Compensation for injury is decided on by the competent court, under Section 420 and the following provisions of the Civil Code. See answer to question 20, which applies to this case as well.

The right of inspection is not explicitly granted, but in case of proceedings ex officio, pursuant to Section 60 of the Customs Act, inspection by the right holder is usually a necessary component of inward clearing.

The right to information pursuant to Section 25, paragraph 2 of the Act on Trademarks No. 55/1997, Digest of Laws (see answer to question 23) may be applied to State authorities in the context of Section 60 of the Customs Act.

Customs authorities are empowered to act ex officio by Section 60 of the Customs Act, in relation to the subjects of intellectual property rights. The regulation thus covers the complete range of rights.

Rights of the holder by course of Article 51 are established especially by Section 25, paragraph 1 and Section 26 of the Act on Trademarks. Nevertheless, the law of the Slovak Republic does not allow destruction of goods. The court is empowered to decide pursuant to Section 9 of the Slovak Code of Civil Procedure.

See reply to question 52 above.

Article 60 of the TRIPS Agreement applies to Section 2, letter g) of the Act on Tariffs No. 180/1996, Digest of Laws, which establishes the notion of "goods of a non commercial nature". Goods of a non commercial nature are to be understood by occasional import which according to its type and amount is meant only for the needs of a passenger, members of his or her household or for a donee.

The required statistical data is not available directly in the Office. The Office has asked the Ministry of Justice and the Central Customs Administration for the provision of the above-mentioned information. In order to answer the question regarding the criminal aspects of intellectual property protection it would be best to quote the concrete provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 150 through 152. Section 150 Infringement of the rights to a trademark, trade name and protected appellation of origin (1) The person who has put on the market products or provided services marked with a mark identical to a trademark, the exclusive right for which belongs to another person, or a sign confusingly similar to this trademark, is punished by imprisonment for the period of one year, or by a monetary fine, or forfeiture of a thing. (2) Equal punishment is imposed on a person who in order to achieve economic benefit: (a) unlawfully uses a trade name or whatever sign confusingly similar with this name, or (b) puts into circulation products unlawfully marked with an appellation of origin to which the exclusive right belongs to another person, or with an appellation of origin confusingly similar. Section 151 Infringement of industrial rights The person who unlawfully infringes the right to a protected invention, industrial design, utility model or topography of semiconductor products is punished by imprisonment for the period of up to three years, or a monetary fine. Section 152 Infringement of copyright (1) The person who unlawfully disposes with a work which is the subject matter of the protection according to the copyright, or with a performance of a performing artist, with a sound or visual recording, with a broadcast or television programme which are the subject matter of the right similar to the copyright, in the manner which belongs to the author, performing artist, maker of a sound or visual recording, a broadcast or television organisation or other holder of this right, or the person who infringes the above-mentioned rights in some other manner, is punished by imprisonment for the period of up to two years, or by a monetary fine, or by forfeiture of a thing. (2) The perpetrator is punished by imprisonment for a period from six months up to five years, or by a monetary fine, of forfeiture of a thing, if: (a) this person gains by the action stated in paragraph 1 considerable benefit, or (b) this person commits an act of a large scope. When considering unlawful actions in terms of their intensity and thus establishing a criminal act it should be stressed that it is a matter for the judge’s discretion and before him that of the prosecutor. As for Section 150 the condition is the release goods into free circulation, or the release of a service with a direct unlawful use of a protected sign. Experience which could be generalised, above all by the judiciary, has not yet been gained in the Slovak Republic. Second part In any case the determination of the amount of damage is a matter for the plaintiff. In case the amount of damage is adequately and reliably justified and proved the court has the grounds to adjudicate on the claimed damage. In cases where the right holder suffers material loss which does not have the character of damage from the legal point of view, as it was not caused by an illegal action, or in case of the occurrence of non material loss, the court can assign the right to adequate satisfaction to an injured party which can also be monetary performance. In such case the amount of monetary equivalent representing the satisfaction is determined in the judge’s discretion which is obviously based on the submitted request and, although it is not an objectively established fact but the fact modelled on the basis of a discretion, it must have a rational basis. We consider the above-mentioned facts answer the question as to what would be regarded as expenses of the right holder which have to be reimbursed pursuant to Article 45.1. A party to a proceeding who is successful, or partly successful, can be adjudicated the right to the compensation for costs of the proceedings to the extent of his success. These include apart from legal fees, attorney’s fees and also other fees which were provable and purposefully expended in relation to the enforcement of the right in court. The reimbursement of attorney’s fees is objectively calculated according to the tariffs given by the Decree of the Ministry of Justice determining the remuneration of attorneys for individual acts according to their kind, amount of claim and number. As for the implementation of Article 45.2, second sentence of the TRIPS Agreement, according to our opinion it is included in Section 26 (3) of the Law on Trademarks No. 55/1997 Coll., which adjudicates the right to the compensation for damage, or the right to adequate satisfaction, which can also be monetary performance regardless of whether the infringer infringed the rights of the right holder and caused, knowingly or unknowingly, damage or other loss. It is necessary to add, however, that the possibility of imposing seizure and forfeiture in criminal proceedings leaves open the question how such goods should be handled after. It goes without saying, that if such goods cannot be sold, naturally they would be destroyed. The sufficiency of penalties is a subjective issue. In comparison with the sentencing guidelines concerning economic criminality the established penalties and their range seem to be sufficient from the point of view of both sanction and prevention.

See reply to question 55 above.

See reply to question 55 above.

See reply to question 55 above.

[The response is in table format]

[The response is in table format]

Preparation of the special regulation on border measures relating to the protection of intellectual property rights is expected to begin in the year 1998 with the aim to finish the legislative process and to adopt this law in the following year.

The recodification of the Penal Code is in the final stage of the legislative process. It is expected to be adopted before the end of this year, or in the first half of the next year at the latest.

The "competent authorities", stipulated in Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement, are a particular Customs Office which is subordinate to the Customs Directorate of the Slovak Republic in Bratislava.

The proceeding specified in Article 55 of the TRIPS Agreement is an administrative proceeding performed by customs authorities. It is necessary to note that the legal system of the Slovak Republic (Law No. 180/1996 Coll.) currently does not include any special provision on the time limits for legal action in this context.

According to Section 60 of Law No. 180/1996 Coll. the customs authorities have the obligation, when releasing the goods, to observe other rights, particularly intellectual property rights. The right holder has no possibility of submitting a formal application based on which the administrative authority (customs authority) should begin a proceeding. The right holder may submit exclusively an inducement according to which the administrative body may act ex officio if it accepts that the inducement is justified.

The general terms for decision making, according to Section 49 of Law No. 71/1967 Coll., are applicable. In simple matters, the administrative authority should make a decision immediately or within 30 days. In case of difficulties, the stipulated term is extended to 60 days with possibilities to extend the term by the appeal authority. If the term is extended for 60 days or more, the participant in the procedure must be informed about it.

This provision is not relevant in our legal system since each case should be officially resolved.