[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

[pic] | IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA |

Brussels, 22.12.2010

Brussel 22.12.2010

COM(2010) 779 final

KUMM(2010) 779 finali

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

RAPPORT MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW, IL-KUNSILL, IL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW U L-KUMITAT TAR-REĠJUNI

Application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

L-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva 2004/48/KEtal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tad-29 ta’ April 2004dwar l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intelletwali

SEC(2010) 1589 final

SEG(2010) 1589 finali

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

RAPPORT MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW, IL-KUNSILL, IL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW U L-KUMITAT TAR-REĠJUNI

Application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

L-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva 2004/48/KEtal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tad- 29 ta’ April 2004 dwar l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intelletwali

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SOMMARJU EŻEKUTTIV

Effective means of enforcing intellectual property rights are essential for promoting innovation and creativity. Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights harmonises the minimum means available to right holders and public authorities for fighting infringements of intellectual property rights. It also establishes a general framework for exchanging information and administrative co-operation between national authorities and with the Commission.

Mezzi effikaċi għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali huma essenzjali għall-promozzjoni tal-innovazzjoni u l-kreattività. Id-Direttiva 2004/48/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fuq l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali tarmonizza l-mezzi minimi disponibbli għad-detenturi ta’ drittijiet u għall-awtoritajiet pubbliċi biex jikkombattu ksur tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Tistabilixxi wkoll qafas ġenerali għall-iskambju ta’ informazzjoni u kooperazzjoni amministrattiva bejn l-awtoritajiet nazzjonali u mal-Kummissjoni.

A first evaluation of the impact of the Directive shows that noteworthy progress has been made since it was adopted and implemented in the Member States. The Directive created high European legal standards to enforce different types of rights that are protected by independent legal regimes (such as copyright, patents, trademarks and designs, but also geographical indications and plant breeders' rights).

L-ewwel evalwazzjoni tal-impatt tad-Direttiva turi li sar progress notevoli sa minn meta ġiet adottata u implimentata fl-Istati Membri. Id-Direttiva ħolqot standards legali Ewropej għoljin biex tinforza tipi differenti ta’ drittijiet li huma protetti minn sistemi legali indipendenti (bħad-dritt tal-awtur, privattivi, trademarks u disinnji, iżda wkoll indikazzjonijiet ġeografiċi u d-drittijiet tan-nissiela tal-pjanti).

However, despite an overall improvement of enforcement procedures, the sheer volume and financial value of intellectual property rights infringements are alarming. One reason is the unprecedented increase in opportunities to infringe intellectual property rights offered by the Internet. The Directive was not designed with this challenge in mind.

Madankollu, minkejja t-titjib ġenerali fil-proċeduri tal-infurzar, il-volum kbir u l-valur finanzjarju tal-ksur tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali huma allarmanti. Raġuni waħda hija ż-żieda mingħajr preċedent fl-opportunitajiet biex isir ksur tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali permezz tal-Internet. Id-Direttiva ma kinitx imfassla bil-ħsieb ta’ din l-isfida.

Other issues that could need special attention are the use of provisional and precautionary measures such as injunctions, procedures to gather and preserve evidence (including the relationship between the right of information and protection of privacy), clarification of the meaning of various corrective measures, including the costs of destruction, and calculation of damages.

Kwistjonijiet oħrajn li jistgħu jeħtieġu attenzjoni speċjali huma l-użu ta’ miżuri provviżorji u kawtelatorji bħal inġunzjonijiet, proċeduri biex jinġabru u jinżammu provi (inkluża r-relazzjoni bejn id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-protezzjoni tal-privatezza), il-kjarifika tat-tifsira tad-diversi miżuri korrettivi, inklużi l-kostijiet tal-qerda, u l-kalkolu tal-indennizz għad-danni.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WERREJ

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SOMMARJU EŻEKUTTIV 2

1. Introduction 3

1. Introduzzjoni 3

2. The objectives of the Enforcement Directive 4

2. L-għanijiet tad-Direttiva dwar l-Infurzar 4

3. Clarifications required for more effective protection of intellectual property rights and a better functioning internal market 4

3. Kjarifiki jistgħu jkunu meħtieġa għal protezzjoni aktar effikaċi tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali u biex is-suq intern ikun jista’ jaħdem aħjar 4

3.1. Addressing the specific challenges of the digital environment 4

3.1. Sfidi speċifiċi tal-ambjent diġitali 4

3.2. Clarifying the scope of the Directive 4

3.2. L-ambitu tad-Direttiva 4

3.3. Clarifying the concept of intermediaries and improving the workability of injunctions 4

3.3. Il-kunċett ta’ intermedjarji u l-fattibilità tal-inġunzjonijiet 4

3.4. Striking the right balance between the right of information and privacy laws 4

3.4. Il-kwistjoni tal-bilanċ ġust bejn id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-liġijiet dwar il-privatezza 4

3.5. Making sure that damages have a compensatory and dissuasive effect 4

3.5. L-effett kompensatorju u dissważiv tad-danni 4

3.6. Clarifying the different corrective measures 4

3.6. Miżuri korrettivi 4

3.7. Other issues 4

3.7. Kwistjonijiet oħrajn 4

4. Conclusion 4

4. Konklużjoni 4

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUZZJONI

IT IS ESSENTIAL TO FIND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENFORCING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS TO PROMOTE INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY. THIS REPORT PROVIDES THE FIRST ASSESSMENT OF THE implementation and impact of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights[1] ('the Directive'). This assessment is required by Article 18 of the Directive and is based both on the Commission's appraisal of developments and on feedback received from Member States via national reports, which, in turn, reflect views expressed by industry, legal practitioners, consumers' associations and other interested parties.

Huwa essenzjali li jinstabu mezzi effikaċi biex jiġu infurzati d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali sabiex jiġu promossi l-innovazzjoni u l-kreattività. Dan ir-Rapport jipprovdi l-ewwel valutazzjoni tal-implimentazzjoni u l-impatt tad-Direttiva 2004/48/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fuq l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali[1] ('id-Direttiva'). Din il-valutazzjoni (stima) hija meħtieġa mill-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva u hija bbażata kemm fuq l-evalwazzjoni ta’ żviluppi mill-Kummissjoni kif ukoll fuq ir-rispons mogħti mill-Istati Membri permezz tar-rapporti nazzjonali, li, min-naħa l-oħra, jirriflettu l-opinjonijiet li esprimew l-industrija, il-prattikanti legali, l-assoċjazzjonijiet tal-konsumaturi u partijiet interessati oħrajn.

