[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

[pic] | EVROPSKA KOMISIJA |

Brussels, 22.12.2010

Bruselj, 22.12.2010

COM(2010) 779 final

COM(2010) 779 konč.

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

SPOROČILO KOMISIJE SVETU, EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, SVETU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ

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

Uporaba Direktive 2004/48/ESEvropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine

SEC(2010) 1589 final

SEC(2010) 1589 konč.

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

SPOROČILO KOMISIJE SVETU, EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, SVETU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ

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

Uporaba Direktive 2004/48/ESEvropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

POVZETEK

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.

Učinkoviti načini uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine so nujni za spodbujanje inovativnosti in ustvarjalnosti. Direktiva 2004/48/ES o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine usklajuje minimalna sredstva, ki jih imajo imetniki pravic in javni organi na voljo za ukrepanje zoper kršitve pravic intelektualne lastnine. Poleg tega določa splošni okvir za izmenjavo informacij in upravno sodelovanje med nacionalnimi organi ter s Komisijo.

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).

Prva ocena učinka Direktive je pokazala, da je bil od sprejetja in izvajanja Direktive v državah članicah dosežen velik napredek. Direktiva je vzpostavila visoke evropske standarde za uveljavljanje različnih pravic, ki so zavarovane z neodvisnimi pravnimi sistemi (kot so avtorske pravice, patenti, blagovne znamke in modeli ter geografske označbe in žlahtniteljske pravice).

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.

Vendar sta kljub splošnemu izboljšanju postopkov uveljavljanja pravic število in finančna vrednost kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine še vedno zaskrbljujoča. Eden od razlogov za to je, da je zdaj zaradi interneta na voljo veliko več možnosti za kršenje pravic intelektualne lastnine. Pri pripravi Direktive se ta izziv ni upošteval.

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.

Druga vprašanja, ki bi jim bilo morda treba nameniti posebno pozornost, so uporaba začasnih in previdnostnih ukrepov, kot so sodne odredbe, postopki za zbiranje in zavarovanje dokazov (vključno z razmerjem med pravico do obveščenosti in varstvom zasebnosti), pojasnitev pomena različnih popravnih ukrepov, vključno s stroški uničenja, in izračun odškodnine.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KAZALO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

POVZETEK 2

1. Introduction 3

1. Uvod 3

2. The objectives of the Enforcement Directive 4

2. Cilji Direktive o uveljavljanju pravic 4

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

3. Za učinkovitejše varstvo pravic intelektualne lastnine in boljše delovanje notranjega trga bi bile lahko potrebne pojasnitve 4

3.1. Addressing the specific challenges of the digital environment 4

3.1. Posebni izzivi digitalnega okolja 4

3.2. Clarifying the scope of the Directive 4

3.2. Področje uporabe Direktive 4

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

3.3. Koncept posrednikov in učinkovitost sodnih odredb 4

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

3.4. Vprašanje pravega ravnovesja med pravico do obveščenosti in zakoni o zasebnosti 4

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

3.5. Izravnalni in odvračilni učinek odškodnin 4

3.6. Clarifying the different corrective measures 4

3.6. Korektivni ukrepi 4

3.7. Other issues 4

3.7. Drugo 4

4. Conclusion 4

4. Sklepne ugotovitve 4

INTRODUCTION

UVOD

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.

Za spodbujanje inovativnosti in ustvarjalnosti je bistveno, da se poiščejo učinkoviti načini za uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine. To poročilo vsebuje prvo oceno izvajanja in učinka Direktive 2004/48/ES o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine[1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva). To oceno je treba pripraviti v skladu s členom 18 Direktive, pri čemer temelji na oceni razvoja Komisije in povratnih informacijah držav članic iz nacionalnih poročil, ki vsebujejo stališča industrije, pravnih strokovnjakov, zvez potrošnikov in drugih zainteresiranih strani.

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.

Na podlagi prejetih informacij je mogoče ugotoviti, da je Direktiva močno in pozitivno vplivala na varstvo pravic intelektualne lastnine v skladu s civilnim pravom v Evropi. Direktiva je vzpostavila preprost okvir za uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine, s katerim se na splošno zagotavlja primerljivo varstvo tudi zunaj nacionalnih meja. Učinkovitost uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine v EU se je povečala zlasti zaradi uvedbe domnevnega avtorstva in lastništva (člen 5), možnosti „vzorčenja“ pri zbiranju informacij (člen 6), začasnih ukrepov za zavarovanje dokazov (člen 7) in možnosti sprejetja sodnih odredb zoper posrednike (člena 9 in 11).

