JURI Report - Europa · JURI Report At the meeting of 23 and 24 February 2015 The Committee on Legal Affairs will begin the February meeting by considering a

JURI ReportAt the meeting of 23 and 24 February 2015The Committee on Legal Affairs will begin the February meeting by considering aworking document on geographical indication protection for non-agriculturalproducts and a draft report on the implementation of copyright law. There will then bea presentation by the Policy Department on a study on legal instruments and thepractice of arbitration in the EU.

The committee will go on to consider a working document on single-member privatelimited liability companies and hold exchanges of views on the negotiations for theTTIP, annual reports on subsidiarity and proportionality, and monitoring theapplication of EU law. The committee will then consider a number of proposedamendments to the Shareholders’ Rights Directive.

The second day will begin with the coordinators’ meeting in camera. The committeewill then vote on the interim report on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and adraft opinion in letter form relating to the Office for Harmonisation in the InternalMarket (OHIM). After the votes, the committee will reconvene in camera to verifycredentials, deliberate on disputes involving Parliament and consider requests forwaiver of the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, António Marinho e Pintoand Béla Kovács, as well as a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity ofGabriele Albertini.

The afternoon session will open with a hearing on administrative procedures in the EUand the US. This item will be followed by a presentation by Margot Fröhlinger, fromthe European Patent Office, on the state of play of the Patent Package.

The committee will then consider draft reports on the European Convention on thelegal protection of conditional access services, the enforcement of intellectualproperty rights and the protection of trade secrets, as well as a draft opinion on thepresumption of innocence.

______________________________________________________________

HEARINGAdministrative procedures in the EU and the USThe Committee on Legal Affairs will hold a hearing on 24February, from 15.00 to 17.00, in room PHS 5B001, entitled‘Administrative procedures in the EU and in the US’. Thepurpose of the hearing is to consider the impact ofinternational norms on both EU and US administrativeprocedures, as well as that of EU norms on Member States’administrative procedures

______________________________________________

ISSUE 8FEBRUARY 2015

NEXT MEETING

9 MARCH &23 - 24 MARCH

2015

JURI Website

EPRS

LATEST ANALYSES

Legal Instruments andPractice of Arbitration in

the EU

The immunity ofMembers of the

European Parliament(October 2014)

Upcoming issues of EUlaw

Protection of TradeSecrets: Initial Appraisal

of the Commission'sImpact Assessment

Update on the EuropeanCommission's REFIT

Programme

European Small ClaimsProcedure: InitialAppraisal of the

Commission's ImpactAssessment

_______________________________________________________________________________

2

PROFILE - EVELYN REGNER - JURI Coordinator

Evelyn Regner was born in 1966 in Vienna, Austria. After obtaining her degree in lawstudies at the University of Salzburg and completing her clerkship, she went on to workas a refugee consultant at Amnesty International from 1992 to 1993.

In the years that followed, Evelyn Regner pursued her career as a lawyer in the SocialDepartment of the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) before becoming head of theÖGB’s Brussels office at the permanent representation of Austria to the EU in 1999. Shewas named head of the ÖGB Department of EU and International Affairs in January2009, and remained there until her election to the European Parliament.

During this time, Evelyn Regner was also a member of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)and the Social Dialogue Committee. Moreover, she was a board member of the European Trade UnionConfederation (ETUC), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Trade Union AdvisoryCommittee to the OECD (TUAC).

She was first elected as a Member of the European Parliament in July 2009, and has represented the SocialDemocratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats inthe European Parliament (S&D) ever since. Her functions during the 7th legislative term of the EuropeanParliament included Vice-Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, substitute member of the Committee onEmployment and Social Affairs, substitute member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, member ofthe Advisory Committee on the Code of Conduct of Members, member of the Delegation for relations withthe countries of the Andean Community and substitute member of the Delegation for relations with Israel.

In Vienna as well as in Brussels, Evelyn Regner’s work has always focused on labour-related affairs, with anemphasis on improving workers’ rights and reducing unemployment. In addition, she dedicates her work toaddressing issues concerning financial markets and reducing inequality in the fields of gender politics, taxesand wealth.

In her current mandate, after being re-elected in 2014, she was selected as the coordinator of the LegalAffairs Committee for the S&D group, a substitute member of the Employment and Social Affairs Committeeand a substitute member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. Furthermore, she is amember of the Delegation for relations with the countries of the Andean Community, the Trade UnionIntergroup, the Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly and a substitute member ofthe Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESENTATION OF A STUDYLegal instruments and the practice of arbitration in the EU

At the request of the JURI Committee, a team at the Brunel Centre for theStudy of Arbitration and Cross-Border Investment have been commissioned toundertake and present a study on arbitration across the European Union andSwitzerland. This study will address arbitration in all its primary forms(commercial, consumer, online, investment), and will address both the formalregulatory structure in which arbitration operates in every Member State andSwitzerland and the realities of arbitral practice in those States. It will alsoaddress measures taken at EU level regarding arbitration (including investmentarbitration), and discuss potential future measures. The findings will bepresented by the study’s authors, Tony Cole, Senior Lecturer at the BrunelCentre (London), and Pietro Ortolani, from Luiss Guido Carli University (Rome).The study will be presented on Monday 23 February from 16:15 to 16:45.