The information received points to the conclusion that the Directive has had a substantial and positive effect on protecting intellectual property rights under civil law in Europe. The Directive created a straightforward framework for enforcing intellectual property rights which, broadly, provides comparable protection across national borders. In particular the presumption of authorship or ownership (Article 5), the possibility of "sampling" in the context of information gathering (Article 6), provisional measures to preserve evidence (Article 7) and the possibility of injunctions against intermediaries (Articles 9 and 11) have helped render the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU more effective.

L-informazzjoni mibgħuta tipponta lejn il-konklużjoni li d-Direttiva kellha effett sostanzjali u pożittiv fuq il-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali taħt id- dritt ċivili fl-Ewropa. Id-Direttiva ħolqot qafas sempliċi għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali li, b’mod ġenerali, jipprovdi protezzjoni kumparabbli bejn fruntiera nazzjonali u oħra. B’mod partikolari l-preżunzjoni li wieħed huwa l-awtur jew is-sid (l-Artikolu 5), il-possibilità ta’ “kampjunar” fil-kuntest tal-ġbir ta’ informazzjoni (l-Artikolu 6), miżuri provviżorji biex jiġu ppreżervati l-provi (l-Artikolu 7) u l-possibilità ta’ inġunzjonijiet kontra intermedjarji (l-Artikoli 9 u 11) għenu biex l-infurzar ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fl-UE jsir aktar effikaċi.

However, due to late transposition of the Directive in many Member States (the transposition process was not completed until 2009)[2] experience in applying the Directive is limited and only few court cases have been reported. Therefore, the Commission has not been able to conduct a critical economic analysis of the impact that the Directive has had on innovation and on development of the information society, as provided for in Article 18 of the Directive.

Madankollu, minħabba t-traspożizzjoni tardiva tad-Direttiva f’ħafna Stati Membri (il-proċess ta’ traspożizzjoni tlesta biss fl-2009)[2] l-esperjenza fl-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva hija limitata u ġew irrapportati biss xi ftit kawżi tal-qrati. Għalhekk, il-Kummissjoni ma setgħetx tagħmel analiżi ekonomika kritika tal-impatt li d-Direttiva kellha fuq l-innovazzjoni u fuq l-iżvilupp tas-soċjetà tal-informazzjoni, kif ipprovdut fl-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva.

Despite these limitations, this initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the Directive comes at the right time. Several studies carried out by international organisations and industry have shown that infringements of intellectual property rights have reached a significant level, with certain of these goods posing a danger to consumers' health and safety[3]. In response, over the last two years, the Commission has adopted two Communications[4]. The second one, inter alia, set up a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy to improve the understanding on IPR infringements and create a platform for representatives from national authorities and stakeholders to exchange ideas and expertise on best practices, develop joint enforcement strategies and make recommendations to policy-makers. These were followed by two Council Resolutions[5] that supported the Commission’s policy. The report adopted by the European Parliament also expressed support for an enhanced policy, including a strong legal framework to combat counterfeiting and piracy[6]. Infringements of intellectual property rights taking place outside of the EU also constitute a major source of concern. The Commission is addressing them in different ways, for instance by including ambitious chapters on intellectual property rights in bilateral trade agreements and through participation in international initiatives, such as the on-going negotiation of the ACTA agreement[7].

Minkejja dawn il-limitazzjonijiet, din l-evalwazzjoni inizjali tal-effikaċa tad-Direttiva waslet fiż-żmien adatt. Bosta studji li saru minn organizzazzjonijiet internazzjonali u mill-industrija wrew li l-ksur ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali laħaq livell sinifikanti, b’uħud minn dawk il-prodotti jkunu ta’ periklu għas-saħħa u s-sikurezza tal-konsumaturi[3]. B’reazzjoni għal dan, matul dawn l-aħħar sentejn, il-Kummissjoni adottat żewġ Komunikazzjonijiet[4]. It-tieni waħda, inter alia, stabilixxiet Osservatorju Ewropew tal-Falsifikazzjoni u l-Piraterija sabiex ikunu jistgħu jinftiehmu aħjar il-ksur ta’ drittijiet ta' proprjetà intellettwali (Intellectual Property Rights – IPR) u sabiex tinħoloq pjattaforma għar-rappreżentanti mill-awtoritajiet nazzjonali u l-partijiet interessati biex jiskambjaw ideat u ħila esperta dwar l-aħjar prattiki, jiżviluppaw strateġiji konġunti ta’ infurzar u jagħmlu rakkomandazzjonijiet lill-fassala tal-politika. Dawn kienu segwiti minn żewġ Reżoluzzjonijiet tal-Kunsill[5] li appoġġaw il-politika tal-Kummissjoni. Ir-rapport adottat mill-Parlament Ewropew esprima wkoll appoġġ għal politika mtejba, inkluż qafas legali b’saħħtu biex jiġu miġġielda l-falsifikazzjoni u l-piraterija[6]. Il-ksur ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali barra mill-UE wkoll jikkostitwixxi sors ewlieni ta’ tħassib. Il-Kummissjoni qed tindirizzahom f’modi differenti, pereżempju billi tinkludi kapitoli ambizzjużi dwar id-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fi ftehimiet bilaterali dwar il-kummerċ u permezz tal-parteċipazzjoni f’inizjattivi internazzjonali, bħan-negozjati li jinsabu għaddejjin dwar il-ftehim ACTA[7].

The analysis shows that certain provisions of the Directive including the relationship with other Directives are understood in different ways in the different Member States and have given rise to different interpretations and application in practice . These provisions could warrant further clarifications to make the Directive fully effective.

L-analiżi turi li ċerti dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva, inkluża r-relazzjoni ma’ Direttivi oħrajn, jinftiehmu b’mod differenti fl-Istati Membri differenti u taw lok għal interpretazzjonijiet u applikazzjoni differenti fil-prattika . Dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet jistgħu jiggarantixxu aktar kjarifiki biex id-Direttiva tkun totalment effettiva.

The Internet and digital technologies have added an extra, challenging dimension to enforcing intellectual property rights. On the one hand, the Internet has allowed creators, inventors and their commercial partners to find new ways to market their products. On the other hand, it has also opened the door to new forms of infringements, some of which have proved difficult to combat.

