Text · Comparison of two versions
Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report
JURI-PR-749960 → A-9-2023-0315
- From
- JURI-PR-749960 report parliamentary committee draft of 15 Jun 2023
- To
- A-9-2023-0315 Plenary report of 6 Nov 2023
- Changes
- 25 changes to the text
- Paragraphs
- +51 added · −45 removed · 4 changed
More facts (2)
- Title (from)
- on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002
- Title (to)
- on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002
Changes that matter, 25
Changes to the text in document order — the ones the change notes describe. Cover page, renumbering and punctuation-only edits are left out (see “Every difference”); changes to citations and references stay in and are marked as formal in the notes.
Change 1
ChangedIt is worth recalling the role of the European Parliament.Parliament
Change 2
AddedRecital 4 a (new): (4a) In its resolution of 11 November 20211 a, the European Parliament pointed out that the current EU design protection system was set up 20 years ago and should be reviewed, highlighting the need for the provisions of the Regulation to be updated in order to ensure greater legal certainty;
AddedRecital 6: (6) While the Commission’s evaluation of the Union’s legislation on design protection confirmed that it is still largely fit for purpose, it announced in its communication ‘Making the most of the EU’s innovative potential – An intellectual property action plan to support the EU’s recovery and resilience’30 of 25 November 2020 that following the successful reform of the EU trade mark legislation, among others, it will revise the Union legislation on design protection with a view to improving the accessibility, efficiency and streamlining, and with a view to updating the regulatory framework in line with the evolution of new technologies on the market.
Change 3
RemovedRecital 16: (16) Directive (EU) [xxx] harmonises the laws of the Member States with regard to the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, where the design is applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. Accordingly, the current transitional repair clause contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 should be converted into a permanent provision. As the intended effect of that provision is to make registered and unregistered Community design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to EU design right infringement under Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. Furthermore, for the sake of coherence with the repair clause inserted into Directive (EU) [XXX], and in order to ensure that the scope of design protection is only restricted to prevent design right holders from actually being granted product monopolies, it is necessary to explicitly limit the application of the repair clause set out in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to component parts of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decisi…
AddedRecital 10 a (new): (10a) Technological innovation should not be hampered by granting design protection to designs consisting exclusively of features or the arrangement of features dictated solely by a technical function. It is understood that this does not entail that a design must have an aesthetic quality and that designs with a technical function are not excluded from design protection. Likewise, the interoperability of products of different makes should not be hindered by extending protection to the design of mechanical fittings. Features of a design which are excluded from protection for these reasons should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing whether other features of the design fulfil the requirements for protection.
Removed‘The identity of the manufacturer’ is a clearer concept than the concept of ‘origin’, which is too vague.
AddedIt is important to emphasise that functional and technical products are not excluded from design protection. To align with amended recital 21 of the recast Directive.
RemovedRecital 28: (28) In order to allow for an effective, efficient and complete review of decisions of the Office by the Boards of Appeal by means of a transparent, thorough, fair and equitable procedure, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying certain details of appeal proceedings where proceedings relating to EU designs require derogations from the provisions set out in delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 73 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
AddedRecital 11: (11) The use of artificial intelligence and 3D printing technologies in different areas of industry is growing, which results in challenges for design right holders to effectively prevent illegitimate copying of their protected designs. In this context, there should be clarity when it comes to the protection of 3D printing files and the limitations to the private use of designs. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the creation, downloading, copying and making available of any medium or software recording the design for the purpose of reproducing a product that infringes the design, amounts to use of the design being subject to the right holder’s authorisation.
Show 11 more lines
RemovedDelegated acts in this area need to be better defined.
AddedRecital 13: (13) To that effect, it should be permissible for holders of registered EU designs to prevent entry of infringing products and their placement in all customs situations. In performing customs controls, the customs authorities should make use of the powers and procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council32, including at the request of the right holders. In particular, the customs authorities should carry out the relevant controls on the basis of risk analysis criteria.
