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

Ambassador Carmen Luz Guarda (Chile)
Chairperson
G.ii Review of legislation on enforcement
42. The Chairperson recalled that the procedures for this review could be found in the minutes of the Council meeting of 9 May 1996 (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6), with the adjustments agreed at the meetings of 22 to 25 July 1996 (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69 and 70) and 26 to 30 May 1997 (document IP/C/M/13, paragraph 41). In accordance with these procedures, the Secretariat had circulated a proposed timetable in an informal note of 28 October 1997. The procedures for the review had been annexed to that note. Prior to the meeting, written questions concerning other Members' legislation had been received from the European Communities and their member States; Hong Kong, China; Japan; the United States and New Zealand and had been distributed in documents IP/C/W/80 through IP/C/W/84. Written responses to some of these questions had been received from the European Communities, Hungary, Japan, the United States and Bulgaria and had been distributed in documents IP/C/W/87 through IP/C/W/91. Written questions from Switzerland and written responses from Romania, New Zealand, Australia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Liechtenstein, France, Austria, Sweden, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Canada had been circulated informally prior to the meeting. She suggested proceeding as at the previous three review meetings, but with some modifications to take into account the even larger volume of material that was before this meeting. Thus, each Member would provide, in introducing its legislation, a brief overview of the structure of its legislation on enforcement and of the changes, if any, that it had had to bring about in order to make the legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. After having done so, each Member might draw attention to any elements that it considered particularly important for other delegations in understanding the responses that it had made, and read out, on a selective basis, any response or responses it wished to particularly highlight. After these presentations she would then offer the floor to other delegations to identify any particular questions to which they would like the responses to be read out. After this process of presenting the responses, she would then offer the floor to delegations for any comments or other questions. 43. The record of the introductory statements made by the delegations, the questions put to them and the responses given (including certain written responses given after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents: IP/Q4/AUS/1 Australia IP/Q4/BGR/1 Bulgaria IP/Q4/CAN/1 Canada IP/Q4/CZE/1 Czech Republic IP/Q4/EEC/1 European Communities IP/Q4/AUT/1 Austria IP/Q4/BEL/1 Belgium IP/Q4/DNK/1 Denmark IP/Q4/FIN/1 Finland IP/Q4/FRA/1 France IP/Q4/DEU/1 Germany IP/Q4/GRC/1 Greece IP/Q4/IRL/1 Ireland IP/Q4/ITA/1 Italy IP/Q4/LUX/1 Luxembourg IP/Q4/NLD/1 Netherlands IP/Q4/PRT/1 Portugal IP/Q4/ESP/1 Spain IP/Q4/SWE/1 Sweden IP/Q4/GBR/1 United Kingdom IP/Q4/HUN/1 Hungary IP/Q4/ISL/1 Iceland IP/Q4/JPN/1 Japan IP/Q4/LIE/1 Liechtenstein IP/Q4/NZL/1 New Zealand IP/Q4/NOR/1 Norway IP/Q4/POL/1 Poland IP/Q4/ROM/1 Romania IP/Q4/SVK/1 Slovak Republic IP/Q4/SVN/1 Slovenia IP/Q4/CHE/1 Switzerland IP/Q4/USA/1 United States
IP/C/M/16