________________________________________________________________________________

3

Procedure: 2014/2256(INI)

Basic doc: Directive2001/29/EC

Legal basis: Articles 47(2), 55and 95 ECT

Rapporteur: Julia Reda

Administrator: MagnusNordanskog

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Presentation of draft report:20/01/2015

Continued consideration ofdraft report: 23/02/2015

Deadline for amendments:03/03/2015, at 12.00

Consideration of amendments:23/03/2015

Vote in JURI: 16/04/2015

Plenary vote: 20/05/2015

CONSIDERATION OF WORKING DOCUMENTThe possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Unionto non-agricultural products

The rapporteur will present a working document on theCommission’s Green Paper entitled ‘Making the mostout of Europe’s traditional know-how: a possibleextension of geographical indication protection of theEuropean Union to non-agricultural products’.Geographical indications (GIs) identify goods asoriginating in a country, region or locality where aparticular quality, reputation or other characteristic ofthe product is essentially attributable to itsgeographical origin, for example Bordeaux (wine),

Vetro di Murano (glass) or Prosciutto di Parma. A GI can, therefore, alsohighlight the unique qualities of a product that are due to humanintervention, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions. At EU level,unitary protection is provided for certain agricultural products andfoodstuffs, but there is no harmonisation or unitary GI protection in placefor non-agricultural products. The European Union is rich in authenticnon-agricultural products which not only play an important role in ourcultural heritage and contribute to the cultural and creative economy, butalso have considerable economic potential, if the right conditions for theirexploitation are provided.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORTThe implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspectsof copyright and related rights in the information society

In the Political Guidelines for the nextEuropean Commission, presented by thethen President-designate Jean-ClaudeJuncker on 15 July 2014, the reform ofcopyright in Europe as part of the setting-upof the Digital Single Market was presentedas one the top-ten priorities of theCommission.

In view of this, and since intellectual property law is one of the maincompetences of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee hasdecided to set up a Working Group on IPR and Copyright Reform, whichconsists of members and staff of JURI as well as of other relevantcommittees.

This group will meet once a month in order to hear invited experts from,in particular, academia, civil society and other interested stakeholders, andto discuss particular subject areas relevant to IPR and copyright reform,with a view to drawing up working documents aimed at assistingMembers in assessing and working with upcoming Commission proposalsand activities in this area. To launch this working group, the Committeeheld a public hearing in Brussels on 11 November 2014 on the future of

Procedure:2015/2053 (INI)

Basic doc: COM(2014)469

Legal basis: Rule 52 (RoP)

Rapporteur: Virginie Rozière

Administrator: Kjell Sevón

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Presentation of workingdocument: 23.02.2015

Draft report: 16.04.2015

Deadline for amendments:23.04.2015

Adoption JURI: 16.06.2015

PLENARY: 6-9.07.2015

_______________________________________________________________________________

4

Procedure: JURI/8/00431

Basic doc: 2014/0120 (COD)

Legal basis: Article 50(2)(f) TFEU

Rapporteur: Luis De GrandesPascual

Administrator: Leticia Zuleta deReales Ansaldo

Committees for opinion: EMPL,IMCO

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 02.12.2014

Presentation of a workingdocument: 23-24.2.15

Presentation of a draft report:16.4.2015

Deadline for amend: 29.04.2015

Consideration of amendments:15-16.06.2015

Vote JURI draft report:14.07.2015

copyright in Europe, in cooperation with the Committee on Culture and Education.

At the first meeting of the Working Group in December 2014, an exchange was held with Mr Oettinger, theCommissioner responsible for copyright. He announced that the Commission will present a legislativeproposal on European copyright during 2015 and that he stands ready to work together with Parliament onthis. The Committee will therefore attempt to do its own analytical work in parallel with the Commissionduring the preparatory work for its upcoming proposals, in particular by conducting its own better regulationactivities, this being another focus of the new Commission.

The first step will be to draw up an implementation report on the main piece of current legislation in the areaof copyright in Europe, namely the Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and relatedrights in the information society, the so-called InfoSoc Directive. This report will be accompanied by an expost impact assessment, which will be commissioned by the Committee from the European ParliamentaryResearch Service (EPRS).

The results of the implementation report will then possibly be followed up with other better regulationactivities in JURI, such as public consultations and an ex ante impact assessment of the resulting suggestionsfor policy options when it comes to reforming copyright in Europe, all in anticipation of the parallel activitiesof the Commission in view of its upcoming proposal.

A first exchange of views on the dossier was held at the JURI meeting in December 2014 and the rapporteur,Julia Reda, presented her draft report at the meeting in January 2015.

At this meeting, the Committee will continue its consideration of the draft report.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATION OF WORKING DOCUMENTSingle-member private limited liability companies

There are around 21 million small andmedium-sized enterprises (SMEs) inthe EU, of which approximately12 million are limited liabilitycompanies, and around half of those(5.2 million) are single-memberprivate limited liability companies.European SMEs have an essential role

to play in strengthening the EU economy. However, they still face anumber of obstacles which hamper their full development within theinternal market. Only a small number of SMEs invest abroad. There are anumber of reasons for this, including the diversity of nationallegislation, in particular differences in national company law, and a lackof trust in foreign companies among customers and business partners.Establishing single-member limited liability companies as subsidiaries inother Member States entails costs arising from the diverse legal andadministrative requirements which must be met in the Member Statesconcerned. Divergent requirements of this kind continue to exist amongMember States.

On 9 April 2014 the Commission put forward a proposal for a directivewith a view to making it easier and less costly to set up companiesacross the EU. In particular, it aims to encourage SMEs, includingindividual entrepreneurs, to carry out their activities in other MemberStates.

________________________________________________________________________________

5

The proposed directive would provide an EU-wide set of harmonised rules for single-member private limitedliability companies. It would establish, in each Member State, a national company law form called SUP(‘Societas Unius Personae’) with the same requirements across the EU as regards:

• registration (with the possibility of completing the whole registration process electronically);

• uniform template of articles of association;

• minimum capital requirement of EUR 1.

On 2 December 2014, the Commission presented its proposal and the committee held its first exchange ofviews. After listening to the different points of view expressed by Members at that meeting, the rapporteurdecided that further reflection on the file was needed.

At this meeting he will present a working document in which he explores the different issues at stake,especially the most controversial ones, and suggests possible compromise solutions. The rapporteur believesthat the Commission proposal has potential as a motor for growth and employment. He invites the Membersto put forward solutions in order to reduce the administrative burden and costs for Union companies, whileat the same time preserving the necessary legal safeguards.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXCHANGE OF VIEWSRecommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for theTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

When the EU negotiates an international agreement, such as TTIP, theEuropean Parliament is entitled to express its position on the agreement, bymeans of a report, at any stage of the negotiations, based on Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Procedure. The Committee on International Trade (INTA), whichis the lead committee on TTIP and therefore coordinates Parliament'sactivities on the agreement, has therefore decided to draw up a report withrecommendations to the Commission concerning the on-goingnegotiations. JURI will give an opinion to this report under Rule 53.