L- Internet u t-teknoloġiji diġitali żiedu dimensjoni oħra li toħloq sfida għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Minn naħa waħda, l-Internet ippermetta lill-kreaturi, l-inventuri u s-sħab kummerċjali tagħhom biex isibu modi ġodda biex jikkummerċjalizzaw il-prodotti tagħhom. Min-naħa l-oħra, fetaħ ukoll il-bieb għal forom ġodda ta’ ksur, li ftit minnhom irriżultaw diffiċli biex jiġu kkumbattuti.

This Report sets out a series of concrete issues where clarification may be needed, in particular to adapt the Directive to the new challenges inherent in a modern Digital Society. It is complemented by a Commission Staff Working Document which provides additional information and background on its findings.

Dan ir-Rapport jippreżenta sensiela ta’ kwistjonijiet konkreti li tista' tkun meħtieġa kjarifika, b’mod partikolari sabiex id-Direttiva tiġi adattata għall-isfidi l-ġodda inerenti f’Soċjetà Diġitali moderna. Huwa kkomplimentat b'Dokument ta’ Ħidma tal-Persunal tal-Kummissjoni li jipprovdi informazzjoni addizzjonali dwar is-sejbiet tiegħu.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE

L-GħANIJIET TAD-DIRETTIVA DWAR L-INFURZAR

Disparities between the Member States' systems for enforcing intellectual property rights undermine the proper functioning of the internal market and weaken the enforcement of the substantive law on such rights. This leads to barriers to cross-border activities, loss of confidence in the internal market and lower investment in innovation and creation. The Directive draws national legislative systems closer together to give rightholders and Member States' authorities a minimum but standard toolbox to combat infringements of intellectual property rights.

L-ispariġġi bejn is-sistemi tal-Istati Membri għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali jimminaw il-ħidma tajba tas-suq intern u jdgħajfu l-infurzar tad-dritt sostantiv dwar dawk id-drittijiet. Dan iwassal għal ostakli għall-attivitajiet transfruntieri, telf ta’ fiduċja fis-suq intern u anqas investiment fl-innovazzjoni u l-ħolqien. Id-Direttiva tqarreb lis-sistemi leġiżlattivi nazzjonali biex b’hekk tagħti lid-detenturi ta’ drittijiet u lill-awtoritajiet tal-Istati Membri sett ta’ għodod minimu iżda standardizzat biex jikkumbattu l-ksur ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali.

The Directive incorporates civil law measures under the TRIPS Agreement[8] into the EU legal framework. It goes beyond the minimum provisions laid down in that Agreement as it also covers, for example, damages, corrective measures and evidence. In addition, the Directive is based on the practices enshrined in the legislation of the Member States that proved to be most effective before the Directive was adopted (the 'best practices approach'). Member States may also add sanctions and remedies that are more favourable to rightholders[9]. The Directive therefore provides a minimum but flexible legal framework for enforcing intellectual property rights.

Id-Direttiva tinkorpora miżuri tad-dritt ċivili taħt il-Ftehim TRIPS[8] fil-qafas legali tal-UE. Din tmur lil hinn mid-dispożizzjonijiet minimi stabiliti f’dak il-Ftehim peress li tkopri wkoll, pereżempju, danni, miżuri korrettivi u evidenza. Barra minn hekk, id-Direttiva hija bbażata fuq il-prattiċi kkristalizzati fil-leġiżlazzjoni tal-Istati Membri li rriżultaw li kienu l-aktar effikaċi qabel ma ġiet adottata d-Direttiva (l-'approċċ tal-aħjar prattiċi'). L-Istati Membri jistgħu jżidu wkoll sanzjonijiet u rimedji li jkunu aktar favorevoli għad-detenturi ta' drittijiet[9]. Id-Direttiva b’hekk tipprovdi qafas legali minimu iżda flessibbli għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali.

Clarifications MAY BE REQUIRED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND A BETTER FUNCTIONING INTERNAL MARKET

KJARIFIKI JISTGħU JKUNU MEħTIEġA GħAL PROTEZZJONI AKTAR EFFIKAċI TAD-DRITTIJIET TAL-PROPRJETÀ INTELLETTWALI U BIEX IS-SUQ INTERN IKUN JISTA’ JAħDEM AħJAR

The analysis of the implementation of the Directive in the Member States shows that the Directive lays a solid foundation for enforcing intellectual property rights in the internal market, but that certain clarification may be needed to avoid any ambiguities and adapt the Directive to the new challenges posed in particular by today's digital environment.

L-analiżi tal-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva fl-Istati Membri turi li d-Direttiva tistabilixxi sisien sodi għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fis-suq intern, iżda li ċerta kjarifika tista' tkun meħtieġa sabiex jiġu evitati ambigwitajiet u sabiex id-Direttiva tiġi adattata għall-isfidi l-ġodda li joħloq b’mod partikolari l-ambjent diġitali tal-lum.

Specific challenges of the digital environment

Sfidi speċifiċi tal-ambjent diġitali

The multi-purpose nature of the Internet makes it easy to commit a wide variety of infringements of intellectual property rights. Goods infringing intellectual property rights are offered for sale on the Internet. Search engines often enable fraudsters to attract Internet users to their unlawful offers available for sale or download. File-sharing of copyright-protected content has become ubiquitous, partly because the development of legal offers of digital content has not been able to keep up with demand, especially on a cross-border basis, and has led many law-abiding citizens to commit massive infringements of copyright and related rights in the form of illegal up-loading and disseminating protected content. Many online sites are either hosting or facilitating the online distribution of protected works without the consent of the right holders. In this context, the limitations of the existing legal framework may need to be clearly assessed.

