ipred2/ITRE Tabled Amendments

This page provides an analysis of the amendments tabled by the members of the ITRE Committee to the [ffii:action:ipred2 IPRED2 directive]. Tabled amendments have been voted on 28 November.

If the Vote outcome column says "N/A", this means the amendment was not voted on because it was masked by the adoption of a previously voted amendment. The FFII voting list with short justifications is also available in PDF and Microsoft Word formats.

Also available is the official text of the final adopted report (Word doc).

Legislative Proposal

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
13	Corbey, Mastenbroek	+++	-	The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
14	Guidoni, Remek	+++	-

Justification

The legal means to combat piracy are already available (TRIPs). Only a thorough investigation as to the legal and factual conditions could show more criminal measures are needed. Apart from very general remarks regarding its competence, nothing in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal indicates that such an investigation was undertaken by the Commission, and, if so, what specific results it produced.

Article 1, paragraph 1

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
21	Guidoni, Toia	++	-	This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to ensure the prohibition of copyright piracy and trade mark counterfeiting on a commercial scale.
2	Hammerstein	0	+	This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to combat and deter the intentional infringement of intellectual property rights on a commercial scale.
22	Chmielewski	0	N/A	This Directive lays down the criminal measures necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which consist of copyright and related rights, the sui generis right for databases and trademark rights, with the exception of infringements of patent rights, rights derived from supplementary protection certificates or rights related to protection under utility models.

Justification

Am 2 leaves the scope open, the conditions of "intentional infringement" and "commercial scale" (which need to be further defined to have a limiting effect, see After Article 2, new) are better placed in art 3.

Am 21 limits the scope of the directive to those cases for which the Commission has provided some justification (intentional trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a commercial scale).

Am 22 is in principle a slight improvement over the Commission text because it tries to limit the scope, but it is unclear why database rights should be included (in particular since the Commission hasn't found any evidence so far that the existence of this rights actually stimulates the economy). Also by explicitly enumerating what should not be covered under the directive it leaves the door open for rights which aren't explicitly excluded to be subsumed under it.

Article 1, paragraph 2

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		These measures shall apply to intellectual property rights provided for in Community legislation and/or national legislation in the Member States.
23	Guidoni, Toia	++	-	(deleted)
3	Hammerstein	+	+	It harmonises these criminal measures at EU level where this is necessary to combat the intentional infringement of intellectual property rights committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, or where they carry a health or safety risk.

Justification

Am 3 proposes to limit application to those cases the Commission mentioned, although in principle health/safety risks are an orthogonal issue unrelated to IPR infringements and should not be mixed in this directive (see Am 24 why).

Am 23 removes the open scope of the directive, and should be read in combination with Am 21 above. The Commission proposal is not conform ECJ C-176/03.

After Article 1 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
4	Hammerstein	++	+	Without prejudice to measures that already exist in Member States, the measures laid down in this Directive shall apply only to wilful trademark infringement or copyright piracy.
24	Toia	-	NA	Patents, utility models and supplementary protection certificates shall be excluded from the scope of this directive except where it can be shown that infringements of these rights represent a serious threat to public health or safety.
25	Toia, Remek	-	-	In accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001, to which the EU is a signatory, the concept of 'intellectual piracy' should be limited to criminal infringements of a commercial nature entailing important and objective breaches in terms of counterfeiting (series production of illegal content copying or reproducing an original).
5	Hammerstein	0	+	The non-profit exchange between individuals of legally acquired content is excluded from the scope of this Directive.

Justification

Am 4 properly limits the scope of the directive to fields for which the Commission provided examples.

Am 5: A politically involved civilian forwarding an article, for instance about a new law, is not protected by this amendment. Furthermore, the exact meaning of "exchange" is not clear enough (exchange with or without copying). To properly protect consumers, the formulation "commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit" is needed (Am 30, 31, 32).

