BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps
download json


Events

2016/02/25
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
SP(2015)774
2015/10/06
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
Results of vote in Parliament
2015/10/06
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 608 votes to 43, with 43 abstentions, a resolution on the possible extension of geographical indication (GI) protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products, in response to the Commission Green Paper on the same issue.

European legislative proposal : whilst welcoming the Commission’s initiative of consulting stakeholders in order to determine whether EU geographical indication (GI) protection could be extended to cover non-agricultural products, as well as the outcome of the consultation which was concluded in October 2014, Parliament clearly favoured an EU system of protection based on geographical indications for non-agricultural products, as part of a broader strategy for promoting high-quality EU products. It asked the Commission to propose a legislative proposal with the aim of establishing a single European system of protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products , and of ensuring that the effects of the new system on producers, their competitors, consumers and Member States were fully considered.

Members stressed that such an instrument would need to be accompanied by information and communication campaigns.

Benefits of a uniform protection at EU level : Parliament stressed that it would be highly recommended for the EU to adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, in order to: (i) fully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of such products, (ii) provide consumers with reliable information on their place and method of production, and (iii) preserve the know-how and jobs relating to them.

The resolution emp hasised that the recognition of protection of non-agricultural GIs and traditional, high-quality know-how:

was both a defensive and offensive interest in the framework of the common commercial policy; fostered innovation and the creation of new start-ups, in particular for small enterprises and micro-enterprises, which were the source of 80 % of typical locally-made products that could be protected under the geographical indications system; combatted counterfeit or imitation products ; ensured a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable approach to economic development inside and outside the EU; contributed to fair competition and consumer protection; help stop the depopulation and destruction of rural areas and the flow of young people leaving these areas.

Parliament recognised the importance of investing in education and training in this field, and encouraged Member States to make optimal use of the available EU funding and programmes for the support of vocational training for specialists involved in the production and promotion of environment-friendly local and regional artisanal and industrial products. It also e ncouraged the Member States to exchange good practices in creating and supporting initiatives aimed at stimulating the traditional artisanal sector.

Relations with third countries : Members considered that open-ended lists of all products, both agricultural and non-agricultural, that were protected by geographical indications should be incorporated into future EU trade agreements with non-member countries.

Extending the scope of the GI protection system to cover non-agricultural products could: (i) help make the EU’s position on GIs even stronger and more cogent, in multilateral forums; (ii) stimulate European exports and gain market share while achieving international recognition of the products in question; (iii) strengthen the Union’s hand in the WTO; (iv) be an advantage in negotiating trade agreements with third countries.

The Commission was called upon to include in its upcoming communication on the EU’s trade and investment strategy a coherent and well-prepared strategy for all GIs , which ensures that they are observed and recognised.

Protection at EU level : Parliament asked the Commission to create a system based on best practices and transparent and non-discriminatory principles, which was effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burdens and deterrent costs for producers who voluntarily decide to register a product under a geographical indication scheme.

Such a system should ensure strict controls and should include appropriate means of dealing with fraud. Furthermore, the system should:

represent a guarantee which is intuitively perceptible to consumers who sought high-quality products in terms of authenticity and origin which have a strong link to the geographical area concerned and are supported by reliable and clear information; have a broad definition that would make it possible to recognise the link between a product and the area covered enabling the inclusion of names which, though not geographical, were unambiguously associated with a given place. Members recommend that the protection scheme should include non-verbal signs and symbols that were unmistakably associated with a particular region.

The label/distinguishing sign/mark/logo for non-agricultural GIs should be simple and easily recognisable, should reflect the regional/local identity of the goods, and should be expressed in at least the language of the product’s place of origin and that of the country into which it is imported.

Registration process : Parliament recommended a compulsory registration procedure , as this would provide greater security, especially as regards the enforcement of rights in the event of a dispute. Registration should take place in two stages :

firstly, on-the-spot checks should be made by national or regional authorities to ascertain that specific characteristics are not being interfered with; secondly, there should be a single European registration system to ensure compliance with common criteria in all parts of the EU. In this regard, Members proposed that the system should be managed at EU level by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

Specifications should include at least the following criteria: raw materials used, description of the production process, proof of the link with the territory, and elements of corporate social responsibility. The system must be accompanied by the creation of a single standardised and public European register for non-agricultural products benefiting from geographical indication protection.

Parliament also stressed the relevance of quality checks , and advocated, in addition, that an inspection, infringement and penalty scheme be set up to monitor geographical indications on products marketed in Europe.

Documents
T8-0331/2015
2015/10/06
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2015/10/05
   EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
Debate in Parliament
2015/09/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Virginie ROZIÈRE (S&D, FR) on the possible extension of geographical indication (GI) protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products.

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee in accordance with Rule 54 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, also gave an opinion on the report.