In-natura tal-Internet, li jista’ jintuża għal diversi skopijiet, tagħmilha faċli biex jitwettqu varjetà wiesgħa ta’ ksur ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Prodotti li jiksru d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali huma offruti għall-bejgħ fuq l-Internet. Il-makni tat-tiftix spiss jippermettu lill-frodaturi biex jattiraw lill-utenti tal-Internet lejn l-offerti illeċiti tagħhom disponibbli għall-bejgħ jew bħala materjal għat-tniżżil. L-iskambju ta' fajls ta' kontenut protett mid-dritt tal-awtur sar jinsab kullimkien, b'mod partikolari peress li l-iżvilupp ta' offerti leċiti ta' kontenut diġitali ma rnexxilux ilaħħaq mad-domanda, b'mod speċjali fuq bażi transfruntiera, u wassal biex ħafna ċittadini li normalment jobdu l-liġi jwettqu ksur kbir ta' drittijiet tal-awtur u drittijiet relatati fil-forma ta' telligħ u disseminazzjoni illegali ta’ kontenut protett. Ħafna siti onlajn qegħdin jew jospitaw jew inkella jiffaċilitaw id-distribuzzjoni onlajn ta’ xogħlijiet protetti mingħajr il-kunsens tad-detenturi tad-drittijiet. F’dan il-kuntest, huwa ċar li l-limitazzjonijiet tal-qafas legali eżistenti jistgħu jeħtieġu jiġu indirizzati.

The scope of the Directive

L-ambitu tad-Direttiva

The Directive applies to all infringements of intellectual property rights protected under European or national law and contains no definitions of the intellectual property rights it covers. Although this flexible approach offers several advantages, different interpretations of the concept of 'intellectual property right', led Member States to ask the Commission to publish a minimum list of the intellectual property rights which it considers are covered by the Directive[10].

Id-Direttiva tapplika għal kull ksur tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali protetti taħt il-liġi Ewropea jew nazzjonali u ma fiha ebda definizzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali li tkopri. Għalkemm dan l-approċċ flessibbli joffri bosta vantaġġi, interpretazzjonijiet differenti tal-kunċett ta’ ‘dritt tal-proprjetà intellettwali’ wasslu lill-Istati Membri biex isaqsu lill-Kummissjoni biex tippubblika lista tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali minimi li hija tikkunsidra li huma koperti mid-Direttiva[10].

Even after the Commission published this clarification, uncertainties still remain as to whether some rights protected under national law are covered. This mainly concerns domain names, national rights on matters such as trade secrets (including know-how) and other acts frequently covered by national unfair competition law such as parasitic copies and other forms of 'competing on the edge of the law'. These forms of commercial misbehaviour seem to be on the rise, too. They often have damaging effects on the rightholders, undermine innovation and bring only short-term benefits to consumers. It could be useful to further assess this negative phenomenon and the need to include, in the Directive, a minimum list of the intellectual property rights covered.

Anki wara li l-Kummissjoni ppubblikat din il-kjarifika, għad fadal inċertezzi dwar jekk xi drittijiet protetti taħt il-liġi nazzjonali humiex koperti. Dan jikkonċerna l-aktar l-ismijiet ta’ dominji, drittijiet nazzjonali dwar kwistjonijiet bħal sigrieti tal-kummerċ (inkluż know-how) u atti oħrajn li spiss jaqgħu taħt il-liġi nazzjonali dwar il-kompetizzjoni żleali bħal kopji parasitiċi u forom oħra ta’ ‘kompetizzjoni fuq il-konfini tal-liġi’. Dawn il-forom ta’ mġieba kummerċjali ħażina jidhru li qed jiżdiedu wkoll. Dawn spiss ikollhom effetti dannużi fuq id-detenturi tad-drittijiet, jimminaw l-innovazzjoni u jagħtu biss benefiċċji fuq medda ta’ żmien qasir lill-konsumaturi. Jista' jkun utli jekk jiġi valutat ulterjorment dan il-fenomenu negattiv u l-ħtieġa li tiġi inkluża, fid-Direttiva, lista minima tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali koperti.

The concept of intermediaries and the workability of injunctions

Il-kunċett ta’ intermedjarji u l-fattibilità tal-inġunzjonijiet

The Directive makes a broad interpretation of the concept of 'intermediaries' to include all intermediaries 'whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right'. This implies that even intermediaries with no direct contractual relationship or connection with the infringer are subject to these measures provided for in the Directive.

Id-Direttiva tagħti interpretazzjoni wiesgħa tal-kunċett ta’ ‘intermedjarji’ biex tinkludi l-intermedjarji kollha ‘li s-servizzi tagħhom jintużaw minn parti terza biex jinkiser dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali’. Dan jimplika li anki l-intermedjarji b’ebda relazzjoni jew konnessjoni kuntrattwali mal-kontraventuri huma soġġetti għall-miżuri pprovduti f’din id-Direttiva.

Nevertheless, the level of evidence required by the courts in the Member States is generally rather high. Furthermore, uncertainties remain over intermediaries and the specific measures to which they are subject by contributing to or facilitating an infringement, regardless of their liability.

Madankollu, il-livell ta’ evidenza meħtieġ mill-qrati fl-Istati Membri huwa ġeneralment pjuttost għoli. Barra minn hekk, għad fadal inċertezzi dwar l-intermedjarji u l-miżuri speċifiċi li għalihom huma soġġetti billi jikkontribwixxu għal jew jiffaċilitaw ksur, irrispettivament mir-responsabilità tagħhom.

Intermediaries who transport goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights (such as carriers, freight forwarders, or shipping agents) can play a leading role in controlling the distribution of goods that infringe intellectual property rights. Internet platforms such as online market places or search engines can also play an important role in reducing the number of the infringements, in particular through preventive measures and ‘notice and take-down’ policies.

L-intermedjarji li jittrasportaw merkanzija li tkun issuspettata li tikser drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali (bħal trasportaturi, aġenti għat-trasport ta’ merkanzija, jew aġenti tat-tbaħħir) jistgħu jiżvolġu rwol ewlieni fil-kontroll tad-distribuzzjoni ta’ prodotti li jiksru d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Il-pjattaformi tal-internet bħal swieq onlajn jew makni tat-tiftix jista’ wkoll ikollhom rwol importanti fit-tnaqqis tan-numru ta’ ksur, b’mod partikolari permezz ta’ miżuri preventivi u politiki ta’ ‘avviż u tneħħija’.

Internet service providers are also key to the way the online environment works. They provide access to the Internet and interconnect the underlying networks, host websites and servers. As intermediaries between all users of the Internet and the rightholders, they are often placed in a compromising position by unlawful acts committed by their customers. For this reason, EU law already contains specific provisions limiting the liability of Internet service providers whose services are used to infringe intellectual property rights[11].

