Patents, a resounding failure. It did not take long to observe the different obstacles and divergences affecting the launch of the European market without borders, which must now be overcome. The appeals for mutual understanding and a willingness to seek compromise (this column tackled this issue on three occasions last week) were not unnecessary. On the first aspect that we hoped ripe for an agreement, the European patent, the failure has been resounding.
This is not a minor subject and nor is it an essentially technical or legal one. A European patent ensuring protection throughout Community territory is necessary in order to complete the single market for innovative products. The EU has tackled this issue on several occasions, with partially positive results. The question of what linguistic regime should be applied is still under discussion. Just a detail? Far from it, it is an essential factor and the presidency of the Council has underlined that the complexity and high costs incurred in the current translation process “create a fragmented system, which constitutes a major obstacle for innovative enterprises and consequently has a negative impact on the functioning of the internal market”. The “cost” factor is essential here. Michel Barnier, the European commissioner responsible for the sector, has pointed out that with the current system a patent in Europe is ten times more expensive than in the US, which is a hindrance to innovation, research and development, as well as being a brake on growth. “It is the small and medium-sized enterprises, a dynamic source for the future, that are suffering from this the most”.
These considerations have not been enough to overcome the divergences and different national feelings on the matter, particularly on the part of Italy, and in this regard Mr Barnier considers that “a compromise from all 27 member states seems out of reach”. This has to be acknowledged. Nonetheless, he has added that “the status quo is not a lasting a solution… The Commission has confirmed that it will move forward with the presidency, in a constructive way, within the framework of the treaty”. This last remark creates the impression that the Commission is not ruling out the possibility advocated by certain member states for activating the enhanced cooperation mechanism (see our previous publication), a solution which had already been mentioned a month earlier. An important detail in this context is the fact that it was the British government that took the initiative in this sense, followed by four others. Italy has given a very sharp response: “Pressure wielded through debatable or vague threats of procedure and blackmail will not make us change our position… The Italian government and parliament are both firm in their rejection of solutions that could harm national prestige or the economic interests of the country's companies”. What an atmosphere…
Obviously things should not be over dramatised. During its history, Europe has experienced other scathing declarations, which have been followed by compromise. This spat, however, confirms that the relaunch of the common market without borders, in all its different aspects, is not going to be a calm undertaking and that political will is essential.
Energy, a remote objective. Europe is currently in an active phase of construction and the initiatives most spoken about because they produce the most spectacular innovations - economic governance/financial rules and the relaunch of the extensive market without borders - are far from being isolated examples. Increasingly often (for example, with cohesion policy), the Commission follows the method advocated in an indicative and descriptive document calling on all the different interested parties to respond: the European Parliament, of course, as well as the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the different representative organisations from civil society. This is a kind of preliminary consultation, which enables the Commission to take into account all the different viewpoints and legitimate interests at stake, before presenting formal proposals.
In this context, the Commission document on the energy strategy up to 2020 (summarised at length in our publication, together with the main comments that this strategy has produced) deserves particular attention. For the time being, I would just like to underline to what extent the objective of the European energy policy is still far from being a reality. Progress has been observed in a number of specific areas, particularly with regard to the functioning of the internal market, and certain Community principles are gradually being applied. With regard, however, to the question of supply and relations with third countries, member states continue to act on an essentially national basis and this entity referred to as “Brussels” is informed about developments afterwards or learns of them in the news. The situation must radically change if the Commission is going to be able to put things into practice. This column will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)