Am 24 has no effect in the best case: the infringement of a patent or a protection certificate in itself does not result in public safety or health risks (working around a patent/protection certificate is in fact more likely to have that effect). The only IPR infringement which by itself can cause risks for the public is trademark counterfeiting (people getting different goods/medication than they think they are getting).

Am 25 is not clear enough.

Article 2, title

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	0		Definition
26	Vlasto	0		Definitions

After Article 2 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
28	Corbey, Mastenbroek	++	-	For the purposes of this Directive, “infringement” means an infringement that involves a good that takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion.
29	Guidoni, Toia	++	-
6	Hammerstein	+	+	For the purposes of this Directive, "infringement on a commercial scale" means for-profit infringement of an intellectual property right which causes significant direct loss to the holder of that right.
30	Guidoni, Toia, Remek	++	N/A	For the purposes of this Directive, ”infringement on commercial scale” means commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit, which causes significant direct loss for the holder of that right. Non-profit exchange of legally acquired content between individuals must be excluded from the application of this Directive.
7	Hammerstein	0	+	For the purposes of this Directive, "intentional infringement of an intellectual property right" means deliberate and knowing infringement of that right.
27	Vlasto	-	+	1a. For the purposes of this Directive, 'counterfeiting' means the fact of any person: (a) holding with no legitimate reason, importing under any customs arrangements or exporting goods presented under a counterfeit trade mark; (b) offering for sale or selling goods presented under a counterfeit trade mark; (c) reproducing, imitating, using, affixing, deleting or modifying a trade mark, a collective mark or a certified collective mark in violation of the rights conferred by the registration thereof and of the prohibitions stemming therefrom; (d) knowingly supplying a product or service other than that which is requested of that person under a registered trade mark.
32	Guidoni, Toia	++	N/A	For the purposes of this Directive, “trade mark counterfeiting” means an act that fulfills the following elements cumulatively: (a) a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered; (b) commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit; (c) causes significant direct loss for the rights-holder; and (d) deliberate and knowing infringement of the trade mark involved.
31	Guidoni, Toia	++	-	For the purposes of this Directive, “copyright piracy” means an act that fulfills the following elements cumulatively: (a) an unmodified copy; (b) commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit; (c) causes significant direct loss for the rights holder; and (d) deliberate and knowing infringement of the copyright involved.

Justification

Am 6: "commercial scale" is not clear enough, this amendment offers an improvemement. Am 30 is technically better.

Am 28 (= Am 29) is essential to limit the directive to cases of clear piracy and counterfeiting. In less straightforward cases – in particular when the conflict concerns the scope of protection granted vis-à-vis similar goods or achievements – sanctions under civil law can usually be regarded as sufficient from a Community perspective (notwithstanding rules of national law).

Am 30 is the same as Am 6 together with Am 5, with one change: "for-profit" becomes "commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit". This is better since judges cannot read minds to discover the intention. There needs to be an activity which can be used to deduct a particular intention.

Am 27 includes conflicts which are not piracy, cases in which the conflict concerns the scope of protection granted vis-à-vis similar goods or achievements. The (desirable) freedom of market actors to engage in business is curtailed beyond proportion, which would produce results adverse to the aims of the common market.

Am 31 combines Am 28 (= Am 29) and Am 30. This way the directive is limited to clear cases of piracy.

Am 32 is the counterpart of Am 31 for counterfeiting.

Article 3

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
35	Vlasto	---	-	Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
8	Hammerstein	+	+	Member States shall ensure that the intentional infringement of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are is treated as a criminal offence.
33	Toia	0	N/A	Member States shall ensure that only intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, designed to assist organised crime and/or representing a serious threat to health or safety, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
36	Březina	-	N/A	Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and, in serious cases, attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.
34	Chmielewski	-	-	Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, defined as the making available of intangible assets for the purposes of profit, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences.