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.

Ker pa je več držav članic zelo pozno preneslo Direktivo v svojo zakonodajo (postopek prenosa je bil končan šele leta 2009)[2], so izkušnje z uporabo Direktive omejene in je na voljo le malo sodnih primerov. Zato Komisija ni mogla pripraviti kritične gospodarske analize učinka Direktive na inovativnost in razvoj informacijske družbe v skladu s členom 18 Direktive.

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].

Kljub tem omejitvam je ta prva ocena učinkovitosti Direktive pripravljena pravočasno. Več študij, ki so jih izvedle mednarodne organizacije in industrija, je pokazalo, da je število kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine doseglo pomembno raven, pri čemer nekateri izdelki ogrožajo zdravje in varnost potrošnikov[3]. Komisija je v zvezi s tem v zadnjih dveh letih sprejela dve sporočili[4]. Z drugim sporočilom je bil med drugim ustanovljen Evropski opazovalni urad za boj proti ponarejanju in piratstvu, da bi se izboljšalo razumevanje kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine ter vzpostavila platforma za predstavnike nacionalnih organov in zainteresiranih strani za izmenjavo zamisli in strokovnega znanja o najboljših praksah, razvoj skupne strategije uveljavljanja in dajanje priporočil oblikovalcem politike. Temu sta sledili dve resoluciji Sveta[5], ki sta podprli politiko Komisije. V poročilu, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament, je bila prav tako izražena podpora okrepljeni politiki, vključno s trdnim pravnim okvirom za boj proti ponarejanju in piratstvu[6]. Eden od glavnih razlogov za zaskrbljenost je tudi kršenje pravic intelektualne lastnine zunaj EU. Komisija te kršitve obravnava na različne načine, na primer z vključitvijo ambicioznih poglavij o pravicah intelektualne lastnine v dvostranske trgovinske sporazume in sodelovanjem pri mednarodnih pobudah, kot so sedanja pogajanja o trgovinskem sporazumu o boju proti ponarejanju[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.

Analiza je pokazala, da se nekatere določbe iz Direktive, vključno s povezavo z drugimi direktivami, v različnih državah članicah razumejo na različne načine ter da se v praksi razlagajo in uporabljajo na različne načine . Te določbe bi lahko upravičile nadaljnja pojasnila, da bi Direktiva postala povsem učinkovita.

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.

Z internetom in digitalnimi tehnologijami je uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine dobilo dodatno razsežnost, ki pomeni izziv. Na eni strani je internet omogočil ustvarjalcem, izumiteljem in njihovim trgovinskim partnerjem, da so poiskali nove načine za trženje svojih izdelkov. Na drugi strani je omogočil tudi nastanek novih oblik kršitev, pri čemer se je izkazalo, da se je težko boriti proti nekaterim od njih.

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.

V tem poročilu je izpostavljenih več konkretnih vprašanj, ki bi jih bilo morda treba pojasniti, zlasti zaradi prilagoditve Direktive novim izzivom, ki so povezani s sodobno digitalno družbo. To poročilo dopolnjuje delovni dokument služb komisije, v katerem so na voljo dodatne informacije in ozadje glede ugotovitev.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE

CILJI DIREKTIVE O UVELJAVLJANJU PRAVIC

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.

Zaradi razlik med sistemi držav članic za uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine je ogroženo ustrezno delovanje notranjega trga, te razlike pa tudi slabo vplivajo na izvrševanje materialnega prava v zvezi s temi pravicami. To pomeni, da se pojavijo ovire za čezmejne dejavnosti, zmanjša zaupanje v notranji trg in zmanjšajo naložbe v inovativnost in ustvarjalnost. Direktiva zbližuje nacionalne zakonodajne sisteme, da bi imeli imetniki pravic in organi držav članic na voljo minimalno in hkrati standardno sredstvo za boj proti kršenju pravic intelektualne lastnine.

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.

Direktiva vključuje ukrepe civilnega prava v skladu s sporazumom TRIPS[8] v zakonodajni okvir EU. Direktiva presega minimalne določbe iz tega sporazuma, zajema pa na primer tudi odškodnine, popravne ukrepe in dokaze. Poleg tega Direktiva temelji na praksi iz zakonodaje držav članic, ki se je izkazala za najučinkovitejšo pred sprejetjem Direktive („pristop na podlagi najboljše prakse“). Države članice lahko določijo tudi kazni in pravna sredstva, ki so ugodnejši za imetnike pravic[9]. Direktiva zato določa minimalen in hkrati prilagodljiv zakonodajni okvir za uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine.