Il-fornituri tas-servizzi tal-internet ukoll għandhom rwol ewlieni fil-mod kif jaħdem l-ambjent onlajn. Dawn jipprovdu aċċess għall-Internet u jikkollegaw in-netwerks sottostanti, jospitaw is-siti tal-internet u s-servers. Bħala intermedjarji bejn l-utenti kollha tal-Internet u d-detenturi tad-drittijiet, dawn spiss jitpoġġew f’pożizzjoni kompromettenti minn atti illeċiti li jitwettqu mill-konsumaturi tagħhom. Għal din ir-raġuni, id-dritt tal-UE diġà tinkludi dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi li jillimitaw ir-responsabilità tal-fornituri ta' servizzi tal-Internet li s-servizzi tagħhom jintużaw biex jinkisru d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali[11].

Measures to be taken against intermediaries concern, in particular, the right of information, provisional and precautionary measures (e.g. interlocutory injunctions), or permanent injunctions.

Miżuri li għandhom jittieħdu kontra l-intermedjarji jikkonċernaw, b’mod partikolari, id-dritt għall-informazzjoni, miżuri provviżorji u kawtelatorji (e.ż. inġunzjonijiet interlokutorji), jew inġunzjonijiet permanenti.

The Directive leaves it to Member States to determine when and how an injunction can be issued against an intermediary. For this to work efficiently, it could be useful to clarify that injunctions should not depend on the liability of the intermediary. Furthermore, the findings reported in the Staff Working Paper that accompanies this Report indicate that the currently available legislative and non-legislative instruments are not powerful enough to combat online infringements of intellectual property rights effectively. Given intermediaries' favourable position to contribute to the prevention and termination of online infringements, the Commission could explore how to involve them more closely.

Id-Direttiva tħalli f’idejn l-Istati Membri biex jiddeterminaw meta u kif tista’ tinħareġ inġunzjoni kontra intermedjarju. Biex din taħdem b’mod effiċjenti, jista’ jkun utli li jiġi kkjarifikat li l-inġunzjonijiet m’għandhomx jiddependu fuq ir-responsabilità tal-intermedjarju. Barra minn hekk, il-konstatazzjonijiet irrapportati fid-Dokument ta’ Ħidma tal-Persunal li jakkumpanja dan ir-Rapport jindikaw li l-istrumenti leġiżlattivi u mhux leġiżlattivi li huma disponibbli bħalissa għadhom mhux b’saħħithom biżżejjed biex jikkumbattu b’mod effettiv ksur onlajn tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Minħabba l-pożizzjoni favorevoli tal-intermedjarji biex jikkontribwixxu għall-prevenzjoni u t-terminazzjoni ta’ ksur onlajn, il-Kummissjoni tista' tiskopri kif għandha tinvolvihom aktar mill-qrib.

The question of the right balance between the right of information and privacy laws

Il-kwistjoni tal-bilanċ ġust bejn id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-liġijiet dwar il-privatezza

The right of information obliges the infringer or another person to provide to the rightholder information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods which infringe intellectual property rights. The main challenge regarding this right is the need to respect privacy laws and the protection of personal data.

Id-dritt għall-informazzjoni jobbliga lill-kontraventur jew lil kwalunkwe persuna oħra biex tipprovdi lid-detentur tad-drittijiet informazzjoni dwar l-oriġini u n-netwerks ta’ distribuzzjoni tal-prodotti li jiksru d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. L-isfida ewlenija rigward dan id-dritt hija l-ħtieġa li jiġu rrispettati l-liġijiet tal-privatezza u l-protezzjoni tad-dejta personali.

In some Member States the right of information provided for in the Directive seems to be granted very restrictively, mainly due to national laws on the protection and retention of personal data[12]. This issue could deserve special attention. National laws must also allow the courts to apply EU law on enforcement of intellectual property rights. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union a fair balance must be struck between the various rights at stake (such as the right to data protection and the right to property, which includes intellectual property rights)[13] given that both data protection/privacy and the protection of intellectual property are recognised as fundamental rights by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[14].

F’xi Stati Membri, id-dritt għall-informazzjoni stabilit fid-Direttiva jidher li qiegħed jingħata b’mod ristrett ħafna, primarjament minħabba l-liġijiet nazzjonali dwar il-protezzjoni u ż-żamma ta’ dejta personali[12]. Din il-kwistjoni tista' timmerita attenzjoni speċjali. Il-liġijiet nazzjonali għandhom ukoll jippermettu lill-qrati japplikaw id-dritt tal-UE dwar l-infurzar tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali. Skont il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea, għandu jinstab bilanċ ġust bejn id-diversi drittijiet inkwistjoni (bħad-dritt għall-protezzjoni tad-dejta u d-dritt għall-proprjetà, li jinkludi drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali)[13] meta wieħed iqis li l-protezzjoni/privatezza tad-dejta u l-protezzjoni tal-proprjetà intellettwali huma rikonoxxuti bħala drittijiet fundamentali mill-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea[14].

The European legal framework on the protection of personal data[15] on the one hand and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the other is neutral, in that there is no rule implying that the right to privacy should generally take precedence over the right to property or vice versa. National laws implementing the various directives must therefore be construed in a way that allows a balance to be struck between these rights in each case in order to guarantee that the provision on the right of information can protect the rightholders effectively without compromising rights relating to the protection of personal data. Further evaluations could be needed on the extent to which Member States' laws and the way they are applied are consistent with these requirements. If necessary, means to remedy the situation and strike an appropriate balance between the rights at stake could also be considered.

Il-qafas legali Ewropew dwar il-protezzjoni tad-dejta personali[15] minn naħa waħda u l-infurzar tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali min-naħa l-oħra huwa newtrali, fis-sens li ma hemm ebda regola li timplika li d-dritt għall-privatezza għandha ġeneralment tieħu preċedenza fuq id-dritt għall-proprjetà jew viċi versa. Il-liġijiet nazzjonali li jimplimentaw id-direttivi varji għandhom għalhekk jiġu interpretati b’tali mod li jkun jista’ jintlaħaq bilanċ bejn dawn id-drittijiet f’kull każ sabiex jiġi ggarantit li d-dispożizzjoni dwar id-dritt tal-informazzjoni tkun tista’ tipproteġi lid-detenturi tad-drittijiet b’mod effikaċi mingħajr ma tikkomprometti d-drittijiet relatati mal-protezzjoni tad-dejta personali. Jista' jkun hemm bżonn ta’ aktar evalwazzjonijiet fir-rigward ta’ kemm l-applikazzjoni tal-liġijiet tal-Istati Membri u l-mod li bih jiġu applikati huma konsistenti ma’ dawn ir-rekwiżiti. Jekk ikun meħtieġ, jista' jiġu kkunsidrati mezzi biex tiġi rrimedjata s-sitwazzjoni u biex jinkiseb bilanċ xieraq bejn id-drittijiet inkwistjoni.

