Actas - Consejo de los ADPIC - Ver detalles de la intervención/declaración

Mr. Martin Glass (Hong Kong, China)
12. The representative of India said that the statements by the European Union, Japan and Switzerland reminded him of the fact that these three delegations had been among the four which had brought this item on the Council's agenda in eight successive meetings in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In response to the objections raised, he said that the wording of the item was perfectly justified as his delegation did not wish to discuss general enforcement issues, but specifically the current trends in IPR enforcement that went well beyond the levels enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement. Cuba had already referred to Article 68 of the Agreement which afforded Members the opportunity to discuss issues regarding the implementation of the Agreement. 13. In response to the European Union, he said that his delegation's position had not changed since the last time this agenda item had been discussed, as India continued to hold that enforcement was not a permanent agenda item for the Council for TRIPS. An agenda item could not become a permanent item just because a group of countries raised it systematically in successive meetings. His delegation also continued to believe that IPR enforcement could not be treated separately from the objectives and principles contained in Articles 7 and 8 of the Agreement, and the implementation of the Agreement as a whole. The submissions made in 2005, 2006 and 2007 by the United States, the European Union, Japan and Switzerland had been more apt for discussion under Members' obligations to notify laws and regulations under Article 63, instead of Article 68, so that their compatibility with their rights and obligations of the Agreement could be scrutinized. He said that, while holding this position, his delegation had never blocked a discussion on the issue, but had clarified in successive Council meetings that the inclusion of that agenda item should not in any way be construed as India's acceptance of its inclusion as a permanent agenda item for the Council, or of its willingness to engage substantively on issues raised by Members under that item. Against that background, his delegation urged Japan, Switzerland and the European Union to accept the agenda item as it was. 14. Referring specifically to Japan's question on why a separate item on the Paragraph 6 System had been proposed when an annual review agenda item already existed in the October meetings of the Council, he said that there were two explanations. The first one was that, as previous attempts to raise this item under "Other Business" had met with procedural concerns from some delegations that there could not be any decision under "Other Business", the item was now proposed for the regular agenda. The second point was that while there seemed to be emerging consensus among Members to devote an entire day of the Council's October meeting to the Paragraph 6 System, they had also considered it useful to have some discussion at this stage to decide the nature of this engagement prior to that meeting. It was to enable such a decision by the Council that this agenda item had been proposed.