Parliament adopted a report on TTIP on 23 May 2013 in view of the start ofthe TTIP negotiations1, which included recommendations to the Council and the Commission concerning theEU negotiating mandate, which was made public in October 20142.

JURI contributed to the 2013 report by an opinion in letter form, in which it stressed that intellectual propertyis one of the driving forces of innovation and creation and a pillar of the knowledge-based economy, andthat the agreement should therefore include strong protection of precisely and clearly defined areas ofIntellectual Property Rights (IPRs), including geographical indications, and should be consistent with existinginternational agreements and existing international standards of protection. JURI also reaffirmed its supportfor the dismantling of unnecessary regulatory barriers, and encouraged the Commission and the USAdministration to include in the agreement mechanisms (including early upstream regulatory cooperation)aimed at preventing future barriers. It stressed that Better Regulation and the reduction of regulatory andadministrative burdens are issues which must be at the forefront when negotiating the TTIP, and that greatertransatlantic regulatory convergence should lead to more streamlined regulation which is easy to understandand apply, in particular for SMEs.

Since the start of negotiations in July 2013, eight negotiating rounds have been held, and the eighth roundwas held in Brussels in the first week of February 2015. According to the INTA rapporteur, Bernd Lange,

1 European Parliament resolution of 23 May 2013 on EU trade and investment negotiations with the United States of America(P7_TA(2013)0227).2 Available here: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf.

_______________________________________________________________________________

6

Procedure: 2014/2228(INI)

Legal basis: Rule 53

Rapporteur: Axel Voss

Administrator: MagnusNordanskog

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:23 February

Consideration of draftopinion: 23-24 March

Deadline for amendments: 2April, at 12.00

Vote in JURI: 16 April

Adoption in INTA: 6-7 May

Plenary vote: 18-21 May

Parliament's upcoming report should contribute to a fresh start of the negotiations, now that the newCommission is in place and after the midterm elections in the US.

On 9 January 2015, INTA presented a working document in which it outlines in broad terms the progress sofar and what could be expected for the future. It is stressed that bilateral trade agreements such as TTIP canonly ever be a second-best option to agreements on the multilateral level. Especially given the recentpositive developments in the WTO, it must be ensured that an agreement with the US will serve as astepping-stone for broader trade negotiations and will not be seen as an alternative to the WTO process.While unregulated globalisation is an uncontrolled race to the bottom, we must attempt to create aregulatory framework by strengthening regulations to the highest standards on a global level, so that socialand environment dumping is excluded.

However, when negotiations on TTIP are secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert thechecks and balances required to guarantee an expected outcome. Parliament will therefore continue toclosely monitor the negotiating process and will engage with the Commission, Member States, the USCongress and administration as well as stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic in order to ensure anoutcome which will benefit citizens in the EU, the US and beyond. Parliament will have to give its consent toan agreement, without which it cannot enter into force. The Commission is therefore well advised to take thepositions of Parliament into account.

According to Annex VI of the Rules of Procedure, JURI is responsible for theinterpretation, application and monitoring of Union law and compliance ofUnion acts with primary law, the interpretation and application ofinternational law in so far as the European Union is affected, betterlaw-making and simplification of Union law, civil and commercial law,procedural law, measures concerning judicial and administrativecooperation in civil matters and intellectual property law.

For the purposes of TTIP, the committee is therefore primarily responsiblefor the subject matters being negotiated in the chapters on IntellectualProperty Rights, Regulatory Coherence and Transparency, and DisputeSettlement/Arbitration.

On 27 January 2015, JURI and INTA held a joint public hearing on TTIP:Regulatory Aspects and Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) andArbitration. This hearing was very timely since the Commission published itsreport on the recent public consultation of ISDS3 on 13 January 2015, andthe eight round of TTIP negotiations held in the first week of February 2015focused heavily on regulatory aspects of TTIP. Following this round, theCommission made its initial proposal for a legal text on regulatorycooperation in TTIP publicly available4.

On 10 February 2015, the rapporteur in INTA, Bernd Lange, presented his draft report. Given the many criticalvoices from the European public and given the weak public acceptance of the agreement under negotiation,Mr Lange stresses that the Parliament should continue to push for the highest possible level of transparencyand guarantee that only a good agreement will be adopted, an agreement which respects European values,stimulates sustainable growth and contributes to the well-being of all citizens. The draft report will beconsidered at the INTA meeting on 23 February 2015.

At this meeting, the committee will hold a first exchange of views, and the rapporteur, Mr Axel Voss, willoutline his views on the drawing-up of the opinion.

3 Available here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153044.pdf.4 Available here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/february/tradoc_153120.pdf.

________________________________________________________________________________

7

Procedure: 2014/2252(INI)Basic doc: COM (2014)566,COM(2014)506Legal basis: Article 9 of Prot. No2Rapporteur: Saijad KarimAdministrator: Kjell SevónOpinion giving committee:AFET, DEVE, INTA, BUDG, CONT,ECON, EMPL, ENVI, ITRE, IMCO,TRAN, REGI, AGRI, PECH, CULT,LIBE, AFCO, FEMM, PETI

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 23.02.2015Draft report: 23.03.2015Deadline for amend: 14.04.2015Adoption JURI: 16.06.2015PLENARY: 07.07.2015

SUBSIDIARITYAnnual reports 2012-2013 on subsidiarity and proportionality

The Committee will hold anexchange of views on theannual reports from theCommission on the applicationof the principles of subsidiarityand proportionality in 2012and 2013. These principles,which are laid down in Article5 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion (TEU), set limits to the