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

ZA UčINKOVITEJšE VARSTVO PRAVIC INTELEKTUALNE LASTNINE IN BOLJšE DELOVANJE NOTRANJEGA TRGA BI BILE LAHKO POTREBNE POJASNITVE

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.

Analiza izvajanja Direktive v državah članicah je pokazala, da Direktiva določa trdne temelje za uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine na notranjem trgu, vendar bi bile pri tem lahko potrebne nekatere pojasnitve, da se preprečijo nejasnosti in prilagodi Direktiva novim izzivom, ki jih prinaša zlasti današnje digitalno okolje.

Specific challenges of the digital environment

Posebni izzivi digitalnega okolja

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.

Ker se lahko internet uporablja za več namenov, je zelo preprosto na različne načine kršiti pravice intelektualne lastnine. Blago, ki krši pravice intelektualne lastnine, se prodaja prek interneta. Iskalniki pogosto omogočajo goljufom, da privabljajo uporabnike interneta na svojo stran z nezakonito ponudbo, ki je na voljo za prodajo ali prenos. Izmenjava vsebin, zaščitenih z avtorskimi pravicami, je postala splošno razširjena, kar je delno posledica dejstva, da razvoj zakonite ponudbe digitalnih vsebin ne more slediti povpraševanju, zlasti v čezmejnem smislu, zato veliko državljanov, ki sicer spoštujejo zakone, množično krši avtorske in sorodne pravice v obliki nezakonitega nalaganja in razširjanja zaščitenih vsebin. Veliko spletnih strani se uporablja za gostovanje ali omogočanje razširjanja zaščitenih del brez soglasja imetnikov pravic prek spleta. V zvezi s tem bi bilo morda treba jasno oceniti omejitve veljavnega pravnega okvira.

The scope of the Directive

Področje uporabe Direktive

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].

Direktiva se uporablja za vse kršitve pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki so zavarovane z evropsko ali nacionalno zakonodajo, in ne vsebuje nobenih opredelitev pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki jih zajema. Čeprav ima ta prilagodljivi pristop več prednosti, so države članice zaradi različnih razlag pojma „pravica intelektualne lastnine“ pozvale Komisijo, naj objavi minimalen seznam pravic intelektualne lastnine, za katere meni, da sodijo v področje uporabe Direktive[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.

Tudi po objavi tega pojasnila Komisije še vedno obstaja nekaj nejasnosti v zvezi s tem, ali so zajete nekatere pravice, ki so zavarovane z nacionalno zakonodajo. Te nejasnosti so zlasti povezane z domenskimi imeni, nacionalnimi pravicami za zadeve, kot so poslovne skrivnosti (vključno z znanjem in izkušnjami), in drugimi dejanji, ki so pogosto zajeta v nacionalni zakonodaji o nelojalni konkurenci, kot so piratske kopije in druge oblike „konkurence na robu zakona“. Kaže, da so te oblike neprimernega poslovnega ravnanja prav tako vedno pogostejše. Pogosto imajo škodljive učinke za imetnike pravic, ogrožajo inovativnost in imajo le kratkoročne koristi za potrošnike. Lahko bi bilo koristno, da se dodatno ocenita ta negativni pojav in potreba po vključitvi minimalnega seznama pravic intelektualne lastnine v Direktivo.

The concept of intermediaries and the workability of injunctions

Koncept posrednikov in učinkovitost sodnih odredb

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.

Direktiva določa zelo široko razlago koncepta „posrednikov“, pri čemer vključuje vse posrednike, „katerih storitve uporablja tretja stranka za kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine“. To pomeni, da veljajo ukrepi iz Direktive celo za posrednike, ki nimajo neposrednega pogodbenega razmerja ali povezave s kršiteljem.

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.

Kljub temu sodišča v državah članicah običajno zahtevajo precej trdne dokaze. Poleg tega je še vedno nekaj nejasnosti glede posrednikov in posebnih ukrepov, ki veljajo v zvezi z njimi glede prispevanja h kršitvam ali omogočanja kršitev, ne glede na njihovo odgovornost.

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.

Posredniki, ki prevažajo blago, za katerega obstaja sum, da krši pravice intelektualne lastnine (kot so prevozniki, špediterji ali ladijski zastopniki), imajo lahko vodilno vlogo pri nadzoru razširjanja blaga, ki krši pravice intelektualne lastnine. Internetne platforme, kot so spletne tržnice ali iskalniki, imajo lahko prav tako pomembno vlogo pri zmanjševanju števila kršitev, zlasti s preventivnimi ukrepi ter politiko „prijave in odstranjevanja“.