The compensatory and dissuasive effect of damages

L-effett kompensatorju u dissważiv tad-danni

Measures, procedures and remedies provided for by the Directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. At present, damages awarded in intellectual property rights cases remain comparatively low. Only a few Member States have reported an increase in the damages awarded, as a result of implementing the Directive.

Il-miżuri, il-proċeduri u r-rimedji stabiliti mid-Direttiva għandhom ikunu effikaċi, proporzjonati u dissważivi. Fil-preżent, l-indennizzi mogħtija għad-danni fil-każijiet tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali jibqgħu relattivament baxxi. Huma biss ftit l-Istati Membri li rrapportaw żieda fl-indennizzi għad-danni, bħala riżultat tal-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva.

According to information received from rightholders, damages awards do not currently appear to effectively dissuade potential infringers from engaging in illegal activities. This is particularly so where damages awarded by the courts fail to match the level of profit made by the infringers.

Skont l-informazzjoni mogħtija mid-detenturi tad-drittijiet, bħalissa, l-indennizzi mogħtija għad-danni ma jidhrux li qegħdin jiskoraġġixxu b’mod effikaċi lil kontraventuri potenzjali milli jinvolvu ruħhom f’attivitajiet illegali. Dan japplika b’mod partikolari meta l-indennizzi mogħtija mill-qrati għad-danni jonqsu milli jilħqu l-livell ta’ profitt li jagħmlu l-kontraventuri.

The main aim of awarding damages is to place the rightholders in the same situation as they would have been in, in the absence of the infringement. Nowadays, however, infringers' profits (unjust enrichment) often appear to be substantially higher than the actual damage incurred by the rightholder. In such cases, it could be considered whether the courts should have the power to grant damages commensurate with the infringer's unjust enrichment, even if they exceed the actual damage incurred by the rightholder. Equally, there could be a case for making greater use of the possibility to award damages for other economic consequences and moral damages.

L-għan ewlieni tal-għoti ta’ indennizz għad-danni huwa sabiex id-detenturi ta’ drittijiet jitpoġġew fl-istess sitwazzjoni li fiha kienu jinsabu fin-nuqqas tal-ksur. Illum il-ġurnata, madankollu, il-profitti tal-kontraventuri (arrikkament indebitu) spiss jidhru li huma sostanzjalment ogħla mid-dannu attwali li jkun ġarrab id-detentur tad-dritt. F’dawk il-każijiet, jista' jiġi kkusidrat jekk il-qrati għandux ikollhom is-setgħa li jagħtu indennizzi għad-danni li jikkorrispondu mal-arrikkament indebitu tal-kontraventur, anki jekk jeċċedu d-dannu attwali li jkun ġarrab id-detentur tad-dritt. Ugwalment, jista' jkun hemm lok li tintuża aktar il-possibilità li jingħataw indennizz għal konsegwenzi ekonomiċi oħrajn u għad-danni morali.

In cases where the infringer is a legal person and the rightholder fails to obtain damages because the infringer has no assets, has been liquidated or is in any other way insolvent, an assessment could be made as to whether the rightholder is able to claim damages from the company's managing director(s) under national law, and if so under what conditions.

F’każijiet fejn il-kontraventur tkun persuna ġuridika u d-detentur tad-dritt ma jirnexxilux jikseb indennizz għad-danni minħabba li l-kontraventur ma jkollhiex assi, tkun ġiet illikwidata jew tkun b’xi mod ieħor insolventi, tista' ssir valutazzjoni dwar jekk id-detentur tad-dritt huwiex kapaċi jitlob indennizz għad-danni mingħand id-direttur(i) maniġerjali tal-kumpanija skont id-dritt nazzjonali, u jekk dan huwa l-każ skont liema kundizzjonijiet.

Corrective measures

Miżuri korrettivi

As set out in more detail in the Commission Staff Working Document, further clarification of the definition of 'corrective measures' might be needed. In particular, the distinction between 'recall' and the 'definitive removal' of goods found to infringe intellectual property right from channels of commerce is not clear-cut under most national legislation. Another point which could be clarified is how to apply these measures if the goods are no longer in the possession of the infringer.

Kif spjegat f'aktar dettall fid-Dokument ta’ Ħidma tal-Persunal tal-Kummissjoni, tista' tkun meħtieġa aktar kjarifika tad-definizzjoni tal-"miżuri korrettivi". B’mod partikolari, id-distinzjoni bejn il-‘ġbir lura’ u t-‘tneħħija definittiva’ ta’ prodotti li jinstabu li jiksru d-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali mill-kanali tal-kummerċ mhijiex ċara taħt il-biċċa l-kbira tal-leġiżlazzjonijiet nazzjonali. Punt ieħor li jista' jiġi ċċarat huwa kif għandhom jiġu applikati dawn il-miżuri jekk il-prodotti ma jkunux għadhom fil-pussess ta’ kontraventur.

Lastly, as to the costs of the destruction of the infringing goods, consideration could be given to how to ensure that these costs can be imposed by the court directly on the unsuccessful party.

Finalment, fir-rigward tal-kostijiet tal-qerda tal-oġġetti li jiksru d-dritt, għandu jiġi kkunsidrat kif jiġi żgurat li dawn il-kostijiet jistgħu jiġu imposti mill-qorti direttament mill-qorti kontra l-parti telliefa.

Other issues

Kwistjonijiet oħrajn

A number of other issues emerge from the analysis of the implementation of the Directive by the Member States which could deserve further discussion at EU level.

Hemm għadd ta’ kwistjonijiet oħrajn li joħorġu mill-analiżi tal-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva mill-Istati Membri li jistgħu jimmeritaw diskussjoni ulterjuri fil-livell tal-UE.

