Policy recommendations

  • In its trade and industrial policies, the EU should take account of its development and public health commitments. Possible impact on developing countries of actions in the trade and industry domains should be assessed thoroughly and impact studies of civil society should be taken into account in a serious manner. The current belief in IPR as a ‘tool for development’ and the policy coherence in this field’ should be reassessed objectively and discussed with civil society in a transparent manner.
  • The European Union should refrain from pursuing the inclusion of TRIPS+, WTO+ and even EU+ provisions designed to protect intellectual property rights in any bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with developing countries (including those not defined as LDCs).
  • The EU should not limit, and instead encourage, the efforts of developing countries to use (TRIPS) flexibilities as a public health strategy. In addition it should lobby for the compulsory licence for developing countries without production facilities to be made valid for all similar countries at once (including non-LDC developing countries) and (considering the limits) for other initiatives to be developed, such as patent pools. The EU should actively stand up to European pharmaceutical companies that try to limit the use of compulsory licensing in developing countries.
  • The EU should ensure its interests in enforcement and developments in ACTA will not hamper trade in generic medicine or lead to any more seizures of these. In particular it should not demand adoption of current EU or EU+ enforcement rules, such as border measures, to be introduced in developing countries. 
  • The European Parliament should adopt a Resolution on these recommendations with a view to affirming the EC’s commitments to Health and Development, as well as demand  its right of access to all negotiation documents (such as ACTA) and the use of co-decision power to prevent the EU from pursuing agreements that can damage public health.

 

Case: TRIPS & Access to Medicines

25-09-2009 MEP Asa Westlund (S&D) concerned about EU demands in IPR in different Latin American negotiations

MEP Asa Westlund (S&D) asked the Commission whether it was true that they are negotiating an extension of patent terms and protection of data for medicine, as well as removing the Doha exception, in the negotiations with Peru and Colombia, but also with Central America.

She also inquired about the future intentions of the Commission on this issue as she mentions her concerns about the negative impact on the right to health for the poor.

Fair Politics would like to thank MEP Asa Westlund for raising the issue again at such an important time and we are curious to see the answers of the Commission to this critical inquiry! For her efforts to enhance PCD in relation to the IPRs Asa Westlund will be granted a point in our monitoring system.

See below for the full question.

Monitor fair: S&D

 

Parliamentary questions - 25 September 2009 E-4524/09
WRITTEN QUESTION by Åsa Westlund (S-D) to the Commission 

Subject: EU negotiations on the Association Agreement with Central America and bilateral trade negotiations with Peru and Colombia patents for medicines 
The issue of patents for medicines is one of the main points of contention in the current negotiations on association agreements and trade agreements between the EU and Central America and two of the Andean countries.

The proposal on patent rules now favoured by the EU Commission is a so-called TRIPS+ agreement which means that the term of patents for medicines is extended from 20 to 25 years. I have been led to believe that the EU is also recommending the removal of the Doha exception, whereby countries in emergency situations may override TRIPS rules to protect public health. It is also said that, as part of the negotiations, the EU Commission wishes to extend the protection of data from the testing of medicinal products from five to eleven years. This would mean that during this period it is not possible to produce generic medicines which currently account for 70 % of the medicines in the Andean countries. This would have a significant negative impact on the right to health for the poor.

Is the Commission negotiating to extend the term of patents for medicines in its negotiations with Central America, Peru or Colombia?

Does the Commission wish to extend the period of protection of data from the testing of medicinal products in its negotiations with Central America, Peru or Colombia?

Does the Commission wish to remove the Doha exception in its negotiations with Central America, Peru or Colombia?

In which other ways does the Commission intend to expand or amend the rules on patents for medicines beyond those set out in the TRIPS agreement?