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].

Ponudniki internetnih storitev so prav tako ključni za način delovanja spletnega okolja. Zagotavljajo dostop do interneta in med seboj povezujejo omrežja, gostiteljske spletne strani in strežnike. Kot posredniki med vsemi uporabniki interneta in imetniki pravic so zaradi nezakonitih dejanj svojih strank pogosto v kočljivem položaju. Zato zakonodaja EU že vsebuje posebne določbe, ki omejujejo odgovornost ponudnikov internetnih storitev, katerih storitve se uporabljajo za kršenje pravic intelektualne lastnine[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.

Ukrepi, ki jih je treba sprejeti v zvezi s posredniki, so zlasti povezani s pravico do obveščanja, začasnimi in previdnostnimi ukrepi (npr. začasne sodne odredbe) ali stalnimi sodnimi odredbami.

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.

Direktiva dopušča državam članicam, da določijo, kdaj in kako se lahko izda sodna odredba proti posredniku. Za učinkovitost tega postopka bi bilo lahko koristno pojasnilo, da sodne odredbe ne smejo biti odvisne od odgovornosti posrednika. Poleg tega ugotovitve iz delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije, ki je priložen temu poročilu, kažejo, da zakonodajni in nezakonodajni instrumenti, ki so zdaj na voljo, ne zadoščajo za učinkovit boj proti spletnim kršitvam pravic intelektualne lastnine. Glede na to, da imajo posredniki ugoden položaj pri prispevanju k preprečevanju in odpravi spletnih kršitev, bi lahko Komisija preučila, kako bi jih bolj vključila.

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

Vprašanje pravega ravnovesja med pravico do obveščenosti in zakoni o zasebnosti

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.

Kršitelj ali druga oseba mora v skladu s pravico do obveščenosti zagotoviti imetniku pravic informacije o izvoru in distribucijskih omrežjih blaga, ki krši pravice intelektualne lastnine. Največji izziv v zvezi s to pravico sta potreba po upoštevanju zakonov o zasebnosti in varstvo osebnih podatkov.

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].

Zdi se, da so pogoji za priznanje pravice do obveščenosti iz Direktive v nekaterih državah članicah zelo strogi, večinoma zaradi nacionalne zakonodaje o varstvu in hrambi osebnih podatkov[12]. Temu vprašanju bi bilo morda treba nameniti posebno pozornost. Nacionalna zakonodaja mora prav tako dopuščati, da sodišča uporabljajo zakonodajo EU o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine. Sodišče Evropske unije meni, da je treba vzpostaviti ustrezno ravnotežje med različnimi zadevnimi pravicami (kot sta pravica do varstva podatkov in lastninska pravica, ki vključuje pravice intelektualne lastnine)[13], glede na to, da sta v Listini Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah[14] varstvo podatkov/zasebnost in varstvo intelektualne lastnine priznani kot temeljni pravici.

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.

Evropski pravni okvir o varstvu osebnih podatkov[15] na eni strani in uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine na drugi strani je nepristranski, ker nobeno pravilo ne določa, da ima pravica do zasebnosti na splošno prednost pred lastninsko pravico ali obratno. Nacionalni zakoni o izvajanju različnih direktiv morajo biti zato pripravljeni tako, da je v vseh primerih mogoče vzpostaviti ravnovesje med temi pravicami, da se lahko z določbo o pravici do obveščenosti učinkovito zavarujejo pravice imetnikov pravic, ne da bi se ogrožale pravice, povezane z varstvom osebnih podatkov. Potrebne bi bile lahko dodatne ocene v zvezi s tem, v kolikšni meri so zakoni držav članic in način njihove uporabe skladni s temi zahtevami. Po potrebi bi bilo morda treba obravnavati načine za izboljšanje stanja in vzpostavitev ravnovesja med zadevnimi pravicami.

The compensatory and dissuasive effect of damages

Izravnalni in odvračilni učinek odškodnin

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.

Ukrepi, postopki in pravna sredstva iz Direktive morajo biti učinkoviti, sorazmerni in odvračilni. Zdaj so odškodnine, dodeljene v zadevah, povezanih s pravicami intelektualne lastnine, razmeroma nizke. Le nekaj držav članic je poročalo, da se je zaradi izvajanja Direktive znesek dodeljenih odškodnin zvišal.

