Re: [Patents] Council Presidency "Adopts" Software Patent Agreement

[Kristoff Bonne <kristoff.bonne@compaqnet.be>]

Gegroet,


Thanks for the info.
I sposted a simular question in the "europa.union" NG (where there usually are some people who know about the internal workings of the EU). I'm interested to see what come up overthere.

The question now is:
- who at the EP has to take up this task of "looking if it is indeed a common position"?

- Is there something we can do? (AFAIK, every EU citizen has the right to start a case at the EU court if she thinks that her rights are violated by a descision of the EU). (the question here is "as the descision still has to go to the parliament for second reading; can we speak of a "EU descision" or not?)


Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.


Magosányi Árpád schreef:

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 levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Kristoff Bonne a következőeket írta:
  

Gegroet,

I just asked the same question in be-parl-l, but I'll ask it here too.


Jonas Maebe schreef:

    

Council Presidency "Adopts" Software Patent Agreement
      

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.
      

(...)

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?



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

    

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature