While in the European Parliament the plenary debate on the Unitary Patent Package is going on, Mr Yves Bot, Attorney General in charge of joint cases C‑274/11 and C‑295/11 pending before the Court of Justice of the European Unionhas delivered his opinion: In Italian and a few not-so-common languages. However, Google might be your friend in such situations:

IV – Conclusion

163. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:

1) dismiss the appeal;

2) order the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-274/11) and the Italian Republic (Case C-295/11) to take charge of their own costs and the Council of the European Union and the interveners to bear their own costs .

Just to remind you: Both cases have been filed by Italy and Spain, respectively, in order to challenge the decision of the EU Council to allow the instrument of enhanced co-operation provided by the Lisbon Treaty (under certain conditions disputed in the lawsuit). But Mr Bot’s Opinion is not necessarily the last word on that matter: First, the Court is free to depart from Mr Bot’s Opinion, second, at some later point in time a case might be filed allowing CJEU to have their say as to whether or not the Unitary Patent package as debated in the Parliament just this minute is compatible with EU treaties or not.

[UPDATE 2012-12-11 11:05] Meanwhile also translations in many other languages are available on-line, e.g. in English

[UPDATE 2012-12-11 13:25] Just an hour or so ago, the European Parliament has approved the Unitary Patent package:

The Rapkay report was approved by 484 votes to 164 with 35 abstentions.

The Baldassarre resolution was approved by 481 votes to 152 with 49 abstentions.

The Lehne report was approved by 483 votes to 161, with 38 abstentions.

Procedures: Co-decision (Ordinary Legislative Procedure) 1st reading (unitary patent), Consultation (language regime), non-legislative resolution (unified patent court)

Press conference: Tuesday, 11 December at 15:00

About The Author

Axel H. Horns

German & European Patent, Trade Mark & Design Attorney

3 Responses to Attorney General Mr. Bot: CJEU Should Not Kill Enhanced Co-Operation for Unitary Patent

  1. zoobab says:

    “the language arrangements for the unitary patent will, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU, have to be determined by the unanimous vote of the participating Member States. ”

    So if Spain joins the Enhanced Cooperation, they can request Spanish with a unanimous vote?

  2. no conclusion says:

    It seems as though they just skipped the language discrimination argument as “the language is not decided yet”. Or did I read it wrongly?

    If so, it seems the decision is only postponed to after the unified patent becomes alive.

    However, the postponing is as effective as killing any possible future discussion as it is easy to see that, by then, it will be too late and politically if anything, the project will not be allowed to fail.

  3. Gibus says:

    Note that in several times, Bot says that this decision does not preclude opinion on the implementing regulation.

    In particular, note: “the objectives pursued cannot be achieved by the Member States”. Does it ring a bell with uniform protection defined not in unitary patent regulation bu in Unified Patent Court international non-EU inter-States agreement?