EU’s legitimate scope of action, and according to Article 9 ofProtocol No 2 to the Treaties, the Commission must report annuallyon the application of Article 5 TEU to the European Council, theEuropean Parliament, the Council and national parliaments. Underthe subsidiarity principle, in areas which do not fall within theexclusive competences of the Union, action is to be taken only if andin so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be achievedby the Member States (centrally, regionally or locally). The principleof proportionality, which applies to all EU action, requires the Union’sactions to remain within the boundaries of what is necessary forachieving the objectives of the Treaties. The fact that the two annualreports from the Commission will be dealt with in one parliamentaryreport is due to the exceptional timetables in the 2014 election year.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law (2012-2013)

The Committee will hold anexchange of views on the 2012and 2013 annual reports fromthe Commission on themonitoring of the application ofEU law. Effective application ofEU law is essential if theEuropean Union is to meet itspolitical objectives. Ultimately, it

is a question of respecting the principle of the rule of law. WhileMember States are responsible for the transposition of directives andthe correct application of EU law, it follows from Article 22 TEU thatthe Commission is responsible for monitoring Member States’ lawsand ensuring that their practical application complies with Europeanlegislation, which is binding on them. For this purpose, Article 258TFEU empowers the Commission, where necessary, to bring an actionfor infringement against a Member State before the Court of Justice.The European Parliament, in its turn, has both a responsibility topolitically ‘monitor the monitoring’ carried out by the Commissionand an interest in ensuring that the legislation it adopts actuallybecomes reality.

Procedure: 2014/2253(INI)Basic doc: COM(2013)726,COM(2014)612Legal basis: Rule 52Rapporteur: KostasChrysogonosAdministrator: Kjell SevónOpinion giving committee:ENVI, AFCO, PETI

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 23.02.2015Presentation of draft:16.04.2015Deadline for amend: 24.04.2015Adoption JURI: 16.06.2015Adoption PLENARY:6-9.07.2015

_______________________________________________________________________________

8

CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTSAmendment to Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-termshareholder engagement and to Directive 2013/34/EU as regards certain elements ofthe corporate governance statement

As a follow-up to its 2012 Action Plan on European company law andcorporate governance, the Commission published a proposal to amendthe existing Shareholder Rights Directive (2007/36/EC) on 9 April 2014.The objective of the proposed measures is to increase shareholderengagement and give shareholders a greater say on directors’remuneration and related party transactions. It also provides a frameworkfor listed companies to identify their shareholders and proposesmeasures to improve the reliability of proxy advisers.

The main elements of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

1. Identification of shareholders, transmission of information and facilitation of theexercise of shareholders’ rights: investment intermediaries must allow companies the right toidentify underlying shareholders. Intermediaries should, at the request of the company, communicatethe name and contact details of the shareholders without delay. If a listed company chooses not tocommunicate directly with its shareholders, the relevantinformation should be transmitted to them by theintermediary. Intermediaries must facilitate the exercise ofrights by shareholders, including the right to participate andvote in general meetings, and companies must confirm thevotes cast in general meetings by or on behalf of shareholders.Where the intermediary casts a vote, it must transmit thevoting confirmation to the shareholder.

2. Increased engagement of asset owners andmanagers with their investee companies: Institutionalinvestors and asset managers must develop and disclose, on acomply or explain basis, an engagement policy, explain how ithas been implemented and share the results of the policy;several transparency requirements oblige institutionalinvestors to disclose how their investment strategy is alignedwith the profile and duration of their liabilities and how itcontributes to the medium- to long-term performance of theirassets. Asset managers must also disclose certain informationto institutional investors on a half-yearly basis.

3. Improved reliability, transparency and quality of proxy advisors’ recommendations:Proxy advisors will be required to publicly disclose on an annual basis certain key information relatedto the preparation of their voting recommendations, specifying whether and how they engaged in adialogue with the company when preparing the recommendation. They must adopt and implementadequate measures to guarantee that their voting recommendations are accurate and reliable.

Procedure: 2014/0121(COD)

Basic doc: Directive 2007/36/EC

Legal basis: Article 50(2) (g) and114 TFEU

Rapporteur: Sergio GaetanoCofferati

Administrator: Leticia Zuleta deReales

Opinion giving committees: ECON,IMCO

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 10-11.11.2014

Presentation of DR: 19-20.2015

Deadline for amend: 3.2.2015

Consideration for amendments:23-24.2.2015

Adoption JURI: 24.3.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

9

4. Right to vote on remuneration policy: listed companies will be required to publish aremuneration policy every three years and a remuneration report every year detailing how much theypaid each director in the previous year. The remuneration policy must be put to a shareholder voteevery three years, whereas the report must be put to a shareholder vote every year. The remunerationpolicy must include maximum amounts of total remuneration and explain the ratio between theremuneration of directors and employees.

5. Improving transparency and influence of shareholders on related party transactions:shareholder approval will be required for significant transactions with related parties. Significanttransactions are those that either represent more than 5% of a company’s assets or potentially have asignificant impact on a company’s turnover or profits. All related-party transactions with a value ofmore than 1% of the company’s assets must be disclosed at the time of the transaction’s conclusion.Such disclosure must be accompanied by a statement from an independent party, providing insightinto the conditions of the transaction.

The Commission presented its proposal at the meeting of 10-11 November 2014.

A hearing on the revision of the Shareholders’ Rights Directive took place on 2 December 2014. SergioGaetano Cofferati will present his draft report on 20 January 2015.

In addition to the 83 amendments included in the rapporteur’s draft report, 404 amendments have beentabled. The Committee will discuss them at the meeting.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

POSTPONEDEuropean Small Claims Procedure

The vote originally planned for thismeeting has been postponed inorder to allow for furtherconsultations among the politicalgroups.

The purpose of the Commission’sinitiative is to make various changesto the Small Claims Procedure, which is particularly valuable tocitizens and small and medium-sized businesses. In particular, the aimis to increase the threshold for the Small Claims Procedure, therebysimplifying a larger number of cases.