RemovedRecital 29: (29) In order to ensure a smooth, effective and efficient operation of the EU design system, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying the requirements as to the details on oral proceedings and the detailed arrangements for taking of evidence, the means of communication and the forms to be used by the parties to proceedings, the rules governing the calculation and duration of time limits, the procedures for the revocation of a decision or for cancellation of an entry in the Register of EU designs, the detailed arrangements for the resumption of proceedings, and the details on representation before the Office.
AddedRecital 16: (16) Directive (EU) [xxx] harmonises the laws of the Member States with regard to the use of protected designs for the purpose of permitting the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, where the design is applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product upon whose appearance the protected design is dependent. Accordingly, the current transitional repair clause contained in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 should be converted into a permanent provision. As the intended effect of that provision is to make registered and unregistered Community design rights unenforceable where the design of the component part of a complex product is used for the purpose of the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance, the repair clause should be placed among the available defences to EU design right infringement under Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. Furthermore, for the sake of coherence with the repair clause inserted into Directive (EU) [XXX], and in order to ensure that the scope of design protection is only restricted to prevent design right holders from actually being granted product monopolies, it is necessary to explicitly limit the application of the repair clause set out in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to component parts of a complex product. In addition, in order to ensure that consumers are not mislead but are able to make an informed decision between competing products that can be used for the r…
RemovedThe delegated act duplicates the powers conferred on the Executive Director in this area.
AddedRecital 18: (18) In view of the insignificant number of EU design applications filed at the central industrial property offices of the Member States and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, and in order to align the system for EU design applications to the system set out in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it should henceforth only be possible to file an EU design application at the Office. However, Member States should establish a ‘one-stop shop' through which applicants can receive guidance, legal and technical support.
AddedRecital 18 a (new): (18a) It is desirable that Member States’ central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property cooperate with each other and with the EUIPO in all fields of design registration and administration in order to promote convergence of practices and tools, such as the creation and updating of common or connected databases and portals for consultation and search purposes. The Member States should further ensure that their central industrial property offices and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property cooperate with each other and with the EUIPO in all other areas of their activities which are relevant for the protection of designs in the Union.
AddedAlignment with directive on the legal protection of designs, recital 43
AddedRecital 19: (19) Technological advancement, artificial intelligence evolution, and the experience gained in the application of the current EU design registration system has revealed the need to improve and streamline certain aspects of procedure. Consequently, certain measures should be taken to update, simplify and speed up procedures where appropriate and to enhance legal certainty and predictability where required.
AddedRecital 22: (22) For reasons of efficiency and to streamline proceedings, the means of notifications and communications should primarily be electronic.
AddedRecital 24: (24) Given the impact and essential importance of the amounts of fees payable to the Office for the functioning of the EU design protection system and its complementary relationship as regards national design systems, and in order to align the legislative approach with Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, it is appropriate to set those fee amounts directly in Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the form of an annex. The amounts of the fees should be fixed at a level which ensures both that the revenue they produce is in principle sufficient for the budget of the Office to be balanced and that there is coexistence and complementarity between the EU design and the national design systems, also taking into account the size of the market covered by the EU design and the needs and minimal impact of these fees on SMEs accessing the industrial design protection system in the Union. A sufficient level of flexibility shall be given on the amounts of the fees to take into account the inflation and ensure stable level of resources for the Office.
Change 4
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10a (new), Article 11 – paragraph 2: 10a. Article 11(2) is replaced by the following: / ‘2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public within the Union if it has been published, exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed in such a way that, in the normal course of business, these events could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Union. A design shall not, however, be deemed to have been made available to the public if it has been disclosed to a third person only under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6, Article 2 – paragraph 1: The European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘the Office’), established by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council*, shall carry out the tasks entrusted to it by this Regulation. The Office shall communicate publically often and clearly about these tasks, in order to raise awareness and promote the possibilities of registering an EU design.
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8, Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new): (3a) ‘manufacturer’ means manufacturer as defined in Article 3, point (8), of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. / 1a Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC (OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, p. 1).
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10, Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new): 2a. Paragraph 2 shall also apply if the design has been made available to the public as a consequence of an abuse in relation to the designer or his successor in title or copying of the protected design.