Legislative proposal : Members asked the Commission to propose a legislative proposal with the aim of establishing a single European system of protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products , and of ensuring that the effects of the new system on producers, their competitors, consumers and Member States were fully considered. They stressed that such an instrument would need to be accompanied by information and communication campaigns.

Benefits of a uniform protection at EU level : the report stressed that it would be highly recommended for the EU to adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, in order to: (i) fully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of such products, (ii) provide consumers with reliable information on their place and method of production, and (iii) preserve the know-how and jobs relating to them.

Members emphasised that the recognition of protection of non-agricultural GIs and traditional, high-quality know-how:

was both a defensive and offensive interest in the framework of the common commercial policy; fostered innovation and the creation of new start-ups, in particular for small enterprises and micro-enterprises, which were the source of 80 % of typical locally-made products that could be protected under the geographical indications system; combatted counterfeit or imitation products ; ensured a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable approach to economic development inside and outside the EU; contributed to fair competition and consumer protection .

Members stressed that preserving traditional know-how and production could help stop the depopulation and destruction of rural areas and the flow of young people leaving these areas. They called on the Commission and Member States to promote trans regional and transnational cooperation and the pooling of best practices among non-agricultural product clusters and related sectors.

Relations with third countries : the committee considered that open-ended lists of all products, both agricultural and non-agricultural, that were protected by geographical indications should be incorporated into future EU trade agreements with non-member countries. Extending the scope of the GI protection system to cover non-agricultural products could: (i) help make the EU’s position on GIs even stronger and more cogent, in multilateral forums; (ii) stimulate European exports and gain market share while achieving international recognition of the products in question; (iii) strengthen the Union’s hand in the WTO; (iv) be an advantage in negotiating trade agreements with third countries.

The Commission was called upon to include in its upcoming communication on the EU’s trade and investment strategy a coherent and well-prepared strategy for all GIs , which ensures that they are observed and recognised.

Principles and scope of geographical indication protection at EU level : the report asked the Commission to create a system based on best practices and transparent and non-discriminatory principles, which was effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burdens and deterrent costs for producers who voluntarily decide to register a product under a geographical indication scheme.

Such a system should ensure strict controls and should include appropriate means of dealing with fraud. Furthermore, the system should:

represent a guarantee which is intuitively perceptible to consumers who sought high-quality products in terms of authenticity and origin which have a strong link to the geographical area concerned and are supported by reliable and clear information; have a broad definition that would make it possible to recognise the link between a product and the area covered enabling the inclusion of names which, though not geographical, were unambiguously associated with a given place; Members recommend that the protection scheme should include non-verbal signs and symbols that were unmistakably associated with a particular region.

The label/distinguishing sign/mark/logo for non-agricultural GIs should be simple and easily recognisable, should reflect the regional/local identity of the goods, and should be expressed in at least the language of the product’s place of origin and that of the country into which it is imported.

Registration process : the report recommended a compulsory registration procedure , as this would provide greater security, especially as regards the enforcement of rights in the event of a dispute. Registration should take place in two stages : firstly, on-the-spot checks should be made by national or regional authorities to ascertain that specific characteristics are not being interfered with; and secondly, there should be a single European registration system to ensure compliance with common criteria in all parts of the EU.

Members believed that specifications should include at least the following criteria: raw materials used, description of the production process, proof of the link with the territory, and elements of corporate social responsibility.

The system must be accompanied by the creation of a single standardised and public European register for non-agricultural products benefiting from geographical indication protection. The report stressed the relevance of quality checks , and advocated, in addition, that an inspection, infringement and penalty scheme be set up to monitor geographical indications on products marketed in Europe.

Documents
A8-0259/2015
2015/09/15
   EP - Vote in committee
2015/06/24
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
PE554.925
2015/06/18
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
PE551.753
2015/06/17
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
PE554.841
2015/05/28
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
PE557.320
2015/04/21
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
PE554.895
2015/03/12
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2015/03/12
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2015/02/24
   EP - MOSCA Alessia Maria (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in INTA
2015/01/06
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
COM(2014)0469
2014/11/10
   EP - ROZIÈRE Virginie (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2014/11/05
   SE_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
COM(2014)0469
2014/11/04
   EP - DIACONU Mircea (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
2014/09/24
   EP - DANTI Nicola (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2014/07/15
   EC - Non-legislative basic document published
Details

PURPOSE: to launch a debate on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products (Commission Green Paper).

BACKGROUND: g eographical indications (GIs) are indications that identify goods as originating in a country, region or locality where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, for example Bordeaux (wine), Vetro di Murano (glass) or Prosciutto di Parma.

