X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <mag@bunuel.tii.matav.hu>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from matav-3.matav.hu (matav-3.matav.hu [145.236.252.34])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763FE98E4E
	for <patents@aful.org>; Mon,  7 Mar 2005 14:16:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by matav-3.matav.hu with esmtp; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:36:03 +0100
Received: from [10.3.73.152] (helo=bunuel.tii.matav.hu)
	by woody.fw.matav.intra with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 1D8HSt-000386-00; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:36:03 +0100
Received: by bunuel.tii.matav.hu (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 823C4180F4; Mon,  7 Mar 2005 12:14:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:14:02 +0000
From: =?iso-8859-2?B?TWFnb3PhbnlpIMFycOFk?= <mag@bunuel.tii.matav.hu>
To: Kristoff Bonne <kristoff.bonne@compaqnet.be>
Cc: Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>, patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] Council Presidency "Adopts" Software Patent Agreement
Message-ID: <20050307121402.GC13835@bunuel.tii.matav.hu>
References: <aef8dd9cd8372df9975fde7a29ac913e@ugent.be> <422C4775.3090805@compaqnet.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <422C4775.3090805@compaqnet.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Validation-by: mag@bunuel.tii.matav.hu

Hi!

I would say that it is Court and Ombudsman time.

The EP's own procedural rules say that when a common position
is received, they should look whether it is "indeed a
Common Position". Neither if this "indeed" refers to substance
(member states support it with the needed majority), nor if
procedure (it is accepted according to the rules), it is
not a common position.
So the EP just can not consider second reading until the
matter is set straight in the Council.

It is a severe violation of rules, and a serious disregard of
democracy. It is not just have to be corrected, but the responsible
ones should be punished.

A levelez=F5m azt hiszi, hogy Kristoff Bonne a k=F6vetkez=F5eket =EDrta:
> Gegroet,
>=20
> I just asked the same question in be-parl-l, but I'll ask it here too.
>=20
>=20
> Jonas Maebe schreef:
>=20
> >Council Presidency "Adopts" Software Patent Agreement
>=20
> >7 March 2005 -- The Council Presidency today declared the software
> >agreement of 18 May 2004 to have been adopted, in violation of the
> >procedural rules and in spite of the evident lack of a qualified
> >majority of member states and the requests of several states to reopen
> >negotiations.
>=20
> (...)
>=20
> What is the next step? Fight the descision in the Court of the EU (as
> you speak of "in violation to procedureal rules") or directly to the EP?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
>=20



--=20
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forr=E1sb=F3l