Another important objective of the proposal is to encourageelectronic communication between the court and the parties in orderto accelerate proceedings. The Commission is also seeking toencourage the use of video-conferences for hearings, therebyreducing travel expenses for the parties involved.

The draft report is broadly supportive of the aims of the Commissionproposal, supporting most of the major changes. However, therapporteur also suggests some changes aimed at making theprocedure more citizen-friendly and giving courts greater latitude todecide when a hearing is absolutely necessary. Other Members havetabled a total of 74 amendments to the draft report.

Procedure: 2013/0403(COD)

Basic doc: COM(2013)794

Legal basis: Article 81(1) TFEU

Rapporteur: Lidia JoannaGeringer de Oedenberg

Administrator: Alexander Keys

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 24.09.2014

Presentation of draft report:11.11.2014

Deadline for amendments:27.11.2014

Debate on amendments:20.01.2015

Vote in JURI: Postponed to March

It is planned that trilogues willcommence thereafter.

_______________________________________________________________________________

10

ADOPTION OF DRAFT OPINIONEuropean Public Prosecutor's Office (interim report)

The Commission proposal provides for the establishment of a European PublicProsecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the form of a Union body with a decentralisedstructure and legal personality, and sets out its relationship with Eurojust. Thetext stresses the EPPO’s independence and accountability vis-à-vis Parliament,the Council and the Commission with regard to its activities. The EPPO will betasked with combating criminal offences which affect the financial interests ofthe Union. It will be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice perpetrators of, and

accomplices in, criminal offences. It will also play the role of prosecutorin the competent courts of the Member States for offences whichaffect the Union’s financial interests. Article 86 TFEU provides thenecessary legal basis for this new EU-level prosecution system.

The proposal covers the essential features of the investigations andprosecutions to be carried out by the EPPO, including provisions onhow they should be monitored by national courts, what decisions theEPPO could take once investigations are completed, its role asprosecutor, and how the evidence collected would be used in court.The proposal also provides safeguards for suspects and other personsinvolved in EPPO proceedings, which will need to comply with therelevant standards and in particular with the Charter of FundamentalRights of the European Union.

The Committee on Legal Affairs delivered an opinion during the lastlegislative term, but the lead committee did not adopt its final reportbefore the end of the term. At this meeting, the new rapporteur willpresent his draft opinion, which may subsequently be adopted.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

PRESENTATIONSPresentation by Margot Fröhlinger, European Patent Office, on state of play of thePatent Package

At the meeting on 24 February 2015 the Committee will hear apresentation by Ms Fröhlinger, Principal Director for Patent Law andMultilateral Affairs at the European Patent Office (EPO). She has occupiedthis post since April 2012, dealing with issues such as the development ofpatent law at European and international level, patent law harmonisation,cooperation with major IP offices and the strengthening andimprovement of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system.

The aim of this presentation is to enable members of the Committee to obtain an overview on the state ofplay of the Patent Package.

Indeed, the so-called ‘Patent Package’ is a legislative initiative which lays the foundations for the creation ofunitary patent protection in the EU and consists of two regulations and an international agreement. The tworegulations (Unitary Patent Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and Transitional Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012)will be applicable to 25 Member States (Spain and Italy decided not to participate in the unitary patentregulation, and Croatia joined the EU after the regulation was established) on the date of entry into force ofthe Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Agreement setting up a single and specialised patentjurisdiction was signed on 19 February 2013 by 25 Member States, but not by Spain, Croatia and Poland: Italy

Procedure: 2013/0255(APP)

Basic doc: COM(2013)0534

Legal basis: Article 86 TFEU

Rapporteur: Victor Negrescu

Administrator: Andrea Scrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Deadline for amendments:10.02.2015

Exchange of views:23-24.02.2015

Adoption JURI:

24.02.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

11

Procedure: 2010/0361(NLE)

Basic doc: Council document07597/1/2014

Legal basis: Articles 207(4)and 218(6) TFEU

Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda

Administrator: MagnusNordanskog

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:11/11/2014

Presentation of draftrecommendation:23/02/2015

Deadline for amendments:02/03/2015, at 12.00

Vote in JURI: 24/03/2015

Plenary vote: May 2015

has signed the UPC Agreement although it is not yet participating in the unitary patent; Poland did not signalthough it will participate in the unitary patent. It will enter into force four months after the 13th instrumentof ratification or accession is deposited, including by France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Presentation of the Legal Service on Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice

At this meeting the Legal Service of the European Parliament will hold a presentation onopinion A-2/13 delivered by the Court of Justice. The opinion concerns the draftagreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The Commission askedthe Court of Justice to give its opinion on the compatibility of the draft agreement withthe Treaties, pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU.

On the one hand, Article 6(2) TEU contains a legal obligation for the EU to accede to the ECHR. On the otherhand, the accession is subject to various conditions and must take into account and preserve the particularcharacteristics of the EU, including the role and competences of the Court of Justice itself. The latter delivereda negative opinion, meaning that the Court declared that the current draft agreement was incompatible withEU law. As a consequence, since the opinion of the Court is binding, either the EU Treaties or the accessionagreement must be amended in order for the EU to accede to the ECHR.

The Legal Service will present details of the Court’s opinion, explaining to the JURI Committee the variousproblems identified by the Court.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT REPORTConclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the European Convention on thelegal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access

This dossier is currently the oldest on thebooks in JURI. It is related to Directive98/84/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council of 20 November 1998 onthe legal protection of services based on,or consisting of, conditional access5, whichcreated a common legal frameworkapplicable throughout the Union for

combating illicit devices which allow for unauthorised access to televisionservices offered against payment and effectively protecting such services.This protection covers both television and radio broadcasting servicesand transmission by Internet.

In 1999, the Council of Europe started to draft a European convention onthe legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditionalaccess. Many European states which are not members of the Union mayprovide havens for the development or distribution of devices for hackinginto conditional access services if their legal system does not provide forsanctions against this very specific hacking activity. It was thereforenecessary to extend the provisions of the 1998 Directive and to create acommon and effective framework at European level for the protection ofthese services.