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.

Glede na informacije, ki so jih predložili imetniki pravic, se zdi, da dodeljena odškodnina ni učinkovita pri odvračanju potencialnih kršiteljev od sodelovanja pri nezakonitih dejavnostih. To zlasti velja, kadar je odškodnina, ki jo dodeli sodišče, nižja od dobička kršiteljev.

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.

Glavni namen dodeljevanja odškodnin je zagotavljanje, da so imetniki pravic v enakem položaju, kot bi bili, če kršitve ne bi bilo. Vendar se zdi, da so zdaj dobički kršiteljev (neupravičena bogatitev) pogosto veliko višji od dejanske škode, ki jo ima imetnik pravic. V takih primerih bi se lahko preučilo, ali bi morala biti sodišča pristojna za dodelitev odškodnine, ki bi ustrezala neupravičeni bogatitvi kršiteljev, čeprav bi odškodnina presegala dejansko škodo, ki jo ima imetnik pravic. Prav tako bi bilo morda treba pogosteje uporabiti možnost dodeljevanja odškodnin za gospodarske posledice in moralno škodo.

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.

Kadar je kršitelj pravna oseba in imetnik pravic ne dobi odškodnine, ker kršitelj nima premoženja, ker je bil likvidiran ali je zaradi katerega koli drugega razloga plačilno nesposoben, bi bilo treba ugotoviti, ali lahko imetnik pravic v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo zahteva odškodnino od generalnega direktorja podjetja, in, če je to mogoče, kakšni so pogoji za to.

Corrective measures

Korektivni ukrepi

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.

Kot je podrobneje zapisano v delovnem dokumentu služb Komisije, bi bilo morda treba dodatno pojasniti opredelitev „popravnih ukrepov“. Zlasti je v večini nacionalnih zakonodaj nejasno razlikovanje med „odpoklicem“ in „nepreklicno odstranitvijo“ blaga, za katerega se ugotovi, da krši pravice intelektualne lastnine, iz komercialnih tokov. Poleg tega bi se morda dalo pojasniti, na kakšen način se ti ukrepi uporabljajo, če blago ni več v lasti kršitelja.

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.

Nazadnje, kar zadeva stroške uničenja blaga, ki je predmet kršitve, bi bilo morda treba preučiti, kako bi se zagotovilo, da bi lahko sodišče plačilo teh stroškov naložilo neposredno neuspeli stranki.

Other issues

Drugo

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.

Analiza izvajanja Direktive v državah članicah je pokazala, da obstaja še več drugih vprašanj, ki bi jih bilo morda treba dodatno obravnavati na ravni EU.

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.

Predvsem se zdi, da države članice zelo redko sprejmejo neobvezne klavzule iz Direktive (npr. v zvezi z nalogom, ki sodnemu uradniku omogoča vstop v prostore domnevnega kršitelja in obravnavanje stanja. Nekatere države članice te neobvezne klavzule niso uvedle v civilne postopke, tako da je tovrsten ukrep na voljo zgolj v okviru kazenskih postopkov). Še redkeje pa države članice v skladu s členom 2(1) sprejmejo pravila, ki bi bila za imetnike pravic ugodnejša od pravil iz Direktive. Razloge za to bi bilo mogoče podrobneje obravnavati. Prav tako bi bilo mogoče dodatno preučiti povezavo med zahtevo v zvezi s „komercialnim obsegom“ (tj. zahteva, da je kršitev storjena zaradi neposredne ali posredne gospodarske ali komercialne koristi) in pravico do obveščenosti v skladu s pravili držav članic.

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.

Drugič, oceniti bi bilo mogoče možnosti, ki so na voljo za reševanje težav v zvezi z zbiranjem dokazov v čezmejnih primerih, in potrebo po natančnejši opredelitvi primerov, v katerih lahko z informacijami „razpolaga“ stranka v sodnem postopku (člen 6(1)). Dodatno bi bilo morda treba oceniti tudi, ali veljavna pravila o zbiranju dokazov v zadevah, ki vključujejo zaupne informacije, pomenijo praktične težave, zlasti v okviru začasnih ukrepov in v primerih, ko obstajajo različne nacionalne opredelitve pojma zaupnosti.

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

Nazadnje bi se lahko preučila koristnost uskladitve sekundarne uporabe blaga, ki krši pravice intelektualne lastnine, in mogoče težave, povezane s tako uskladitvijo.

CONCLUSION

SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE

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.