GIs are self-evidently relevant to agricultural products, foodstuff, wines and other alcoholic beverages. However, the use of GIs is not limited to agricultural products . A GI may also highlight specific qualities of a product that are due to human factors found in the product’s place of origin, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. This is the case, for instance, for handicrafts, which are generally handmade using local natural resources and usually embedded in the traditions of local communities, e.g. Bohemian crystal, Scottish tartans, Carrara marble or Meissner porcelain.

The EU is bound by rules on protecting GIs under the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights ( TRIPS ), which applies to all 159 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and covers both agricultural and non-agricultural products.

At EU level , unitary GI protection is currently provided for wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines and for agricultural products and foodstuffs. There is currently no harmonisation or unitary GI protection in place for non-agricultural products at EU level .

According to a study published by the Commission in 2013, existing legal instruments available for producers at national and at European level are insufficient.

CONTENT: this Green Paper aims to consult with all stakeholders in the broadest possible manner on whether there is a need, in the EU, to increase GI protection for non-agricultural products, and if so what approach should be taken.

The document consists of two parts:

The first part concerns the current means of protection provided at national and EU level and the potential economic, social and cultural benefits that could be achieved by improved GI protection in the EU. The Commission considers that there seems to be potential benefits of a harmonised EU GI system for producers of non-agricultural products:

· increasing the distinctiveness and attractiveness of their products thanks to guaranteeing quality and origin throughout the EU could boost sales and there would be more effective and uniform EU-wide protection against losses caused by, counterfeiting and imitation;

· provide consumers with certainty that a product has a particular quality, characteristics, and/or reputation due to its particular place of origin, if this is something they value;

· create a positive impact on negotiating trade agreements with third countries interested in securing better protection for their non-agricultural GIs in the EU;

· preserve and value European traditions, know-how, the diversity of cultural expression and cultural heritage and help build social capital in a region.

The second part includes more technical questions to seek the views of interested parties on possible options for EU-level GI protection for non-agricultural products. These issues concern:

· the label (names and symbols) to be used to refer to a product eligible for a GI protection;

· the need to add any further exceptions to GI protection other than those already provided in TRIPS;

· the possibility to differentiate between various protection schemes depending on the categories of non-agricultural products involved (a sectoral approach would establish specific rules for different categories of products, or a cross-cutting approach would set out the core elements of the system generally, to apply to any category of product;

· the link be between non-agricultural products and their place of origin , in order to qualify for GI protection in any new system;

· the introduction of a quality benchmark for non-agricultural products and how the specific characteristics of the product should be defined to ensure quality and geographic origin meets the required standards;

· the need for reputation to be required in order to obtain GI protection for non-agricultural products.

The Green Paper also questions whether harmonising national legislation on GIs would be sufficient to effectively protect GIs for non-agricultural products across the internal market, or would a single EU-level protection system be more appropriate.

All interested parties are requested to send their responses to the Commission by 28 October 2014.

Documents
EUR-Lex
COM(2014)0469

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0259/2015 - Virginie Rozière - Vote unique #

2015/10/06 Outcome: +: 608, 0: 43, -: 43
DE FR IT PL ES RO CZ HU PT BG BE AT EL NL FI IE HR SK LT LV DK SI CY MT SE EE GB LU
Total
90
71
70
47
49
30
21
20
18
16
18
18
20
25
12
10
11
12
10
8
11
8
6
6
19
5
59
3
icon: PPE PPE
204

Germany PPE

30

France PPE

19

Italy PPE

15

Poland PPE

23

Spain PPE

14

Romania PPE

13

Czechia PPE

7

Hungary PPE

11

Portugal PPE

6

Bulgaria PPE

7

Belgium PPE

3

Austria PPE

5

Greece PPE

5

Netherlands PPE

5

Finland PPE

3

Ireland PPE

4

Croatia PPE

5

Slovakia PPE

5

Lithuania PPE

2

Latvia PPE

4

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

Bendt BENDTSEN
1

Slovenia PPE

5

Cyprus PPE

2

Malta PPE

3

Sweden PPE

4

Estonia PPE

For (1)

Tunne KELAM
1

Luxembourg PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
181

Germany S&D

26

France S&D

13

Italy S&D

28

Poland S&D

4

Spain S&D

13

Romania S&D

14

Czechia S&D

4

Hungary S&D

4

Portugal S&D

8

Bulgaria S&D

4

Belgium S&D

4

Austria S&D

5

Greece S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

Nessa CHILDERS
1

Croatia S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

4

Lithuania S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Denmark S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

Tanja FAJON
1

Cyprus S&D

2

Malta S&D

3

Sweden S&D

5

Estonia S&D

For (1)

Marju LAURISTIN
1

United Kingdom S&D

21

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

Mady DELVAUX
1
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Germany ALDE

4

France ALDE

7

Spain ALDE

8

Romania ALDE

2

Czechia ALDE

4

Portugal ALDE

2

Bulgaria ALDE

4

Belgium ALDE

5

Austria ALDE

For (1)

