

• ECTA (Nov 2006)

• Parallel Importation: Heinz Kobelt, EAEPC, Using the safety debate to stamp out competition, reader contribution to EU reporter, 2006 Jan, p. 14

• EICTA

• ETNO

• Egagenerics

• Deutsche Vereinigung Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht

• UK Government recommendation on amendments for Plenary1

Background information

• IPRED2 wiki (Vrijschrift)

• FFII IPRED2 news collection

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 17

• GENERAL COMMENT No. 17 (2005), COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, Thirty-fifth session Geneva, 7-25 November 2005, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland

Workgroup leaders, contact information

• Ante Wessels
• Jonas Maebe
• André Rebentisch

You can contact the workgroup at ipred2@ffii.org.