Germany in trouble over IP enforcement -- but for what?

Last time it was the French; this time it's the Germans who are in trouble for failure to comply with the provisions of one of the European Union's celebrated IP directives. This morning the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled in Case C‑395/07, Commission v Germany, that the German government has failed to do its duty with regard to Directive 2004/48 (the IP Enforcement Directive). Alas, it's only in French and German -- but the good news is that it's very short.

Right: The IPKat, an enthusiast for IP enforcement, notes that Directive 2004/48 deals with civil matters only: a criminal enforcement directive is yet to come (buy this cat here)

The court said:

"1 Par sa requête, la Commission des Communautés européennes demande à la Cour de constater que, en ayant omis d’adopter les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour transposer la directive 2004/48/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 29 avril 2004, relative au respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle (JO L 157, p. 45, et rectificatif, JO L 195, p. 16, ci-après la «directive»), ou en n’ayant pas communiqué lesdites dispositions à la Commission, la République fédérale d’Allemagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive.

2 L’article 20, paragraphe 1, de la directive dispose que les États membres devaient mettre en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à celle‑ci au plus tard le 29 avril 2006 et en informer immédiatement la Commission.

3 N’ayant pas reçu d’informations lui permettant de considérer que les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer la transposition de la directive dans l’ordre juridique national avaient été adoptées par la République fédérale d’Allemagne, la Commission a engagé la procédure en manquement prévue à l’article 226 CE. Après avoir mis cet État membre en demeure de présenter ses observations, la Commission a, le 12 octobre 2006, émis un avis motivé invitant ledit État membre à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour se conformer à cet avis dans un délai de deux mois à compter de sa réception.

4 La République fédérale d’Allemagne a répondu audit avis motivé le 4 décembre 2006, en indiquant que la procédure législative visant à transposer la directive était en cours et devait être clôturée avant l’été de l’année 2007.

5 N’ayant obtenu aucune nouvelle information de la part de cet État membre lui permettant de conclure que les mesures nécessaires à la transposition de la directive avaient été adoptées, la Commission a introduit le présent recours.

6 Devant la Cour, la République fédérale d’Allemagne ne conteste pas le fait que les mesures nécessaires à la transposition de la directive en droit interne n’ont pas été adoptées dans le délai prescrit. Toutefois, elle fait valoir que cette transposition sera achevée prochainement par l’adoption d’une loi visant à améliorer la mise en œuvre des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Elle indique que le retard encouru dans la transposition de la directive est essentiellement dû aux difficultés survenues lors de la procédure législative de transposition.

7 À cet égard, il convient de rappeler que, selon une jurisprudence constante, un État membre ne saurait exciper de dispositions, de pratiques ou de situations de son ordre juridique interne pour justifier l’inobservation des obligations et des délais prescrits par une directive ...

8 De même, la Cour a itérativement jugé que l’existence d’un manquement doit être appréciée en fonction de la situation de l’État membre telle qu’elle se présentait au terme du délai fixé dans l’avis motivé ...

9 Or, il est constant que, à l’expiration du délai imparti dans l’avis motivé, les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la transposition de la directive dans l’ordre juridique national n’avaient pas été adoptées.

10 Dans ces conditions, il y a lieu de considérer le recours introduit par la Commission comme fondé.

11 Par conséquent, il convient de constater que, en ayant omis d’adopter, dans le délai prescrit, les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la directive, la République fédérale d’Allemagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive.

Sur les dépens

12 En vertu de l’article 69, paragraphe 2, du règlement de procédure, toute partie qui succombe est condamnée aux dépens, s’il est conclu en ce sens. La Commission ayant conclu à la condamnation de la République fédérale d’Allemagne et cette dernière ayant succombée en ses moyens, il y a lieu de la condamner aux dépens.

Par ces motifs, la Cour (huitième chambre) déclare et arrête:

1) En ayant omis d’adopter, dans le délai prescrit, les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la directive 2004/48 ... la République fédérale d’Allemagne a manqué aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de cette directive.

2) La République fédérale d’Allemagne est condamnée aux dépens.

Can any kind reader oblige with a neat summary?

STOP PRESS: Sarah Byrt (Mayer Brown International) has sent the IPKat this:
"1. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to hold that, by having omitted to adopt the statutory and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2004/48 relating to intellectual property rights, or not having communicated those provisions to the Commission, Germany has failed to comply with its obligations under that Directive.

2. Article 20(1) of the Directive provides that Member States must put statutory or administrative provisions in place by no later than 29 April 2006 and to inform the Commission immediately of this.

3. Not having received any information enabling it to consider that the provisions necessary to ensure the implementation of the Directive international law had been adopted by Germany, the Commission commenced an enforcement procedure under Article 226. Having notified Germany to put forward its observations, the Commission submitted a reasoned opinion on 12 October 2006 inviting it to take the necessary steps to bring itself into compliance with that opinion within 2 months receipt.

4. Germany responded to the reasoned opinion on 4 December 2006 indicating that the statutory procedure to implement the Directive was underway and should be completed before summer 2007.

5. Not having any further information from Germany enabling it to conclude that the necessary measures had been taken, the Commission commenced this case.

6. Germany did not deny that the necessary measures had not been taken within the prescribed deadline. However, it asserted that it would have completed implementation of the Directive shortly through the passing of an Act aiming to improve the application of intellectual property rights. It indicated that the delay was essentially due to difficulties encountered in the legislative procedure dealing with implementation.

7. Case law establishes that a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or circumstances relating to its internal legal matters to justify a failure to comply with obligations imposed by a Directive within the prescribed deadline.

8. Moreover, the ECJ has repeatedly held that the existence of a breach must be analysed on the basis of the situation in which a Member State finds itself at the end of the deadline set out in the recent opinion.

9. On expiry of the deadline set out in the recent opinion, the necessary measures had not been taken.

10. The Commission's application is therefore well-founded.

11. Germany is therefore in breach of the obligations imposed on it by the Directive.

12. Costs are awarded against Germany".
Many thanks, Sarah!
Germany in trouble over IP enforcement -- but for what? Germany in trouble over IP enforcement -- but for what? Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, June 05, 2008 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. Quite simple. Germany has not yet implemented Directive 48/2004 although it should have done so by April 2006 so this rap across the knuckles. The legislation has been passed by both the Bundestag and Bundesrat and should come into force in the first half of June (the legislation also implements the London Agreement as of May 1).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ou sont les Chats de PI d'antan?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thorsten Lauterbach (Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University) emailed to say that, according to the IP Enforcement Directive, Art. 20 (1), member states had to implement the Directive by 29.4.06 - and to inform the Commission thereof without delay. However, the Commission did not receive any information on the implementation by the German Government by the deadline, and the Commission started an action under Art. 226 EC.

    Germany responded to the reasoned opinion on 4 December 06, maintaining that it was about to implement the measure, and it would be implemented no later than "summer 2007". After waiting for further details in vain, the Commission asked the ECJ to rule on the dispute.

    The German government admitted that it implemented the measure late, citing 'difficulties during the implementation process of the measure' - a woolly excuse that was predictably rejected by the ECJ (referring to a whole raft of previous decisions where similar excuses had been rejected).

    Thus Germany had failed in her obligations under the Treaty.

    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.