French court in the act?


A new case appears on the ECJ website. It appears to be an infraction case and, since France is being infracted, it is perhaps fitting that the case is only available in French. The IPKat's rudimentary French causes him to believe that France is being rapped over the knuckles for failing to communicate a list of Community design courts to the Commission. The ECJ concludes:

1) En l’absence de communication des tribunaux des dessins ou modèles communautaires à la Commission des Communautés européennes, la République française à manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de l’article 80, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) nº 6/2002 du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2001, sur les dessins ou modèles communautaires.

2) La République française est condamnée aux dépens.

The IPKat would appreciate the assistance of any reader with a better grasp of French than his own.

French court in the act? French court in the act? Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Rating: 5

6 comments:

  1. The Kat is correct. France missed the 6 March 2005 deadline for submitting a list of courts to deal with community designs.

    The EC therefore wrote to the French government on 19 October 2006 to ask it comply within 2 months.

    The French government responded on 22 December 2006, stating that it had submitted a proposal for adaptation of its law on 9 November 2006.

    The EC considered that these measures were insufficient and, because France had not submitted its list, it filed this appeal.

    In its defence, France claimed that it had taken the necessary legislative measures to enact the relevant regulation but effectively admitted that it had not adopted the law which would determine the relevant courts.

    The ECJ therefore concluded that France had failed to meet its obligations and awarded costs against it.

    A bit of a French dressing down?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are right, France has failed to communicate the list of courts designated to judge community designs issues.
    In fact, the law reform passed last october provided for the appointment of these courts by decree.
    The decree is still not ready though, hence this decision.

    A good summary of October law reform (in English):

    http://www.ds-avocats.com/dsfr/IMG/pdf/Lettre_IPIT_ENG_MARS_2008.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not much more it it than that. The French Government's excuse is that the procedure for passing the secondary legislation designating the tribunals is not yet complete.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would even sigh, and say "As usual". The current French government seems to have made quite a trend of passing laws and then leaving a huge backlog of decrees to be issued, so it is not really any surprise that it has once again been fined for its untimeliness. On the surface things are moving, and underneath, just the usual slow (or even slower) trawl of bureaucracy...that's what comes of putting all of your aging technocrat civil servants into early retirement and not rehiring !!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The list of community design courts might not be made available before september, according to (indirect) information on the pace of the "Guinchard commision"'s work in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please ignore my previous comment.

    A decree published on 4 June 2008 (yes, one day after the ECJ decision!) designates the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris as France's Community Designs court.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.