There are no explicit provision on de minimis imports in Swedish law (except the provisions on tax-free importation of duty-free goods which are hardly of any interest in this context).

In a bill (Bill 1993/94:122, pages 55-56) containing proposals for strengthening the measures against intellectual property infringements (which proposals were adopted by the Parliament) the Government stated, inter alia, that "acts that involve infringements of intellectual property rights are to be taken seriously and possibilities must exist to impose severe imprisonment penalties in serious cases". The Government then proposed - and the Parliament accepted - that the maximum penalty be increased from six months to two years for industrial property infringements (formerly, this imprisonment scale had existed only as far as copyright infringements were concerned). This increase of the maximum penalty had also the effect of extending the timeframe for instituting an action in respect of the violation of an intellectual property right and of making the provisions on detention of suspected persons possible. It seems that the Courts more and more tend to adjudicate imprisonment sanction, at least in more flagrant copyright infringement cases. As an example, it can be mentioned that the Court of Appear in Stockholm in a judgement of 26 September 1996, invoked, inter alia, the fact that the piracy activities of a defendant involved several hundreds of copies of children's movies which are commercially interesting for a comparatively long period in an important market and that, consequently, great damage had been caused to the right-owners. Moreover, part of the activities had occurred through different shops, a fact that would make possible a wide distribution which was therefore especially dangerous also because the distribution would occur without the public suspecting that the copies were printed ones. For these reasons the Court found that the penalty should be imprisonment.

It has proved to be extremely difficult to obtain any exact and reliable information concerning the number of intellectual property cases in the courts and outright impossible to obtain such information broken down according to types of rights and types of cases, the reason being that no such breakdown exists in the statistical information available at our central court administration. The information below is, therefore, based on personal inquiries at some courts which are of special importance in this respect. The information relates only to civil cases; no specific information is available on the number of criminal cases, the reason being that those which concern intellectual property are not singled out in the statistics and, furthermore, intellectual property violations frequently are linked to other types of offences/crimes and thus disappear in the statistics. Generally speaking, the impression of the authorities is that the number of both civil and criminal cases has been steadily increasing during the last ten years. As regards the proceedings in the ordinary courts, civil litigation in patent cases is concentrated in the Stockholm City Court and in practice also most civil litigation occurs in that Court. According to the information provided by the Court, 31 cases have been filed in the course of 1996 and 20 cases between 1 January 1997 and 30 November 1997. As regards administrative proceedings, which are perhaps of less interest from an enforcement point of view, the normal route is that rejections of applications for industrial property rights may be appealed against to the Patent Court (which is the second instance) and from there to the Supreme Administrative Court. Each year about 100 patent cases go to the Patent Court and about 700 cases relating to other industrial property rights, primarily trademark rights. The Supreme Administrative Court received 95 appeals from the Patent Court in 1996 and 61 cases during the first 11 months of 1997.

Please see the reply to follow-up question 1.

The typical length is around one to two years in the first instance, and up to an additional one year in case an appeal is lodged.

It is difficult to give reliable statistical data on the number of various law suits because Slovenia is a relatively young State. The data available as of January 1996 onwards show that, taking into account all cases in the field of intellectual property, there are currently about 50 cases initiated each year. The average length of proceedings at the first instance (from filing the suit until the judgement) is between one and two years. In proceedings in complicated matters, especially in patent litigation with experts involved and counterclaims on revocation filed, the duration is sometimes longer. One has to add up to one additional year for ruling on an appeal against the first instance judgement. Provisional measures are ordered quickly; an interlocutory injunction in about a week. (Final) injunctions are sought in almost every infringement suit. They are enforced with fines that the court is empowered to impose under Article 225 of the Code of Execution. The other possibility is an application under Article 294 of the Code of Obligations. The court can order the party who does not obey the injunction to pay the other party a sum of money, high enough to ensure obedience (similar to French "l'astreinte"). Provisional measures are often sought and are granted in the majority of copyright cases. The success of such applications is also quite high in trademark cases, whereas in patent cases the number of granted provisional measures is lower. When an ex parte provisional measure is sought and ordered, this is done in about a week from the request. No suspension at the border of counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods has been requested so far. There have been around 15 criminal cases lodged. The kind of infringement which would be regarded as a violation of criminal law is specified in Slovenia's response to question 24 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.

The compensation is normally calculated on the basis of licence analogy, and/or lost profit is added. In addition, the Copyright and Related Rights Act explicitly provides for punitive damages which are 200 per cent higher than ordinary damages. Court attorney fees are normally regarded as expenses of the right holder which have to be reimbursed.

The right holder has the possibility to apply for provisional measures (see Slovenia's responses to questions 10 and 11 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.

For counterfeit trademark goods the TRIPS Agreement may be directly applicable. However, it is planned that the new Law on Industrial Property which may be adopted in 1998 will explicitly contain provisions which would comply with all requirements of this Part of the TRIPS Agreement. In the area of copyright, two types of border measures are available to the right holder (Article 173 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act): (1) That the right holder or his agent may inspect such goods; (2) That such goods could be seized, their release into free circulation be suspended, and the goods be detained awaiting final decision by the competent authority.

Please see the reply to question 4.

The information given in Slovenia's responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement, as well as the answers to the questions posed to Slovenia by the European Communities and their Member States, the United States and Japan demonstrate the compliance of Slovenian legislation with provisions of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, the Copyright and Related Rights Act has several explicit provisions on enforcement, including border measures. However, in the course of updating the Law on Industrial Property, the Copyright and Related Rights Act will also be scrutinized and amendments might be proposed, in order to avoid possible discrepancies between the two Acts. If this should be the case, the amendments to the Copyright and Related Rights Act will be submitted to the Parliament within the same timeframe as the new Law on Industrial Property, i.e. in 1998.

The proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case, as stipulated in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement, are of judicial nature.

No.

There is no explicit specification of the term; however, the Copyright and Related Rights Act has the provision that customs authorities must promptly inform all parties involved about the application. The same applies in the case that suspension of the release into free circulation is sought under the judicial procedure at the court.

The terms stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement are directly applicable.

If the procedure is initiated at the court, a fee which currently is not more than SIT 15 300 (approximately US$120) has to be paid. No fee is required in cases involving copyright piracy, if the procedure is initiated directly with the customs authorities in accordance with Article 173 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act.

The answer to this question is given in Slovenia's response to question 12 of the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement.

No such specific procedure is foreseen.

Public authorities are liable for damages, caused by their officials to third parties in the administration or in connection with the administration of their duties, under the general rules on damages (Code of Obligations, Article 172).

Please see the reply to question 8 above.