Firstly, it seems that Member States have rarely taken up the optional provisions of the Directive (e.g. concerning description orders that provide for a court clerk to enter the premises of the alleged infringer and examine the situation. This optional provision of the Directive has not been implemented by some Member States for civil proceedings and therefore this kind of measure is available only in the context of criminal proceedings). The cases where Member States, in accordance with Article 2(1), have adopted rules that are more favourable to right holders than those of the Directive are even more rare. The reasons for this could be examined in more detail. The link between the 'commercial scale' requirement (i.e. the requirement that the infringing act is carried out for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage) and the right of information in Member States' rules could also be explored further.

L-ewwelnett, jidher li l-Istati Membri rari adottaw id-dispożizzjonijiet fakultattivi tad-Direttiva (pereżempju rigward ordnijiet ta’ deskrizzjoni li jiddisponu li uffiċjal tal-qorti jidħol fl-edifiċji tal-kontraventur allegat u jeżamina s-sitwazzjoni. Din id-dispożizzjoni fakultattiva tad-Direttiva ma ġietx implimentata minn xi Stati Membri għall-proċeduri ċivili u għalhekk dan it-tip ta' miżura huwa disponibbli biss fil-kuntest ta' proċeduri kriminali). Il-każijiet fejn l-Istati Membri, b’konformità mal-Artikolu 2(1), adottaw regoli li huma aktar favorevoli għad-detenturi tad-drittijiet minn dawk tad-Direttiva huma saħansitra aktar rari. Ir-raġunijiet għal dan jistgħu jiġu eżaminati f’aktar dettall. Ir-rabta bejn ir-rekwiżit tal-‘iskala kummerċjali’ (i.e. ir-rekwiżit li l-att tal-ksur jitwettaq għal vantaġġ dirett jew indirett ekonomiku jew kummerċjali) u d-dritt tal-informazzjoni fir-regoli tal-Istati Membri jistgħu wkoll li jkomplu jiġu esplorati aktar.

Secondly, the options available to address problems in collecting evidence in cross-border cases could be assessed, as well as the need to define more precisely when information can be considered to be "under the control" of a party to a judicial proceeding (Article 6(1)). Whether the current rules on collecting evidence in cases involving confidential information create problems in practice, in particular in the context of provisional measures and in cases where different national concepts of confidentiality come into play, might also warrant further evaluation.

Fit-tieni lok, l-alternattivi disponibbli biex jiġu indirizzati problemi fil-ġbir ta’ evidenza f’każijiet transfruntieri jistgħu jiġu vvalutati flimkien mal-ħtieġa biex jiġi ddefinit b’mod aktar preċiż meta l-informazzjoni tista’ titqies li hija “taħt il-kontroll” ta’ parti għal proċedura ġudizzjarja (l-Artikolu 6(1)). Meta r-regoli preżenti dwar il-ġbir ta’ evidenza f’każijiet li jinvolvu informazzjoni kunfidenzjali joħolqu problemi fil-prattika, b’mod partikolari fil-kuntest ta’ miżuri provviżorji u f’każijiet fejn ikunu involuti kunċetti nazzjonali differenti tal-kunfidenzjalità, dawn jistgħu wkoll jiġu evalwati ulterjorment.

Lastly, the usefulness of harmonising the secondary use of goods infringing intellectual property rights and possible problems related to such harmonisation could be explored.

Finalment, l-utilità tal-armonizzazzjoni tal-użu sekondarju ta’ prodotti li jiksru drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali u problemi possibbli relatati ma’ tali armonizzazzjoni jistgħu jiġu esplorati.

CONCLUSION

KONKLUżJONI

Infringements of intellectual property rights cause widespread economic harm. A significant number of products infringing intellectual property rights now pose a real threat to consumer health and safety. Proper protection of intellectual property rights is fundamental to stimulate innovation and culture in a competitive, wealth-generating, knowledge-based economy. Different interests have to be carefully balanced. To this end, the Commission will continue to be actively engaged with all stakeholders.

Il-ksur tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali jista’ jikkawża ħsara ekonomika mifruxa. Numru sinjifikanti ta’ prodotti li jiksru d-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali issa qegħdin ikunu ta’ theddida reali għas-saħħa u s-sikurezza tal-konsumaturi. Il-protezzjoni xierqa tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali hija fundamentali biex tistimola l-innovazzjoni u l-kultura f’ekonomija bbażata fuq l-għarfien, kompetittiva u li tiġġenera l-ġid. L-interessi differenti għandhom jiġu bbilanċjati bir-reqqa. Għal dan il-għan, il-Kummissjoni sejra tkompli tinvolvi ruħha b’mod attiv mal-partijiet interessati kollha.

The main conclusion drawn from this first evaluation of the Directive is that the Directive has had a substantial and positive effect on the protection of intellectual property rights by civil law in Europe. However, it has become apparent that the Directive was not designed with the challenge posed by the Internet to the enforcement of intellectual property rights in mind. In addition, several issues could deserve further attention. Among them, one could mention the use of provisional and precautionary measures such as injunctions, procedures to gather and preserve evidence (including the relationship between the right of information and protection of privacy), clarification of the meaning of various corrective measures, including the costs of destruction, and calculation of damages.

Il-konklużjoni ewlenija li toħroġ mill-ewwel evalwazzjoni tad-Direttiva hija li d-Direttiva kellha effett sostanzjali u pożittiv fuq il-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali taħt id-dritt ċivili fl-Ewropa. Madankollu, qed joħroġ biċ-ċar li d-Direttiva ma tfasslitx bil-ħsieb tal-isfida ġab l-Internet għall-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali. Barra minn hekk, bosta kwistjonijiet jistgħu jeħtieġu aktar attenzjoni. Fost dawn, wieħed jista' jsemmi l-użu ta’ miżuri provviżorji u kawtelatorji bħal inġunzjonijiet, proċeduri biex jinġabru u jinżammu provi (inkluża r-relazzjoni bejn id-dritt għall-informazzjoni u l-protezzjoni tal-privatezza), il-kjarifika tat-tifsira tad-diversi miżuri korrettivi, inklużi l-kostijiet tal-qerda, u l-kalkolu tal-indennizz għad-danni.

With a view to informing the Commission's decisions on any future measure that might be envisaged and to feed the thorough impact assessment work that the Commission is launching as concerns the issues mentioned in this Report, the Commission welcomes any feedback from the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, Member States, the European Economic and Social Committee and all other interested parties on this Report by 31 March 2011.