Show 3 more lines
AddedThe scenario where an illegal copy of an (unregistered) design is used as a disclosure against a later registered EU design is not contemplated. This situation significantly harms the rights of users of the design system, and it is unclear whether it constitutes ‘an abuse in relation to the designer’.
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new), Article 11 – paragraph 2: (10a) Article 11(2) is replaced by the following: / “2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, a design shall be deemed to have been made available to the public within the Union if it has been published, exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed in such a way that, in the normal course of business, these events could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Union. A design shall not, however, be deemed to have been made available to the public if it has been only disclosed to a third person under explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality.”
Change 5
ChangedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16, Article 20a(1):20a – paragraph 1: 1. Protection shall not be conferred on ana EUregistered design which constitutes a component part of a complex product which is used within the meaning of Article 19(1)16(1) for the sole purpose of the repair of that complex product so as to restore its original appearance. The use of that component part of a complex product for the purpose of enabling that complex product to be repaired will be presumed.
Change 6
RemovedClarification of the concept of ‘complex product’.
Change 7
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16, Article 20a(2): 2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who have failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about the identity of the manufacturer of the product to be used for the sole purpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16, Article 20 a – paragraph 1 a (new): 1a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to rims, covers and similar parts of a complex product the shape of which is not determined by the appearance of the complex product.
RemovedSubstitution of the concept of ‘identity of the manufacturer’ for the concept of ‘origin of the product’, which is too vague.
Change 8
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 31, Article 42 – paragraph 2: deleted
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 16, Article 20a – paragraph 2: 2. Paragraph 1 cannot be invoked by the manufacturer or the seller of a component part of a complex product who have failed to duly inform consumers, through a clear and visible indication on the product or in another appropriate form, about the identity of the manufacturer of the product to be used for the exclusive purpose of the repair of the complex product, so that they can make an informed choice between competing products that can be used for the repair. That indication of the manufacturer’s identity shall include at least the name of the manufacturer, the geographical address of its registered place of business and, where applicable, its telephone number or email address.
RemovedIndividual derogations from implementing acts are unjustifiable.
Show 17 more changes
Change 9
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 59, Article 55a – subparagraph 1: The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 109a to supplement this Regulation by specifying the formal content of the notice of appeal and the proceedings for lodging and examining an appeal.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 21, Article 26(a) – paragraph 1: The holder of a registered EU design may inform the public that the design is registered by displaying on the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied the letter R enclosed within a circle. Such design notice may be accompanied by the registration number of the design or hyperlinked to the entry of the design in the Register.’; Any misuse of this indication may lead to legal proceedings.
RemovedThis is a reference to the terms used in Article 73 of Regulation No 2017/2001.
Change 10
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 65 – point b, Article 65 – paragraph 5: deleted / (deleted)
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 25, Article 35 - paragraph 1a (new): 1a. Member States shall establish a ‘one-stop shop' through which applicants can receive guidance, legal and technical support.
RemovedIt is not acceptable for the Executive Director alone to determine the amounts of expenses to be paid.
Change 11
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 68, Article 66a: deleted / (deleted) / (deleted)
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 31, Article 42 – paragraph 2: 2. The Executive Director may determine that the documentation to be provided by the applicant in support of the priority claim may consist of less than the documentation required under the implementing acts adopted pursuant to Article 42a, subject to compliance with the principle of equal treatment between applicants and provided that the information required is available to the Office from other sources.
RemovedDelegation seems unnecessary as Article 66 entrusts the Executive Director with the task of establishing the detailed arrangements for notification.
Change 12
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 84, Article 72a – paragraph 3: 3. The Executive Director shall determine the conditions of access to the database and the manner in which the contents, other than the personal data referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article but including the data listed in Article 72, may be made available in machine-readable form.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 40, Article 47(a) – paragraph 2: 2. The applicant may at any time amend the representation of the EU design applied for in immaterial details, which merely remedy a lack of precision, certainty or clarity regarding the design for which EU design registration is sought.
RemovedAccess to the electronic database must not be on a payment basis, by analogy with access to the register.
AddedWhen a discrepancy between views of the design occurs, the current regulation allows the applicant to opt option between deleting conflicting views or splitting the application into two or more applications as necessary. The amendment seeks to solve such errors in a more efficient way.