Angelika MLINAR
1

Netherlands ALDE

7

Finland ALDE

4

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

Marian HARKIN
1

Croatia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

Ivo VAJGL
1

Sweden ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

2

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
49

Germany GUE/NGL

8

France GUE/NGL

4

Italy GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

10

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

6

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

Merja KYLLÖNEN
1

Ireland GUE/NGL

4

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

Rina Ronja KARI
1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

Malin BJÖRK
1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ECR ECR
56

Germany ECR

8

Italy ECR

2

Poland ECR

18

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Belgium ECR

3

Greece ECR

For (1)

Notis MARIAS
1

Netherlands ECR

2

Finland ECR

For (1)

Jussi HALLA-AHO
1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

Ruža TOMAŠIĆ
1

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

Richard SULÍK
3

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

Roberts ZĪLE
1

Denmark ECR

3

United Kingdom ECR

9
icon: ENF ENF
37

France ENF

20

Italy ENF

5

Poland ENF

For (1)

Michał MARUSIK
1

Romania ENF

1

Belgium ENF

For (1)

Gerolf ANNEMANS
1

Austria ENF

4

Netherlands ENF

4

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

Janice ATKINSON
1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Germany Verts/ALE

12

France Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Yannick JADOT
6

Spain Verts/ALE

4

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

Benedek JÁVOR

Abstain (1)

Tamás MESZERICS
2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

For (1)

Michel REIMON
3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Heidi HAUTALA
1

Croatia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Davor ŠKRLEC
1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Bronis ROPĖ
1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Tatjana ŽDANOKA
1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Margrete AUKEN
1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Igor ŠOLTES
1

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

Estonia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

Indrek TARAND
1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: NI NI
12

Germany NI

2

France NI

For (1)

Bruno GOLLNISCH
1

Hungary NI

3

Greece NI

5

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Diane DODDS
1
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

France EFDD

1

Italy EFDD

17

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

Petr MACH
1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

Rolandas PAKSAS
1

Sweden EFDD

2

United Kingdom EFDD

20
AmendmentsDossier
256 2015/2053(INI)
2015/05/12 INTA 49 amendments...
source: 557.174
2015/05/13 IMCO 89 amendments...
source: 557.204
2015/05/19 CULT 65 amendments...
source: 557.143
2015/05/28 JURI 53 amendments...
source: 557.320

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2023-08-03Show (7) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/associated
Old
True
New
 