5 OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.

_______________________________________________________________________________

12

The negotiations which were conducted by the Commission on behalf of the Union were successful and theConvention, which was adopted in 2001, is fully compatible with the Directive. The wording of the two textsdiffers only slightly in places.

However, before the Council could ask Parliament to give its approval to the conclusion of the Convention,the Commission brought a case to the Court of Justice claiming that the Council had used an incorrect legalbasis for the decision concerning the signing of the Convention. Instead of using Article 207 TFEU on theCommon Commercial Policy, as proposed by the Commission, the Council had used Article 114 TFEU onharmonisation in the Internal Market.

While this court case was pending, it was not possible to sign or approve the conclusion of the conventionon behalf of the Union. The judgement of the Court of Justice was presented in October 20136 and it ruledon the side of the Commission. The correct legal basis was therefore Article 207 TFEU on the CommonCommercial Policy.

The Council was therefore able to adopt a decision on 14 April 2014 on the signing on behalf of the Union ofthe convention, but since the new legal basis concerns matters falling under exclusive competences of theUnion, the possibility to conclude the convention of behalf of the Union was questioned with reference tocertain provisions which made reference to procedures within the Council of Europe taking into account thatthe Union is not a member of that international organisation.

The matter was discussed in the Council during 2014, and as a consequence thereof the draft Councildecision on the conclusion of the convention on behalf of the Union, for which the consent of Parliament hasbeen requested, therefore now includes an annex in which the Union declares that it fully recognises theobjectives pursued by the convention, but also expresses its concern regarding the application of thoseprocedural provisions, on the basis of its exclusive competence.

Taking into account that it is not possible to renegotiate the convention in order to address this problem -which in any event falls within the field of external representation of the Union, for which the Council and theCommission are primarily responsible - and with reference to the fact that the convention would effectivelyextend the scope of the framework provided by Directive 98/84/EC outside of the Union and thereby combatthreats to protected services, the rapporteur, Mr Pavel Svoboda, therefore considers that JURI shouldrecommend that the Parliament should give its consent to the conclusion of the convention.

In accordance with Rule 99 of the Rules of Procedures, amendments tabled in committee in a consentprocedure shall be admissible only if they aim to reverse the recommendation as proposed by therapporteur.

An exchange of views on this dossier was held at the JURI meeting in November 2014 with the Commissionand the then Italian Presidency of the Council.

At this meeting, the Committee will consider the rapporteur's draft recommendation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

JURI WORKSHOP: CIVIL LAW AND JUSTICE FORUM‘Cross-border activities in the EU – Making life easier for citizens’;with the participation of national parliaments

The Committee on Legal Affairs will hold a workshop on civil law and justice with theparticipation of national parliaments on 26 February, at 9:30-12:30 and 14:30-18:30, inroom ASP 5G3. The focus of this workshop will be on private international law:‘Cross-border activities in the EU – Making life easier for citizens’. The workshop will beorganised by DG IPOL’s Policy Department C.

6 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 October 2013, Commission v Council, C-137/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:675.

________________________________________________________________________________

13

Procedure: 2014/2151(INI)

Basic doc: COM(2014)392

Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:20.01.2015

Consideration of the draftreport: 24.02.2015

Deadline for amendments:10.03.2015

Consideration ofamendments: 23-24.03.2015

Adoption JURI: 16.04.2015

Vote Plenary: May 2015

IPR Enforcement

At this meeting the rapporteur, MrSvoboda (Chair), will present his draftreport entitled ‘Towards a renewedconsensus on the enforcement ofIntellectual Property Rights: an EU ActionPlan’. On 1 July 2014 the Commissionpresented an action plan for IPR

enforcement with ten actions which focus, in particular, on a ‘follow themoney’ approach, with the intention of depriving commercial-scaleinfringers of revenues.

The draft report broadly supports the Commission’s action plan,supporting targeted communication campaigns, the role given toright-holders, and the development of memoranda of understanding. Therapporteur also stresses the need to have a comprehensive IPR strategy,including a complete legal framework that is adapted to the onlineenvironment. The draft report stresses the importance of going furtheron issues such as consumer information and the development of newbusiness models. The rapporteur also considers it important to takebetter account of SMEs, particularly as regards access to justice. Thedeadline for amendments is 10 March 2015.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) againsttheir unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure

Broadly speaking, any confidential business information which provides anenterprise with a competitive advantage may be considered a trade secret.Trade secrets encompass manufacturing or industrial secrets andcommercial secrets. The unauthorised use of such information by personsother than the holder is regarded as unfair practice and a violation of thetrade secret. Depending on the legal system, the protection of trade secretsforms part of the general concept of protection against unfair competitionor else is based on specific provisions or case-law on the protection of

confidential information. Some Member States do not have specific laws on the matter.

Unlike patented inventions or novels protected by copyright, the holder of a trade secret does not have anexclusive right over its creation. Competitors and other third parties may therefore discover, develop andfreely use the same formula. Trade secrets are only legally protected in instances where someone hasobtained the confidential information by illegitimate means (for example through theft or bribery).

Trade secrets are therefore substantially different from IPRs, which confer exclusivity. Nevertheless, they needto be protected for the same reasons that IPRs exist: to incentivise innovation by ensuring that creators are ina position to be rewarded for their efforts.

The Commission proposal introduces a common definition of trade secrets, and establishes a means forvictims of trade secret misappropriation to obtain redress. It seeks to make it easier for national courts todeal with the misappropriation of confidential business information, to remove from the market productsthat infringe trade secrets and to make it easier for victims to obtain damages for illegal actions.