Justification

Am 8: National law systems have their own general systems for "attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting". The Community does not have the right to harmonise these systems, not even after C-176/03. Harmonisation on a directive by directive basis will create different rules for aiding/abetting/... depending on the crime committed (as shown by Am 36). The end result will be more fragmented than the current situation.

Am 34 and Am 36 include conflicts which are not piracy, cases in which the conflict concerns the scope of protection granted vis-à-vis similar goods or achievements. The (desirable) freedom of market actors to engage in business is curtailed beyond proportion, which would produce results adverse to the aims of the common market. Am 36: Non standard solutions for "attempting, aiding, or abetting and inciting" lead to fragmented national law systems, see Am 8.

Am 33 may have an adverse effect. It does not define the crime with precision, "intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale" includes normal business conflicts (testing extent of protection). If normal business conflicts are crimes, normal businesses can be seen as criminal organisations. If acts are only prosecutable if committed by criminal organisations, pressure may evolve to more readily see normal businesses as criminal organisations.

Am 35 makes writing a copy of a poem in a letter to a friend a crime. Violation of the principle of proportionality. No relation with the Common Market nor with removing obstacles to trade between member states. Non commercial acts therefore must not be considered as piracy or counterfeiting.

After Article 3 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
9	Hammerstein	0	+	Furthermore Member States shall ensure that attempting, aiding, or abetting and inciting such infringements are treated as criminal offences where the attempting, aiding, or abetting and inciting: (a) is conducted for the purposes of assisting organized crime, or (b) constitutes a serious threat to health or safety.
10	Hammerstein	+	+	Criminal sanctions are not to be applied in cases of the parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the holder of the right in a third country.

Justification

Am 9 Non standard solutions for "attempting, aiding, or abetting and inciting" lead to fragmented national law systems, see Am 8. May also have adverse effect, see Am 33.

Am 10. In such cases a genuine product, made by the right holder or with his consent, is sold. This cannot be considered as piracy or counterfeiting.

Article 4

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		1. For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide for the following penalties: a) for natural persons: custodial sentences; b) for natural and legal persons: i) fines; ii) confiscation of the object, instruments and products stemming from infringements or of goods whose value corresponds to those products. 2. For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases: (a) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right; (b) total or partial closure, on a permanent or temporary basis, of the establishment used primarily to commit the offence; (c) a permanent or temporary ban on engaging in commercial activities; (d) placing under judicial supervision; (e) judicial winding up; (f) a ban on access to public assistance or subsidies; (g) publication of judicial decisions.
37	Guidoni, Toia, Remek	++	-	For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide for effective, proportional and dissuasive penalties. (rest deleted)
38	Březina	0	+	2. For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate case, where the general interest so requires:
39	Vlasto	0	+	2. a) anticipated total destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right, with non-guaranteed preservation of convincing samples;
40	Vlasto	0	+	2. ga) (new) the payment, by the counterfeiter, of the guarding costs.

Justification

Am 37 is the only one conform ECJ case C-176/03.

Article 5

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed by natural persons, the offences referred to in Article 3 are punishable by a maximum sentence of at least four years' imprisonment when committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk. 2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed by natural persons or legal entities, the offences referred to in Article 3 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. These penalties shall include criminal and non criminal fines: (a) to a maximum of at least EUR 100 000 for cases other than the most serious cases; (b) to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for cases referred to in paragraph 1.
41	Guidoni, Toia, Remek	++	-	(deleted)
42	Herczog	--	-	1. Each Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed by natural persons, the offences referred to in Article 3 are punishable by a maximum sentence of at least four years’ imprisonment when they are considered to be a serious crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
43	Vlasto	0	N/A	(linguistic change specific to French version)
44	Herczog	+	+	2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, when committed by natural persons or legal entities, the offences referred to in Article 3 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties. These penalties shall include criminal and non criminal fines. (rest deleted)
45	Pleguezuelos	+	+	2. In the case of financial penalties, the courts in each Member State shall determine the amount of the fine in their judgement, taking into account the damage caused and the value of the object of the infringement or the profit derived therefrom, the main consideration in all cases being the economic situation of the guilty party, as shown by his assets, income, family obligations and dependents and other personal circumstances.
46	Vlasto	--	N/A	(a) to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for cases other than the most serious cases and up to five times the amount of profit made by the counterfeiter;
47	Vlasto	--	N/A	(a) to a maximum of at least EUR 600 000 for cases other than the most serious cases and up to ten times the amount of profit made by the counterfeiter;
48	Chmielewski	0	N/A	(ba) (new) proportionate to the turnover of the person concerned, in the case of legal persons.