committees/1
Old
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
rapporteur
name: MOSCA Alessia Maria date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
New
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
rapporteur
name: DIACONU Mircea date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/3
Old
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
rapporteur
name: DIACONU Mircea date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
New
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
rapporteur
name: MOSCA Alessia Maria date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
docs/6
date
2015-01-06T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469
type
Contribution
body
PT_PARLIAMENT
docs/6
date
2015-01-07T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469
type
Contribution
body
PT_PARLIAMENT
docs/7
date
2014-11-05T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469
type
Contribution
body
SE_PARLIAMENT
docs/7
date
2014-11-06T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469
type
Contribution
body
SE_PARLIAMENT
2021-12-18Show (15) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/3
name
MAŠTÁLKA Jiří
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.895
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-554895_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE557.320
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-557320_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.841&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/INTA-AD-554841_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE551.753&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CULT-AD-551753_EN.html
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.925&secondRef=04
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-554925_EN.html
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/3/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/4
date
2015-09-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0259_EN.html title: A8-0259/2015
summary
events/4
date
2015-09-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0259_EN.html title: A8-0259/2015
summary
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20151005&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2015-10-05-TOC_EN.html
events/7
date
2015-10-06T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0331_EN.html title: T8-0331/2015
summary
events/7
date
2015-10-06T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0331_EN.html title: T8-0331/2015
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
2020-01-19Show (11) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: ROZIÈRE Virginie date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2014-11-10T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
rapporteur
name: MOSCA Alessia Maria date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
date
2015-02-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MOSCA Alessia Maria group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: DANTI Nicola date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2014-09-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DANTI Nicola group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
rapporteur
name: DIACONU Mircea date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
date
2014-11-04T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DIACONU Mircea group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/5/body
EC
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0259&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0259_EN.html
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0331
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0331_EN.html
2019-07-06Show (19) Changes | Timetravel
activities
  • date: 2014-07-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0469 title: COM(2014)0469 type: Non-legislative basic document published celexid: CELEX:52014DC0469:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ title: Enterprise and Industry Commissioner: BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2015-03-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade rapporteur: group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: Verts/ALE name: ANDERSSON Max responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
  • date: 2015-09-15T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade rapporteur: group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: Verts/ALE name: ANDERSSON Max responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
  • date: 2015-09-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0259&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0259/2015 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2015-10-05T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20151005&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-10-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0331 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0331/2015 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs commissioner: BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2014-11-10T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROZIÈRE Virginie group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
CULT
date
2014-11-04T00:00:00
committee_full
Culture and Education
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
International Trade
committee
INTA
date
2015-02-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MOSCA Alessia Maria group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2014-09-24T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2014-09-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DANTI Nicola group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
INTA
date
2015-02-24T00:00:00
committee_full
International Trade
rapporteur
group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Culture and Education
committee
CULT
date
2014-11-04T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DIACONU Mircea group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/3
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2014-11-10T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
docs
  • date: 2015-04-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.895 title: PE554.895 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2015-05-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE557.320 title: PE557.320 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2015-06-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.841&secondRef=02 title: PE554.841 committee: INTA type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2015-06-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE551.753&secondRef=02 title: PE551.753 committee: CULT type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2015-06-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE554.925&secondRef=04 title: PE554.925 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2016-02-25T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=26157&j=0&l=en title: SP(2015)774 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2015-01-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469 type: Contribution body: PT_PARLIAMENT
  • date: 2014-11-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2014)0469 title: COM(2014)0469 type: Contribution body: SE_PARLIAMENT
events
  • date: 2014-07-15T00:00:00 type: Non-legislative basic document published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0469 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(2014)0469 summary: PURPOSE: to launch a debate on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products (Commission Green Paper). BACKGROUND: g eographical indications (GIs) are indications that identify goods as originating in a country, region or locality where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, for example Bordeaux (wine), Vetro di Murano (glass) or Prosciutto di Parma. GIs are self-evidently relevant to agricultural products, foodstuff, wines and other alcoholic beverages. However, the use of GIs is not limited to agricultural products . A GI may also highlight specific qualities of a product that are due to human factors found in the product’s place of origin, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. This is the case, for instance, for handicrafts, which are generally handmade using local natural resources and usually embedded in the traditions of local communities, e.g. Bohemian crystal, Scottish tartans, Carrara marble or Meissner porcelain. The EU is bound by rules on protecting GIs under the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights ( TRIPS ), which applies to all 159 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and covers both agricultural and non-agricultural products. At EU level , unitary GI protection is currently provided for wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines and for agricultural products and foodstuffs. There is currently no harmonisation or unitary GI protection in place for non-agricultural products at EU level . According to a study published by the Commission in 2013, existing legal instruments available for producers at national and at European level are insufficient. CONTENT: this Green Paper aims to consult with all stakeholders in the broadest possible manner on whether there is a need, in the EU, to increase GI protection for non-agricultural