Projet de loi portant assentiment aux actes internationaux suivants en matière de propriété intellectuelle: 1° La Convention internationale pour la protection des obtentions végétales du 2 décembre 1961, révisée à Genève le 10 novembre 1972, le 23 octobre 1978 et le 19 mars 1991; 2° L'Accord sur l'application de l'article 65 de la Convention sur la délivrance de brevets européens, fait à Londres le 17 octobre 2000.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- MR Michel Ⅱ
- Submission date
- Jan. 28, 2019
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- European patent plant life intellectual property international agreement patent research and development
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V PS | SP Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- ∉ N-VA PVDA | PTB VB
- Abstained from voting
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE
Party dissidents ¶
- Siegfried Bracke (N-VA) voted to adopt.
- Francis Delpérée (LE) voted to adopt.
- Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
- Olivier Henry (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
- Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
- Ine Somers (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
Feb. 28, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President Siegfried Bracke ⚙
Mrs An Capoen, rapporteur, refers to the written report.
Mrs Pas, your entry on the speaker list has not hit here, for which we apologize. You get the word.
Barbara Pas VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to talk only about the second treaty that will be approved tonight during the voting.
On 16 June 2016, a majority of you, but not the Flemish Interest, approved a law containing various provisions on economics.
The reason for our opposition was the treaty that is being signed today. Indeed, the thick bundle of the draft law containing various provisions on the economy contained a commitment to ratify that treaty.
Today it is so far. With the bill you will approve today, you will agree to the treaty.
Allow me, just like I did on June 16, 2016, to sketch again today what it really is about.
As far as patent applications are concerned, the situation for Belgium is as follows.
The European Patent Office uses three official languages for examining and granting patents, namely English, German and French. In practice, the vast majority of patent applications and granted European patents are drawn up in English.
I understand that for many companies it is very busy and expensive to request many translations. However, for the legal validity of patents in the countries that are parties to the European Patent Convention, the translation from English to the national language or to one of the national languages is required.
For our country, this means that an English text must be translated into Dutch, French or German, because the English text has no legal value in Belgium.
At that time, it was decided that not all official languages in Europe could be considered as official languages. This status was granted only to English, German and French. However, if it was intended to reduce the number of official languages for financial reasons, it is not clear to me why, for example, French was recognized as an official language. Currently only 5 % of patent applications are filed in French, while more than 80 % of applications are filed in English.
If one really wanted to work cost-saving, one would have had to approach it in a different way and one would have to recognize it in only one language, for example. Meanwhile, the so-called London Protocol aims at least partially to eliminate the requirement of translation into one of the official national languages.
What is the most negative aspect for Flanders? The Dutch language is in a double regime for translations. Countries that have one of the official languages as their national language cannot request further translation. This applies, among others, to France, Germany, Ireland and Belgium.
A country such as the Netherlands may require a Dutch translation for the conclusions of the patents, but in Belgium the perverse consequence is that one will not be able to require a translation into Dutch because French is already an official language of the European Patent Office. Thus, the Flemish, the majority in this country, form the only language group in Europe that cannot get the patents valid in their own country translated into their own language.
This is not the first time that the London Protocol has been ratified. An attempt was made in 2008. Then it was even discussed in the Senate. The Flemish Importance was strongly opposed at that time. Fortunately, there were early elections, which prevented the treaty from being ratified.
Colleagues, in that resistance we were then supported by the colleagues of N-VA. They literally protested at all levels. Geert Bourgeois threatened in the Flemish Parliament with a conflict of interest. Frieda Brepoels believed in the European Parliament that Europe should bear the costs, because there were enough alternatives to ensure that a Dutch translation would not incur additional costs for our companies.
There was also Theo Francken in the federal parliament. In discussing your commitment to ratify this Protocol, I recorded and read his press release at the time. The comment was correct.
I am therefore very curious, colleagues, what will be the voting behavior of the N-VA today. You are together with this government-Michel, contrary to your attitude in 2008, when you literally resisted at all levels, 180 degrees turned. On 16 June 2016, you unanimously approved the commitment to ratify this Convention. By the mourning of colleague Klaps, the treaty was then fiercely defended on these banks.
The year 2016 is a few years ago. There are elections in the prospect. This is the period in which the N-VA receives community outbursts. I am very curious if you are going to make a turn again. I fully rely on the power of change of thought, to see you indeed vote against today. There are enough arguments. You put them on the table in 2008.
The Flemish Belang still stands behind the same principle, in 2008, in 2016, but also in 2019. We find it unacceptable that our politicians sacrifice the Dutch language in the name of the so-called higher European interests and that the protocol merely supports the interests of the major European states.
That cannot be the intention. We will not approve the treaty.