Justification

Am 41: art 4 already mentions the sanctions, conform ECJ C-176/03, see Am 37.

Am 42: not conform ECJ C-176/03. Furthermore the amendment uses the term "serious crime" which is not defined and therefore confusing.. "Health or safety risk": any product, whether genuine or pirated, should not endager health.

Am 44: sanctions should be mentioned in art 4, conform ECJ C-176/03, see Am 37.

Am 45: also solves the subsidiarity problem.

Am 46 and Am 47 reconfirm the Commission's text and are therefore not not conform ECJ C-176/03.

Article 6

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	-		The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
49	Herczog	--	+	The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with article 3 of the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 of February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are a serious crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
51	Guidoni, Toia	+	N/A	The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
50	Březina	-	+	The Member States, in accordance with fundamental rights, shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
52	Vlasto	0		(linguistic change specific to French version)

Justification

Am 49: uses the term "serious crime" which is not defined and therefore confusing.

Am 50 Criminal law needs more precision than a reference to fundamental rights.

After Article 6 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
53	Guidoni, Toia, Remek	++	-	6 a) (new) Member States shall ensure that through criminal, civil and procedural measures, the misuse of threats of criminal sanctions can be prohibited and subject to penalties. Member States shall prohibit procedural misuse, especially as criminal measures are employed for the enforcement of the requirements of civil law.

Justification

Am 53: The potential for a rightholder to deter potential infringers (i.e., competitors) increases considerably if he can threaten them with criminal penalties. Both international and European law require the prevention of misuse of IP rights. Misuse disrupts free competition, in contravention of Art. 28 et seq. and 81 et seq. EC.

Article 7

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	-		The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.
11	Hammerstein	++	+	The Member States must ensure that the holders of the intellectual property rights concerned, or their duly mandated representatives and experts, shall provide information to the joint investigation teams investigating the offences referred to in Article 3.
54	Vlasto	0	N/A	The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives ,and experts , are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.

Justification

Am 11 rejects privatisation of investigations, about which the Max Planck Institute wrote: "The obligation of Member States to delegate functions within the conduct of criminal investigations to private parties in such a diffuse manner is therefore incompatible with the fundamental structure of a democratic society."

After Article 7 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
55	Vlasto	-	-	To this end, the IPR holders receive information related to the investigation and in particular relating to: the circumstances of the acts and the location of confiscation; the number of interrogated persons; the number of products or goods concerned.
12	Hammerstein	++	+	Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the protection of personal data, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data1 shall be fully respected in the course of investigations and judicial proceedings.

Justification

Am 55: criminal procedures require very high standards concerning the confidentiality of the investigation and collection of evidence in order not to jeopardise the prosecution, and to protect the rights of the defendant. If a private person or company is interested in learning how to better protect their assets or other information regarding the infringers, it should start a (possibly concurrent) civil procedure. Mixing criminal and civil procedures risks undermining criminal cases due to procedural errors.