Change 13
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 93 – point a, Article 78 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2: Where the entitlement referred to in the first subparagraph, point (c), is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, the person applying to be entered on the list who acts in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office shall have habitually worked in the area of designs for at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office is officially recognised in accordance with the regulations laid down by the State concerned shall not be required to have exercised the profession.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 49, Article 50e – paragraph 1: 1. The representation of the registered EU design shall not be altered in the Register during the period of registration or on renewal thereof except in immaterial details, which merely remedy a lack of precision, certainty or clarity regarding the design for which EU design registration is sought.
RemovedThe requirement of professional experience makes sense only if the experience is related to designs.
AddedWhen a discrepancy between views of the design occurs, the current regulation allows the applicant to opt option between deleting conflicting views or splitting the application into two or more applications as necessary. The amendment seeks to solve such errors in a more efficient way. In alignment with the amendment to Article 47a, paragraph 2.
Change 14
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 93 – point a, Article 78 – paragraph 6 – introductory part: 6. The Executive Director may grant an exemption from:
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 59, Article 55a – subparagraph 1: The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 109a to supplement this Regulation by specifying the formal content of the notice of appeal and the proceedings for lodging and examining an appeal.
RemovedIt is difficult to understand how exactly these individual derogations from the requirement of five years’ professional practice are justified.
AddedThis is a reference to the terms used in Article 73 of Regulation No 2017/2001.
Change 15
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 93 – point a, Article 78 – paragraph 6 – point b: deleted
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 65 – point b, Article 65 - paragraph 5: 5. The Executive Director shall determine the amounts of expenses to be paid, including advances, to cover the costs of taking of evidence as referred to in this Article.
RemovedIt is difficult to understand how exactly these individual derogations from the requirement of five years’ professional practice are justified.
Change 16
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 109, Article 100 – paragraph 1: In addition to the powers conferred upon the Executive Director by Article 157(4), point (o), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the Executive Director shall exercise the powers conferred under Article 36(5), Article 37(1), Article 41(4), Article 62(2), Articles 66, 66c, 66e, Article 72(4), Article 72a(3), Article 73, Article 74a(1), Articles 74c, 78, Article 98(7), Article -106aa, Article -106ab(1), Articles -106ac and -106ad in accordance with the criteria set out in this Regulation and in the acts adopted pursuant to this Regulation.’;
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 67, Article 66 – paragraph 2: 2. Notification shall be mainly effected by electronic means. The details regarding electronic means shall be determined by the Executive Director. The Office shall designate an official address for official communication with the Office.
RemovedTo take account of the deletions proposed by the rapporteur and correcting a clerical error.
Change 17
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 111, Article 102 – point e: deleted
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 84, Article 72(a) – paragraph 3: 3. The Executive Director shall determine the conditions of access to the database and the manner in which the contents, other than the personal data referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article but including the data listed in Article 72, may be made available in machine-readable form, including the charges for such access if it is not free of charge. Any fees to be paid for accessing the database shall in no case exceed the actual cost of the costs directly incurred as a result of such access.
RemovedThe provision too vague, leading to legal uncertainty.
Change 18
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 120, Article 107: deleted / (deleted) / (deleted) / (deleted)
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 93 – point a, Article 78 - paragraph 4 - subparagraph 2: Where the entitlement referred to in the first subparagraph, point (c), is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, the person applying to be entered on the list who acts in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office shall have gained professional experience in the field of designs for at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in design matters before the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property or a central industrial property office is officially recognised in accordance with the regulations laid down by the State concerned shall not be required to have exercised the profession.
RemovedIt is clearer to keep the original list.
Change 19
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 121, Article 107: deleted
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 100, Article 88 – paragraph 2: 2. On all design matters not covered by this Regulation, an EU design court shall apply the applicable national law.;
RemovedIt is clearer to keep the original list.
AddedThere is no subject matter limitation in the Commission proposal, and it should mirror the EU Trade Mark Regulation’s provision (Article 129 (2)) ‘On all trade mark matters not covered by this Regulation, ....’.
