Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Mr. S. Harbinson (Hong Kong)
Union européenne
C.2.i Procedures for giving effect to the obligation to notify implementing legislation under Article 63.2
15. The representative of the European Communities said, as regards the draft schedule in document IP/C/W/7, that he shared the view expressed by the representative of the United States that the principle of strict timing for the submission of notifications should not be departed from. The timing of notifications should be independent of the moment when the Council would be able to undertake the review process. The deadline for notifications should be maintained as it was, i.e. 1 January 1996. He considered the schedule for verification and consideration of laws and regulations very ambitious, perhaps too ambitious. The Council might not be able to meet the proposed deadlines and he suggested to adjust them so that they would be more likely to be met in practice. Document IP/C/W/8 concerning a draft format for the listing of "other laws and regulations" was a good extension of the principles outlined in the "Working Hypothesis". His delegation had not yet terminated its internal discussions on it. In regard to document IP/C/W/9 concerning a draft checklist on enforcement, he wished to have time for further consideration and consultations with people who were engaged in actual enforcement and who were knowledgeable about where the practical problems in the area of enforcement lay. He would welcome a guide or road map, as proposed by the delegation of Japan, which would be useful for reviewing other Members' legislation. On the other hand, according to his delegation's calculations the preparation of such a guide would be time consuming. Therefore, he did not consider it wise to ask for such a guide in a compulsory manner but believed that it might be useful if the Council were to encourage Members who were in a position to provide such a road map to do so.