Article 8

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
56	Guidoni, Toia	++	-	(deleted)
57	Rübig	-	-	Where a Member State makes the prosecution of offences covered by Article 3 dependent on an accusation or application made by the right-holder, it shall adopt the requisite measures to ensure that at least the authorities and bodies responsible in connection with criminal investigations: (a) notify the right-holder concerned of the suspected offence, if goods are suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, and (b) are able to confiscate the goods for three working days after the right-holder receives such notification, if there are sufficient grounds for the suspicion, so as to give the right-holder the opportunity to submit an accusation or make an application for prosecution.
58	Vlasto	0		(linguistic change specific to French version)

Justification

Am 56: Criminal investigation authorities should not be able to act on their own initiative without a prior complaint of the rights owner, because licensing arrangements are not published and the rights owner has the fundamental right to dispose of his rights as he desires. See also Am 18.

Am 57 leaves open the possibilty to prosecute in cases where the right holders does not want to enforce his right. The "infringer" can have an indication that the right holder will not enforce its right, yet can be prosecuted. This has a chilling effect on the freedom to act in the market.

After recital 1 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
15	Guidoni, Remek	+	Not admissible	(1a) Agrees with the Dutch Government, which in July 2006 stressed that the legal instruments to combat piracy already existed and rejected the present directive as unnecessary, taking the view also that the Commission has no competence to propose a directive making intellectual property rights infringement an offence.
16	Guidoni, Remek	+	Not admissible	(1b) Agrees with the Dutch Parliament, which believes that there is no clear need for a directive of this kind and that the Commission is wrongly interpreting the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case 176/03, extending its sphere of legislative intervention into an area for which it has no competence.

Justification

Am 15 and Am 16 remind the legislator about the letter sent by the Dutch Parliament to Commissioner Frattini, in which they noted that the present directive is unnecessary and goes beyond what is allowed by ECJ 176/03. These amendments do not change anything by themselves, but serve as reminder to the other political players.

Recital 8

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		(8) Provisions must be laid down to facilitate criminal investigations. The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams.
17	Vlasto	0	N/A	(8) Provisions must be laid down to facilitate criminal investigations. The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representative, and experts are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams.

Recital 9

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
Original	Commission	--		To facilitate investigations or criminal proceedings concerning intellectual property offences, these may not be dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence.
18	Guidoni, Toia	++	+	(deleted)
19	Rübig	-	N/A	(9) It should be possible for the Member States to make provision for, or to retain, either an official system or a system based on proceedings initiated privately. In the case of a system based on proceedings initiated privately, however, rights-holders should be notified by the authorities of suspected offences and, if there are sufficient grounds for the suspicion, it should also be possible to confiscate the offending goods temporarily.
20	Vlasto	---	N/A	(9) To facilitate investigations or criminal proceedings concerning intellectual property offences, these can be started including in absence of a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence.

Justification

Am 18: The Commission's proposal weakens exercising intellectual property rights. It enables the State to intervene in cases where a rights holder consents to the infringement of his rights, or where a private licensing agreement unknown to the outside world is in effect.

Mutual patent indemnification contracts (agreement not to sue each other or respective customers without explicit license), which are usually not published, are rendered meaningless. In the case of unilateral permissions the user even receives no contract. This provision would cause a shift to a more formal and bureaucratic IPR licensing system resulting in higher transaction costs for both the rights holder and the user. Am 18 keeps the current flexible regime.

Am 20 does not semantically change the Commission's text, and thereby actively confirms the Commission's intentions of bureaucratising IPR licensing.

After Recital 9 (new)

Number	Submitter	Recommendation	Vote outcome	Text
1	Hammerstein	+	+	(9a) (new) The rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be fully respected when defining criminal acts and penalties, during investigations and in the course of judicial proceedings.

Organisational issues

Activities

Getting involved

Twitter

German

Other stuff

This web site

ITRE Tabled Amendments

Legislative Proposal

Article 1, paragraph 1

Article 1, paragraph 2

After Article 1 (new)

Article 2, title

After Article 2 (new)

Article 3

After Article 3 (new)

Article 4

Article 5

Article 6

After Article 6 (new)

Article 7

After Article 7 (new)

Article 8

After recital 1 (new)

Recital 8

Recital 9

After Recital 9 (new)