Change 20
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 124, Article 109a – paragraph 2: 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 47b, 53a, 55a, 64a, 65a, 66d, 66f, 66i, 67c, 78a and -106a shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [OP: please insert the date = the date of entry into force of this Regulation]. please insert the date = the date of entry into force of this Regulation].
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 111, Article 102 – paragraph 1 – point e: (e) any other unit or person appointed by the Executive Director to that effect, provided that each of the persons so appointed has sufficient professional experience to enable him or her to make an effective contribution to the protection of designs.
RemovedTaking into account the rapporteur’s amendment (deletion of the reference to Article 66a).
Change 21
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 124, Article 109a – paragraph 6: 6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 47b, 53a, 55a, 64a, 66a, 66d, 66f, 66i, 67c, 78a and -106a shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or by the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 116, Article 106a(d) – paragraph 2: 2. The Office shall, however, within the time remaining before the end of the period for payment, give the person making the payment the opportunity to pay the amount lacking or, where this is considered justified, overlook any small amounts lacking, without prejudice to the rights of the person making the payment.
RemovedTaking into account the rapporteur’s amendment (deletion of the reference to Article 66a).
Change 22
RemovedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 127, Article 110 b – paragraph 1: 1. By [OP please complete: please insert the date = the first day of the month following 60 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 116, Article 106a(d) – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1: Where an excessive sum is paid to cover a fee or a charge, the excess shall be refunded.
RemovedAn evaluation after 5 years of implementation seems more reasonable than after 7 years.
Change 23
RemovedAnnex I, Annex IV – point 6 – subpoint c: (c) for the third period of renewal: EUR 210 per design;
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 116, Article 106a(d) – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2: deleted
RemovedThis reasonable progressivity is more in line with the interests of companies, in particular SMEs.
Change 24
RemovedAnnex I, Annex – point 6 – point d: (d) for the fourth period of renewal: EUR 280 per design.
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 116, Article 106a(d) – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3: deleted
RemovedThis reasonable progressivity is more in line with the interests of companies, in particular SMEs.
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 127, Article 110b – paragraph 1: 1. By [OP please complete: please insert the date = the first day of the month following 60 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation.
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
Show 4 more lines
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12, Annex – point 1: EUR 350.
AddedRegulation (EC) No 6/2002
AddedArticle 1 – paragraph 1 – point 129, Annex – point 6: (a) for the first period of renewal: EUR 250 per design; / (b) for the second period of renewal: EUR 250 per design; / (c) for the third period of renewal: EUR 700 per design; / (d) for the fourth period of renewal: EUR 1400 per design.
AddedEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Change 25 under “EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM”
ChangedThe rapporteur broadly agrees with the proposed guidelines, but suggests some 20 amendments which seek primarily to bolster legal certainty. The main aims are to clarify the ‘repair clause’ (recital 16, Article 20a), to remove powers from the Executive Director which are difficult to justify (Articles 42, 65, 72a, 78, 100 and 102), and to reduceincrease the amount of the fees for 3rd and 4threnewal renewalsfees (annex).
Sources & citation
Where the facts on this page come from, and how to cite it.
- Data source
- Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Retrieved
- 25 September 2026
Cite as
European Parliament (2023). “Changes between JURI-PR-749960 and A-9-2023-0315”. Text, 6 November 2023. from JURI-PR-749960, to A-9-2023-0315. EU Parl Watch Research. https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-PR-749960/compare/A-9-2023-0315 (retrieved 25 September 2026). Data: European Parliament Open Data, https://data.europarl.europa.eu/ (CC BY 4.0).
BibTeX
@misc{epw-text-2023-11-06,
author = {{European Parliament}},
title = {{Changes between JURI-PR-749960 and A-9-2023-0315}},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-11-06},
howpublished = {\url{https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-PR-749960/compare/A-9-2023-0315}},
url = {https://news.eu-parl.st-solutions.dev/texts/JURI-PR-749960/compare/A-9-2023-0315},
urldate = {2026-09-25},
publisher = {EU Parl Watch Research},
note = {Text. from JURI-PR-749960, to A-9-2023-0315. Data: European Parliament Open Data (CC BY 4.0)}
}