products, and if so what approach should be taken. The document consists of two parts: The first part concerns the current means of protection provided at national and EU level and the potential economic, social and cultural benefits that could be achieved by improved GI protection in the EU. The Commission considers that there seems to be potential benefits of a harmonised EU GI system for producers of non-agricultural products: · increasing the distinctiveness and attractiveness of their products thanks to guaranteeing quality and origin throughout the EU could boost sales and there would be more effective and uniform EU-wide protection against losses caused by, counterfeiting and imitation; · provide consumers with certainty that a product has a particular quality, characteristics, and/or reputation due to its particular place of origin, if this is something they value; · create a positive impact on negotiating trade agreements with third countries interested in securing better protection for their non-agricultural GIs in the EU; · preserve and value European traditions, know-how, the diversity of cultural expression and cultural heritage and help build social capital in a region. The second part includes more technical questions to seek the views of interested parties on possible options for EU-level GI protection for non-agricultural products. These issues concern: · the label (names and symbols) to be used to refer to a product eligible for a GI protection; · the need to add any further exceptions to GI protection other than those already provided in TRIPS; · the possibility to differentiate between various protection schemes depending on the categories of non-agricultural products involved (a sectoral approach would establish specific rules for different categories of products, or a cross-cutting approach would set out the core elements of the system generally, to apply to any category of product; · the link be between non-agricultural products and their place of origin , in order to qualify for GI protection in any new system; · the introduction of a quality benchmark for non-agricultural products and how the specific characteristics of the product should be defined to ensure quality and geographic origin meets the required standards; · the need for reputation to be required in order to obtain GI protection for non-agricultural products. The Green Paper also questions whether harmonising national legislation on GIs would be sufficient to effectively protect GIs for non-agricultural products across the internal market, or would a single EU-level protection system be more appropriate. All interested parties are requested to send their responses to the Commission by 28 October 2014.
  • date: 2015-03-12T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-03-12T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2015-09-15T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2015-09-22T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0259&language=EN title: A8-0259/2015 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Virginie ROZIÈRE (S&D, FR) on the possible extension of geographical indication (GI) protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, exercising its prerogatives as an associated committee in accordance with Rule 54 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, also gave an opinion on the report. Legislative proposal : Members asked the Commission to propose a legislative proposal with the aim of establishing a single European system of protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products , and of ensuring that the effects of the new system on producers, their competitors, consumers and Member States were fully considered. They stressed that such an instrument would need to be accompanied by information and communication campaigns. Benefits of a uniform protection at EU level : the report stressed that it would be highly recommended for the EU to adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, in order to: (i) fully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of such products, (ii) provide consumers with reliable information on their place and method of production, and (iii) preserve the know-how and jobs relating to them. Members emphasised that the recognition of protection of non-agricultural GIs and traditional, high-quality know-how: was both a defensive and offensive interest in the framework of the common commercial policy; fostered innovation and the creation of new start-ups, in particular for small enterprises and micro-enterprises, which were the source of 80 % of typical locally-made products that could be protected under the geographical indications system; combatted counterfeit or imitation products ; ensured a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable approach to economic development inside and outside the EU; contributed to fair competition and consumer protection . Members stressed that preserving traditional know-how and production could help stop the depopulation and destruction of rural areas and the flow of young people leaving these areas. They called on the Commission and Member States to promote trans regional and transnational cooperation and the pooling of best practices among non-agricultural product clusters and related sectors. Relations with third countries : the committee considered that open-ended lists of all products, both agricultural and non-agricultural, that were protected by geographical indications should be incorporated into future EU trade agreements with non-member countries. Extending the scope of the GI protection system to cover non-agricultural products could: (i) help make the EU’s position on GIs even stronger and more cogent, in multilateral forums; (ii) stimulate European exports and gain market share while achieving international recognition of the products in question; (iii) strengthen the Union’s hand in the WTO; (iv) be an advantage in negotiating trade agreements with third countries. The Commission was called upon to include in its upcoming communication on the EU’s trade and investment strategy a coherent and well-prepared strategy for all GIs , which ensures that they are observed and recognised. Principles and scope of geographical indication protection at EU level : the report asked the Commission to create a system based on best practices and transparent and non-discriminatory principles, which was effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burdens and deterrent costs for producers who voluntarily decide to register a product under a geographical indication scheme. Such a system should ensure strict controls and should include appropriate means of dealing with fraud. Furthermore, the system should: represent a guarantee which is intuitively perceptible to consumers who sought high-quality products in terms of authenticity and origin which have a strong link to the geographical area concerned and are supported by reliable and clear information; have a broad definition that would make it possible to recognise the link between a product and the area covered enabling the inclusion of names which, though not geographical, were unambiguously associated with a given place; Members recommend that the protection scheme should include non-verbal signs and symbols that were unmistakably associated with a particular region. The label/distinguishing sign/mark/logo for non-agricultural GIs should be simple and easily recognisable, should reflect the regional/local identity of the goods, and should be expressed in at least the language of the product’s place of origin and that of the country into which it is imported. Registration process : the report recommended a compulsory registration procedure , as this would provide greater security, especially as regards the enforcement of rights in the event of a dispute. Registration should take place in two stages : firstly, on-the-spot checks should be made by national or regional authorities to ascertain that specific characteristics are not being interfered with; and secondly, there should be a single European registration system to ensure compliance with common criteria in all parts of the EU. Members believed that specifications should include at least the following criteria: raw materials used, description of the production process, proof of the link with the territory, and elements of corporate social responsibility. The system must be accompanied by the creation of a single standardised and public European register for non-agricultural products benefiting from geographical indication protection. The report stressed the relevance of quality checks , and advocated, in addition, that an inspection, infringement and penalty scheme be set up to monitor geographical indications on products marketed in Europe.
