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

Ambassador Carmen Luz Guarda (Chile)
Chairperson
B.i Notifications under Article 63.2
2. The Chairperson informed Members that new notifications had been received from Bulgaria and Macau. These notifications were being processed and would be available as documents IP/N/1/BGR/1 and IP/N/1/MAC/1. Macau had made its notification without prejudice to Article 65.2. Apart from these new notifications, a number of Members had communicated to the Council under Article 63.2 and paragraph 2.2 of the procedures for the notification of legislation (document IP/C/2) amendments to laws and regulations that they had initially notified under Article 63.2 or the adoption of a new law in the area of intellectual property. Such notifications had been received from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Norway and the Slovak Republic. 3. As regards the notification of responses to the checklist of issues on enforcement, the Chairperson recalled that, at the previous meeting, the Chair had reported that such notifications had been received from 16 Members. Since that meeting, Belgium had notified a revised version of its responses, which had been circulated as document IP/N/6/BEL/1/Rev.1, while Ireland had submitted additional responses, which could be found in document IP/N/6/IRL/1/Add.1. Apart from these updates of earlier notified responses to the checklist, new notifications had only been received from Germany, Spain and the United States. The notifications from Germany and Spain had been made available in documents IP/N/6/DEU/1 and IP/N/6/ESP/1; the notification from the United States was being processed. She stressed the importance of these notifications and urged those Members that still had to make this notification to do so without delay. Although the review of the legislation in the enforcement area was more than five months away, the submission of questions in the context of that review would be due soon after the summer break; consequently, if the notifications in question were not made soon, the checklist would lose much of its purpose as a tool for the preparation of the review exercise in November.
IP/C/M/13