Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:14:51.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signed, Sealed, but not Delivered: The EU and the Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ana Ramalho
Ana Ramalho*
Affiliation:
Intellectual Property Law, Maastricht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 629 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Council Decision of 14 April 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled, O.J. 2014 L 115/1.

2 For the full text of the Treaty, see http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=301016 (last accessed 28 October 2015).

3 Koklu, Kaya, “The Marrakesh Treaty – time to end the book famine for visually impaired persons worldwide”, 45 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015), pp. 737 et sqq., at p. 738CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Seville, Catherine, “The principles of international intellectual property protection: from Paris to Marrakesh”, 5 The WIPO Journal (2013), pp. 95 et sqq., at p. 103Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., the Report of WIPO and UNESCO's Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Protectd by Copyright, 1982, available at http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/tvi/berne_1982_wipo_unesco.html (last accessed 28 October 2005).

6 See Annex to the Council note 8305/14, available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%208305%202014%20ADD%201 (last accessed 28 October 2015).

7 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, O.J. 2001 L 167/10.

8 Article 3 paragraph 2 TFEU reads: “The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.”

9 The transcript of the debate is available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20150429&secondRef=ITEM-024&language=EN&ring=O-2015-000021 (last accessed 20 October 2015),

10 Eeckhout, Piet, EU External Relations Law, 2 nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 212–214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Council note 8967/15, p. 8, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2015/05/st08967_en15_pdf/ (last accessed 28 October 2015).

12 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-009538&language=EN (last accessed 28 October 2015). For an analysis of what an amendment to the current legal framework should consist of, see Hilty, Reto, Koklu, Kaya, Kur, Annette et al., “Position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition concerning the implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled”, 46 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015), pp. 707 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 C-114/12, Commission and Parliament v. Council [not yet published].

14 Paragraph 74 of the decision.

15 Case 22/70, Commision v. Council (ERTA) [1971] 263.

16 Paragraph 31 of the ERTA case. See also Piet Eeckhout, op. cit., pp. 75-76

17 Paragraph 69 of the decision.

18 Paragraphs 68-70 of the decision.

19 See Annex to the Council note 8305/14, available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST%208305%202014%20ADD%201 (last accessed 28 October 2015).

20 Guido Westkamp, “The Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in the Member States”, 2007 pp. 35-37, available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-study-annex_en.pdf (last accessed 28 October 2015)

21 Case C-201/13, Deckmyn v. Vandersteen [not yet published].

22 Paragraphs 14-17 of the decision.

23 Case C-414/11 – Daiichi Sankyo v. DEMO, [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:520.

24 Paragraphs 59-60 of the decision.

25 Paragraph 51 of the decision.

26 Paragraphs 59-60 of the decision.

27 As noted by Trimble, Marketa, “The Marrakesh puzzle”, 45 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2015), pp. 768 et sqq., at pp. 771-772CrossRefGoogle Scholar.