Bil-ħsieb li jiġu ssustanzjati deċiżjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni dwar kwalunkwe miżura futura li tista' tiġi prevista u biex tiġi ssustanzjata l-ħidma qawwija ta' valutazzjoni tal-impatt li l-Kummissjoni qed tvara f'dak li jirrigwarda l-kwistjonijiet msemmija f'dan ir-Rapport, il-Kummissjoni tilqa' kwalunkwe rispons mill-Parlament Ewropew, il-Kunsill tal-Ministri, l-Istati Membri, il-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Socjali Ewropew u l-partijiet interessati kollha l-oħra dwar dan ir-Rapport sal- 31 ta’ Marzu 2011.

[1] OJ L157, 30.04.2004, p, 16.

[1] ĠU L157, 30.04.2004, p, 16.

[2] The deadline for the implementation of the Directive, for the then 25 Member States, expired on 29 April 2006. For details on the transposition process see Annex 1 to the Staff Working Paper that accompanies this Report.

[2] L-iskadenza għall-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva, għal 25 Stat Membru li kien hemm dak iż-żmien, skadiet fid-29 ta’ April 2006. Għal dettalji dwar il-proċess ta’ traspożizzjoni ara l-Anness 1 għad-Dokument ta’ Ħidma tal-Persunal li jakkumpanja dan ir-Rapport.

[3] See for example http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/OECD-FullReport.pdf; http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/Building%20a%20Digital%20Economy%20-%20TERA(1).pdf.

[3] Ara pereżempju http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/OECD-FullReport.pdf; http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/Building%20a%20Digital%20Economy%20-%20TERA(1).pdf.

[4] Commission Communication of 16 July 2008: 'An industrial property rights strategy for Europe', COM(2008)465 final; Commission Communication: 'Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market', COM(2009) 467 final.

[4] Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni tas-16 ta’ Lulju 2008: 'Strateġija għall-Ewropa dwar id-drittijiet tal-proprjetà industrijali', COM(2008)465 finali; Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni: 'Li ssaħħaħ l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fis-suq intern', COM(2009)467 finali.

[5] Council Resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan, OJ C 253, 4.10.2008, p.1; Council Resolution of 1 March 2010 on the enforcement of intellectual rights in the internal market, OJ C 56, 6.3.2010, p.1.

[5] Reżoluzzjoni tal-Kunsill tal-25 ta’ Settembru 2008 dwar pjan Ewropew globali għall-ġlieda kontra l-falsifikazzjoni u l-piraterija, ĠU C 253, 4.10.2008, p.1; Reżoluzzjoni tal-Kunsill tal-1 ta’ Marzu 2010 dwar l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fis-suq intern, ĠU C 56, 6.3.2010, p.1.

[6] European Parliament, Resolution of 22 September 2010 on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market (2009/2178(INI)), A7-0175/2010.

[6] Parlament Ewropew, Reżoluzzjoni tat-22 ta’ Settembru 2010 dwar l-infurzar ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali fis-suq intern (2009/2178(INI)), A7-0175/2010.

[7] For details see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:129:0003:0016:EN:PDF .

[7] Għad-dettalji ara http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:129:0003:0016:EN:PDF .

[8] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) of 1994; Council Decision (of 22 December 1994) concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (94/800/EC), OJ L 336, p.1.

[8] Ftehim dwar Aspetti Relatati mal-Kummerċ tad-Drittijiet tal-Proprjetà Intellettwali (Ftehim TRIPS) tal-1994; id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill (tat-22 ta’ Diċembru 1994) dwar il-konklużjoni f’isem il-Komunità Ewropea, dwar il-konklużjoin f'isem il-Komunità Ewropea, fejn għandhom x'jaqsmu affarijiet fil-kompetenza tagħha, fuq il-ftehim milħuq fil-Laqgħa ta' negozjati multilaterali fl-Urugwaj (1986-1994) (94/800/KE), ĠU L 336, p.1.

[9] See Article 2(1) of the Directive.

[9] Ara l-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Direttiva.

[10] Statement by the Commission concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2005/295/EC), OJ L94, 13.04.2005, p. 37.

[10] Stqarrija mill-Kummissjoni dwar l-Artikolu 2 tad-2004/48/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill dwar l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali (2005/295/KE), ĠU L94, 13.04.2005, p. 37.

[11] Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p.1.

[11] Id-Direttiva 2000/31/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-8 ta' Ġunju 2000 dwar ċerti aspetti legali tas-servizzi minn soċjetà tal-informazzjoni, partikolarment il-kummerċ elettroniku, fis-Suq Intern (Direttiva dwar il-kummerċ elettroniku), ĠU L 178, 17.7.2000, p.1.

[12] Examples are, according to the 2009 Study on Online Copyright Enforcement and Data Protection in Selected Member States (Hunton & Williams, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/study-online-enforcement_en.pdf), Austria and Spain.

[12] L-eżempji huma, skont l-Istudju tal-2009 dwar l-Infurzar tad-Drittijiet tal-Awtur Onlajn u l-Protezzjoni tad-Dejta fi Stati Membri Magħżula (Hunton & Williams, Brussell, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/study-online-enforcement_en.pdf), l-Awstrija u Spanja.

[13] Judgment of 29 January 2008 in the case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU; judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case C-557/07 LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungschutzrechten GMBH v Tele2 Telecommunication GMBH.

[13] Sentenza tad-29 ta’ Jannar 2008 fil-kawża C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) vs Telefónica de España SAU; is-sentenza tad-19 ta’ Frar 2009 fil-kawża C-557/07 LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungschutzrechten GMBH vs Tele2 Telecommunication GMBH.

[14] Articles 7, 8 and 17(2), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01), OJ C364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

[14] L-Artikoli 7, 8 u 17(2), il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (2000/C 364/01), ĠU C364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

[15] In particular Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31 , and Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

[15] B’mod partikolari d-Direttiva 95/46/KE dwar il-protezzjoni ta’ individwi fir-rigward tal-ipproċessar ta’ data personali u dwar il-moviment liberu ta’ dik id-data, ĠU L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31, u d-Direttiva 2002/58/KE dwar l-ipproċessar tad-data personali u l-protezzjoni tal-privatezza fis-settur tal-komunikazzjoni elettronika, ĠU L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.