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 ECs 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

21-09-2010 MEP Pat the Cope Gallagher asks question about EU patent and its effects on development

Intellectual Property Rights are considered to be beneficial for producers, but when it comes to development, they often have a negative impact. One of the best examples is the availability of medicines in developing countries. For most diseases the cure is out there, but the patient simply cannot afford them, due to the patents on these medicines. There is little coherence in policies when the EUs development policy prioritises access to affordable medicines for developing countries, while at the same time, the EUs industrial and trade policy delays or complicates the access to developing countries markets of affordable medicines.

Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE) asked the Commission what the EU is doing to make sure that the development objectives are not in conflict with the EUs Intellectual Property Policy.

Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE) is recognized as Fair Politician for expressing the need for coherence between the EUs intellectual property policy and the EUs development objectives. Therefore he gets a point in monitoring system.

Monitor fair: ALDE

Parliamentary questions
19 August 2010
E-6475/2010
WRITTEN QUESTION, by Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)

Subject: EU patent policy and development objectives

What concrete actions is the Commission undertaking to ensure that EU intellectual property policy is not in conflict with its development objectives?