On 26 May 2014 the Council adopted a general approach which is, on the whole, in line with the approachadopted by the Commission. However, the Council has also proposed amendments to the directive, the mainones being:

_______________________________________________________________________________

14

a limitation period of six years for any claims or actions (the Commission proposed two years);

Member States may provide greater protection for trade secrets than that set out in the Directive;

removal of the requirement for a trade secret holder to show that an alleged infringer acted‘intentionally’ or with ‘gross negligence’, which may make it easier for trade secret holders to proveinfringement;

measures, procedures and remedies to be made available to ensure civil redress against thedisclosure of trade secrets;

a new regime for employees who disclose trade secretswhich restricts their liability for damages towards employersif acting without intent; and

preservation of confidentiality in the course of legalproceedings, whilst ensuring that the rights of the partiesinvolved in a trade secret litigation case are not undermined.

The Commission presented its proposal at the meeting of 13 October2014. On 20 January the Committee held a public hearing entitled‘Protecting trade secrets’.

At this meeting the rapporteur, Constance Le Grip, will present herdraft report. The rapporteur is not seeking to introduce fundamentalchanges to the Commission’s proposal; her main objective is to addclarifications to some aspects of the proposal, such as the definitionof trade secrets, while striving to maintain a maximum level ofharmonisation. She has also attempted to strike the right balancebetween the need to protect businesses from unfair commercialpractices and the need to ensure respect for freedom of expression.As regards procedural aspects, while recognising the importance ofsecrecy of proceedings, she has introduced a number ofamendments which are intended to protect the right to a fair trialand the principle of an adversarial process.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT OPINIONStrengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right tobe present at one’s trial in criminal proceedings

During the 2009-2014 legislative term, the Committee on Legal Affairsdelivered an opinion to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice andHome Affairs on a proposal which would have a significant impact oncriminal proceedings in Europe. Indeed, building on the extensivecase-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the draftdirective aims to lay down minimum rules concerning certain aspectsof the right of suspects and accused persons to be presumedinnocent unless proven guilty by a final judgment.

Owing to the end of the legislative term, the procedure had to startafresh and the Committee on Legal Affairs now has a new opportunityto deal with this file.

Procedure: 2013/0402 (COD)

Basic doc: COM (2013) 0813

Legal basis: 114 TFEU

Rapporteur: Constance Le Grip(EPP)

Administrator:Leticia Zuleta deReales

Opinion giving committee:ITRE/IMCO

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 13.10.14 and11.11.14

Draft report: 23-24.2.15

Deadline for amend: 3.3.15

Consideration of amendments:24.3.15

Adoption JURI:16.4.15

________________________________________________________________________________

15

The proposal covers the following principles:

1) a court or public official may not publicly present the suspects oraccused persons as if they were guilty of an offence if they have notbeen tried and convicted of it by a final judgment;

2) the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any reasonabledoubts regarding guilt should benefit the accused;

3) the right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate and theright to remain silent lie at the heart of the proposal. In particular,the right to remain silent must be ensured, and any inferencesdrawn from the fact that suspects make use of this right should beexcluded.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

JUDICIAL NEWSÖBB Personenverkehr vs Sachs

There have recently been some interesting developments in the United States of America with regard tosovereign immunity, including a remarkable, although not yet finalised, expansion of US jurisdiction overforeign state-owned entities. The US Supreme Court has granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in ÖBBPersonenverkehr vs Sachs. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that thehigher court may review it. The Supreme Court has discretion over whether or not to review a case anddecided to use this discretion in the above-mentioned case.

The plaintiff is Ms Sachs, a US resident, who bought a Eurail pass from an online ticket seller based inMassachusetts. While trying to board a moving train in Innsbruck, Austria, Ms Sachs suffered severe injuriesand in turn sued ÖBB, the Austrian state-owned railway services provider, for damages. The case was broughtin a US district court, which denied US jurisdiction on the subject matter. However, an en banc panel of theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals held that US jurisdiction is granted under the Foreign Sovereign ImmunitiesAct, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (FSIA). This paragraph enumerates cases in which Sovereign Immunity cannot beclaimed, inter alia because of an action ‘based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States bythe foreign state’. Since ÖBB is fully state-owned, it would, in principle, be protected by state immunity.

The appellate court assumed jurisdiction, stating that state-owned common carriers like ÖBB engage in UScommercial activity when they sell tickets in the US through a travel agent, regardless of whether this travelagent is a direct agent or subagent of the common carrier. Apart from this majority opinion, dissenting viewswere twofold. One part argued that the exception cannot be applied, since the sale of Ms Sachs’s Eurail passin the US was not attributable to ÖBB, and the plaintiff therefore failed to allege commercial activity ‘by aforeign state’. A different argument brought against the judgment stresses that the claim arose from eventswhich took place entirely in Austria, and was thus not ‘based upon’ commercial activity carried on in the US.

ÖBB contended in its writ position that the Ninth Circuit decision would have far-reaching implications,pointing out that there are many foreign national railways and airlines that sell tickets through agents in theUS. The en banc opinion makes jurisdiction over foreign states broader than that over foreign private entities,it is argued. It was added that the interpretation of an ‘agency’ was based on common law principles ratherthan the statutory text of the FSIA.

The Supreme Court will decide on (1) whether, for the purposes of determining whether an entity is an

Procedure: 2013/0407 (COD)

Basic doc: (COM)2013/0821

Legal basis: Article 82(2)(b) TFEU

Rapporteur: Pascal Durand

Administrator: Andrea Scrimali

Lead committee: LIBE- NathalieGriesbeck

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views: 19-20.01.2015

Consideration of a draft opinion:

23-24.02.2015

Deadline for amendments: 02.03.2015

Adoption JURI: 23-24.03.0215

_______________________________________________________________________________

16

‘agent’ of a ‘foreign state’, the express definition of the FSIA ought to be applied or rather the common lawprinciples of ‘agency’ and (2) whether a tort claim for personal injuries suffered in connection with traveloutside the United States is ‘based upon’ the allegedly tortious conduct occurring outside of the UnitedStates or the preceding sale of the ticket in the United States.

If the Supreme Court were to follow the appellate court, the ruling could have substantial repercussions onhow business is carried out by European industries in the US, potentially causing a radical change in businesspractices. On the surface, this dispute may only involve the question of jurisdiction, but inextricably linked tothe case are US class actions and the relatively high damages possible under US law, which are unknown incontinental Europe.