Kršitve pravic intelektualne lastnine povzročajo obsežno gospodarsko škodo. Veliko izdelkov, ki kršijo pravice intelektualne lastnine, zdaj pomeni resnično nevarnost za zdravje in varnost potrošnikov. Ustrezno varstvo pravic intelektualne lastnine je bistveno za spodbujanje inovativnosti in kulture v gospodarstvu, ki je konkurenčno, ustvarja bogastvo in temelji na znanju. Drugačni interesi morajo biti skrbno uravnoteženi. V zvezi s tem bo Komisija še naprej dejavno sodelovala z vsemi zainteresiranimi stranmi.

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.

Osrednji sklepi te prve ocene Direktive so, da je Direktiva močno in pozitivno vplivala na varstvo pravic intelektualne lastnine na področju civilnega prava v Evropi. Postalo pa je očitno, da se pri pripravi Direktive ni upoštevalo izzivov, ki jih uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine postavlja internet. Poleg tega bi se lahko nekatera vprašanja nadalje obravnavala. Med drugimi so to uporaba začasnih in previdnostnih ukrepov, kot so sodne odredbe, postopki za zbiranje in zavarovanje dokazov (vključno z razmerjem med pravico do obveščenosti in varstvom zasebnosti), pojasnitev pomena različnih popravnih ukrepov, vključno s stroški uničenja, in izračun odškodnine.

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.

Da bi odločitve Komisije glede morebitnih nameravanih prihodnjih ukrepov temeljile na poznavanju čim več pomembnih dejstev ter da bi nadgradili temeljito delo, ki ga Komisija začenja v zvezi z oceno učinka na področju iz tega poročila, bo Komisija z veseljem sprejela vsak odziv Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta ministrov, držav članic, Evropskega ekonomsko-socialnega odbora ter vseh drugih zainteresiranih strani na to poročilo, in sicer do 31. marca 2011 .

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

[1] UL L 157, 30.4.2004, str. 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] Rok za uveljavitev Direktive za takratnih 25 držav članic se je iztekel 29. aprila 2006. Za podrobnosti o postopku prenosa glej Prilogo 1 k delovnemu dokumentu služb Komisije, ki je priložen temu poročilu.

[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] Glej na primer: 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] Sporočilo Komisije z dne 16. julija 2008: „Strategija pravic industrijske lastnine za Evropo“, COM(2008) 465 konč.; Sporočilo Komisije: „Krepitev uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine na notranjem trgu“, COM(2009) 467 konč.

[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] Resolucija Sveta z dne 25. septembra 2008 o celovitem evropskem načrtu za preprečevanje ponarejanja in piratstva, UL C 253, 4.10.2008, str. 1; Resolucija Sveta z dne 1. marca 2010 o krepitvi uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine na notranjem trgu, UL C 56, 6.3.2010, str. 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] Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 22. septembra 2010 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine na notranjem trgu (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] Za podrobnosti glej: 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] Sporazum o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (sporazum TRIPS) iz leta 1994; Sklep Sveta (z dne 22. decembra 1994) o sklenitvi sporazumov, doseženih v Urugvajskem krogu večstranskih pogajanj (1986–1994), v imenu Evropske skupnosti, v zvezi z zadevami, ki so v njeni pristojnosti (94/800/ES), UL L 336, str. 1.

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

[9] Glej člen 2(1) Direktive.

[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] Izjava Komisije o členu 2 Direktive 2004/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine (2005/295/ES), UL L 94, 13.4.2005, str. 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] Direktiva 2000/31/ES z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu (Direktiva o elektronskem poslovanju), UL L 178, 17.7.2000, str. 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] V študiji o uveljavljanju avtorskih pravic prek spleta in varstvu podatkov v nekaterih državah članicah iz leta 2009 (Hunton in Williams, Bruselj, http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/study-online-enforcement_en.pdf) je navedeno, da sta primera za to Avstrija in Španija.

[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] Sodba Sodišča z dne 29. januarja 2008 v zadevi C-275/06, Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) proti Telefónica de España SAU; sodba Sodišča z dne 19. februarja 2009 v zadevi C-557/07, LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungschutzrechten GMBH proti 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] Člena 7 in 8 ter člen 17(2) Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (2000/C 364/01), UL C 364, 18.12.2000, str. 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] Zlasti Direktiva 95/46/ES o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL L 281, 23.11.1995, str. 31, ter Direktiva 2002/58/ES o obdelavi osebnih podatkov in varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij, UL L 201, 31.7.2002, str. 37.