  • date: 2015-10-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20151005&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-10-06T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=26157&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2015-10-06T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0331 title: T8-0331/2015 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 608 votes to 43, with 43 abstentions, a resolution on the possible extension of geographical indication (GI) protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products, in response to the Commission Green Paper on the same issue. European legislative proposal : whilst welcoming the Commission’s initiative of consulting stakeholders in order to determine whether EU geographical indication (GI) protection could be extended to cover non-agricultural products, as well as the outcome of the consultation which was concluded in October 2014, Parliament clearly favoured an EU system of protection based on geographical indications for non-agricultural products, as part of a broader strategy for promoting high-quality EU products. It asked the Commission to propose a legislative proposal with the aim of establishing a single European system of protection of geographical indications for non-agricultural products , and of ensuring that the effects of the new system on producers, their competitors, consumers and Member States were fully considered. Members stressed that such an instrument would need to be accompanied by information and communication campaigns. Benefits of a uniform protection at EU level : Parliament stressed that it would be highly recommended for the EU to adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, in order to: (i) fully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of such products, (ii) provide consumers with reliable information on their place and method of production, and (iii) preserve the know-how and jobs relating to them. The resolution emp hasised that the recognition of protection of non-agricultural GIs and traditional, high-quality know-how: was both a defensive and offensive interest in the framework of the common commercial policy; fostered innovation and the creation of new start-ups, in particular for small enterprises and micro-enterprises, which were the source of 80 % of typical locally-made products that could be protected under the geographical indications system; combatted counterfeit or imitation products ; ensured a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable approach to economic development inside and outside the EU; contributed to fair competition and consumer protection; help stop the depopulation and destruction of rural areas and the flow of young people leaving these areas. Parliament recognised the importance of investing in education and training in this field, and encouraged Member States to make optimal use of the available EU funding and programmes for the support of vocational training for specialists involved in the production and promotion of environment-friendly local and regional artisanal and industrial products. It also e ncouraged the Member States to exchange good practices in creating and supporting initiatives aimed at stimulating the traditional artisanal sector. Relations with third countries : Members considered that open-ended lists of all products, both agricultural and non-agricultural, that were protected by geographical indications should be incorporated into future EU trade agreements with non-member countries. Extending the scope of the GI protection system to cover non-agricultural products could: (i) help make the EU’s position on GIs even stronger and more cogent, in multilateral forums; (ii) stimulate European exports and gain market share while achieving international recognition of the products in question; (iii) strengthen the Union’s hand in the WTO; (iv) be an advantage in negotiating trade agreements with third countries. The Commission was called upon to include in its upcoming communication on the EU’s trade and investment strategy a coherent and well-prepared strategy for all GIs , which ensures that they are observed and recognised. Protection at EU level : Parliament asked the Commission to create a system based on best practices and transparent and non-discriminatory principles, which was effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burdens and deterrent costs for producers who voluntarily decide to register a product under a geographical indication scheme. Such a system should ensure strict controls and should include appropriate means of dealing with fraud. Furthermore, the system should: represent a guarantee which is intuitively perceptible to consumers who sought high-quality products in terms of authenticity and origin which have a strong link to the geographical area concerned and are supported by reliable and clear information; have a broad definition that would make it possible to recognise the link between a product and the area covered enabling the inclusion of names which, though not geographical, were unambiguously associated with a given place. Members recommend that the protection scheme should include non-verbal signs and symbols that were unmistakably associated with a particular region. The label/distinguishing sign/mark/logo for non-agricultural GIs should be simple and easily recognisable, should reflect the regional/local identity of the goods, and should be expressed in at least the language of the product’s place of origin and that of the country into which it is imported. Registration process : Parliament recommended a compulsory registration procedure , as this would provide greater security, especially as regards the enforcement of rights in the event of a dispute. Registration should take place in two stages : firstly, on-the-spot checks should be made by national or regional authorities to ascertain that specific characteristics are not being interfered with; secondly, there should be a single European registration system to ensure compliance with common criteria in all parts of the EU. In this regard, Members proposed that the system should be managed at EU level by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). Specifications should include at least the following criteria: raw materials used, description of the production process, proof of the link with the territory, and elements of corporate social responsibility. The system must be accompanied by the creation of a single standardised and public European register for non-agricultural products benefiting from geographical indication protection. Parliament also stressed the relevance of quality checks , and advocated, in addition, that an inspection, infringement and penalty scheme be set up to monitor geographical indications on products marketed in Europe.
  • date: 2015-10-06T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ title: Enterprise and Industry commissioner: BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/8/02042
New
  • JURI/8/02042
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.10.03 Standardisation, EC standards and trademark, certification, compliance
  • 3.50.15 Intellectual property, copyright
  • 3.50.16 Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
  • 4.45.06 Heritage and culture protection, movement of works of art
  • 4.60.02 Consumer information, advertising, labelling
New
2.10.03
Standardisation, EC/EU standards and trade mark, certification, compliance
3.50.15
Intellectual property, copyright
3.50.16
Industrial property, European patent, Community patent, design and pattern
4.45.06
Heritage and culture protection, movement of works of art
4.60.02
Consumer information, advertising, labelling
2015-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0469:EN
2015-10-21Show (14) Changes | Timetravel
activities/1/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade rapporteur: group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria
  • body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: Verts/ALE name: ANDERSSON Max responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
activities/1/date
Old
2015-10-26T00:00:00
New
2015-03-12T00:00:00
activities/1/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2
date
2015-09-15T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
activities/3/committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: INTA date: 2015-02-24T00:00:00 committee_full: International Trade rapporteur: group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria
  • body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
activities/3/date
Old
2015-03-12T00:00:00
New
2015-09-22T00:00:00
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0259&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0259/2015
activities/3/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
activities/4
date
2015-10-05T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20151005&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
body
EP
type
Debate in Parliament
activities/5
date
2015-10-06T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0331 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0331/2015
body
EP
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees/3/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
MAŠTÁLKA Jiří
committees/3/shadows/4
group
Verts/ALE
name
ANDERSSON Max
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Procedure completed
2015-07-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/2/date
Old
2015-09-07T00:00:00
New
2015-10-26T00:00:00
2015-06-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0469:EN
2015-06-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0469:EN
2015-05-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52014DC0469:EN
2015-04-21Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/2
date
2015-09-07T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
2015-03-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/docs/0/text

  • PURPOSE: to launch a debate on the possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products (Commission Green Paper).

    BACKGROUND: geographical indications (GIs) are indications that identify goods as originating in a country,  region or locality where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, for example Bordeaux (wine), Vetro di Murano (glass) or Prosciutto di Parma.

    GIs are self-evidently relevant to agricultural products, foodstuff, wines and other alcoholic beverages. However, the use of GIs is not limited to agricultural products. A GI may also highlight specific qualities of a product that are due to human factors found in the product’s place of origin, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. This is the case, for instance, for handicrafts, which are generally handmade using local natural resources and usually embedded in the traditions of local communities, e.g. Bohemian crystal, Scottish tartans, Carrara marble or Meissner porcelain.

    The EU is bound by rules on protecting GIs under the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), which applies to all 159 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and covers both agricultural and non-agricultural products.

    At EU level, unitary GI protection is currently provided for wines, spirit drinks, aromatised wines and for agricultural products and foodstuffs. There is currently no harmonisation or unitary GI protection in place for non-agricultural products at EU level.

    According to a study published by the Commission in 2013, existing legal instruments available for producers at national and at European level are insufficient.

    CONTENT: this Green Paper aims to consult with all stakeholders in the broadest possible manner on whether there is a need, in the EU, to increase GI protection for non-agricultural products, and if so what approach should be taken.

    The document consists of two parts:

    The first part concerns the current means of protection provided at national and EU level and the potential economic, social and cultural benefits that could be achieved by improved GI protection in the EU. The Commission considers that there seems to be potential benefits of a harmonised EU GI system for producers of non-agricultural products:

    ·         increasing the distinctiveness and attractiveness of their products thanks to guaranteeing quality and origin throughout the EU could boost sales and there would be more effective and uniform EU-wide protection against losses caused by, counterfeiting and imitation;

    ·         provide consumers with certainty that a product has a particular quality, characteristics, and/or reputation due to its particular place of origin, if this is something they value;

    ·         create a positive impact on negotiating trade agreements with third countries interested in securing better protection for their non-agricultural GIs in the EU;

    ·         preserve and value European traditions, know-how, the diversity of cultural expression and cultural heritage and help build social capital in a region.

    The second part includes more technical questions to seek the views of interested parties on possible options for EU-level GI protection for non-agricultural products. These issues concern:

    ·         the label (names and symbols) to be used to refer to a product eligible for a GI protection;

    ·         the need to add any further exceptions to GI protection other than those already provided in TRIPS;

    ·         the possibility to differentiate between various protection schemes depending on the categories of non-agricultural products involved (a sectoral approach would establish specific rules for different categories of products, or a cross-cutting approach would set out the core elements of the system generally, to apply to any category of product;

    ·         the link be between non-agricultural products and their place of origin, in order to qualify for GI protection in any new system;

    ·         the introduction of a quality benchmark for non-agricultural products and how the specific characteristics of the product should be defined to ensure quality and geographic origin meets the required standards;

    ·         the need for reputation to be required in order to obtain GI protection for non-agricultural products.

    The Green Paper also questions whether harmonising national legislation on GIs would be sufficient to effectively protect GIs for non-agricultural products across the internal market, or would a single EU-level protection system be more appropriate.

    All interested parties are requested to send their responses to the Commission by 28 October 2014.
2015-03-25Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/commission/0
DG
Commissioner
BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta
activities/1/committees/2/date
2015-02-24T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria
committees/2/date
2015-02-24T00:00:00
committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: MOSCA Alessia Maria
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta
2015-03-17Show (5) Changes
activities
  • date: 2014-07-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2014&nu_doc=0469 celexid: CELEX:52014DC0469:EN type: Non-legislative basic document published title: COM(2014)0469 body: EC commission: type: Non-legislative basic document published
  • date: 2015-03-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: CULT date: 2014-11-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Culture and Education rapporteur: group: ALDE name: DIACONU Mircea
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2014-09-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: DANTI Nicola
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: International Trade committee: INTA
  • body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: ESTARÀS FERRAGUT Rosa group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2014-11-10T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: S&D name: ROZIÈRE Virginie
links
other
    procedure
    dossier_of_the_committee
    JURI/8/02042
    reference
    2015/2053(INI)
    title
    Possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Awaiting committee decision
    subtype
    Initiative
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject
    @parltrack
    @parltrack@eupolicy.social
    [javascript protected email address]
    code AGPLv3.0+
    data ODBLv1.0
    site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

    ParlTrack - 2011-2024

    © European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
    Hosted by AS250.net Foundation