Stefan Bucher, Intern at the Secretariat

________________________________________________________________________________________________

IN CAMERA

OF CREDENTIALS (RULE 3)

The President has announced in plenary that the competent nationalauthorities have given notice of the appointment of the following asMembers of the European Parliament, with effect from the dates shownbelow:

Ms Hilde VAUTMANS (to replace Ms AnnemieNEYTS-UYTTEBROECK), as from 1 January 2015;

Mr Daniel DALTON (to replace Mr Philip BRADBOURN), as from 8January 2015;

Ms Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT (to replace Mr Louis IDE), as from 8January 2015.

Mr Stelios KOULOGLOU with effect from 27 January 2015.

In accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure, on the basis of areport by the JURI Committee, Parliament will verify the credentialswithout delay and rule on the validity of the mandate of each of its newly elected Members. Parliament willalso rule on any dispute referred to it pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 20 September 1976, exceptthose based on national electoral laws.

It is not possible to confirm the validity of the mandate of a Member unless the written declarations requiredon the basis of Article 7 of the Act of 20 September 1976 and Annex I to the Rules have been made. Untilsuch time as a Member's credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, theMember will take his or her seat in Parliament and in its bodies and enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.

*****

Term of office

The following Member notified the President of her intention to resign her seat as Member of the EuropeanParliament, with effect from the date shown below:

Ms Teresa RODRIGUEZ-RUBIO, as from 5 March 2015.

Pursuant Rule 4 of the Rules of procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs has to determine whether thisresignation is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Act of 20 September 1976.

Legal basis: Rule 3 RoP

Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda

Administrator: Andrea Scrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:23-24.02.2015

Adoption JURI: 23-24.02.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

17

DISPUTES INVOLVING PARLIAMENT (RULE 141)Case C-580/14, Bitter – Possible submission of observations byParliament

On 27 January 2015 the European Parliament was notified of a reference for a

preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) concerningthe validity of Article 16, paragraph 3, second sentence, of Directive2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘ETSDirective’).

Directive 2003/87/EC established an emission allowance trading scheme (the‘ETS’), with a view to reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions within theEU. Any operator failing to comply with the requirements laid down in Article16, paragraph 3, second sentence, of the Directive is liable for the paymentof a penalty.

An earlier version of the ETS Directive provided for a penalty set at half thecurrent level. Since the Court of Justice, in Case C-203/12, considered thislower penalty compatible with the principle of proportionality, the referringcourt takes the view that the higher level of the penalty currently set by theETS Directive cannot be considered appropriate. A question on the validity ofArticle 16, paragraph 3, second sentence, of the ETS Directive was, therefore, referred to the Court of Justice.

The ETS Directive was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Committee is, therefore, todecide whether to recommend to the President, in accordance with Rule 141(4), that Parliament shouldsubmit observations in the proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.

Possible action by the European Parliament for annulment of Council Decision2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange withthe regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia

The Council has adopted Decision 2014/911/EU on the launch of automated data exchange with regard todactyloscopic data in Latvia. This decision constitutes a basic act supplementing Decision 2008/615/JHA, and,since it was adopted after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it should have had the same legal basisas Decision 2008/615/JHA, with, of course, the necessary modifications following the entry into force of theTreaty of Lisbon. It should also have been adopted under the procedure that follows from the relevant legalbasis provided for by the TFEU, i.e. the ordinary legislative procedure.

However, it appears that Decision 2014/911/EU was not based on the appropriate provisions of the TFEU –notably Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) thereof –, but on Decision 2008/615/JHA itself, and that it was notadopted with the full involvement of Parliament as a co-legislator, as should have been the case under theseprovisions.

The Committee is called upon to decide whether to recommend to the President, in accordance with Rule141(4), that Parliament bring an action for annulment of the Decision against the Council.

Case C-547/14, Philip Morris Brands and Others - Possible submission ofobservations by Parliament

On 9 January 2015 Parliament was notified of a reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice(England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) concerning the validity of severalprovisions of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Tobacco ProductsDirective 2014’ or, simply, the ‘Directive’).

The applicants requested judicial review of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014 before the Administrative

Procedure: Rule 141

Rapporteur:

Jean-Marie Cavada

Administrator:

Andrea Scrimali

PRELIMINARY TIMETABLE

Exchange of views:

24.02.2015

Adoption JURI:

24.02.2015

_______________________________________________________________________________

18

Court of the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) on the grounds that several provisions of theDirective are in breach of certain principles of EU law. In the light of the above, the Administrative Courtreferred a number of questions on the validity of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014 to the Court of Justice.

The Tobacco Products Directive 2014 was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Committeeis, therefore, to decide whether to recommend to the President, in accordance with Rule 141(4), thatParliament submit observations in the proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.

Case F-3/15, Frieberger and Vallin v European Commission – Possible intervention byParliament

Parliament was notified of an action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 263 TFEU forthe annulment of Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation (EU) No1023/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2013. The application includes anobjection of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU.

Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations concerns the retirement age of officials. Regulation (EU) No1023/2013 introduced changes which have caused the retirement age to be raised without providing fortransitional measures, such as the reimbursement of pension contributions.

Regulation (EU) No 1023/2013 was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. The Committee is,therefore, to decide whether to recommend to the President, in accordance with Rule 141(4), that Parliamentintervene before the Civil Service Tribunal in order to defend the validity of the provisions in question.

Case F-4/15, Schubert and Others v European Commission – Possible intervention byParliament

Parliament was notified of an action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.The application contests the legality of Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014,pursuant to Article 277 TFEU.

Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations in force until 31 December 2013 concerns an exception to theadaptation of remunerations and pensions in the event of a serious and sudden deterioration in theeconomic and social situation. Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 were adoptedto effect the application of this exception clause, having the effect of raising salaries and pensions of officialsand other servants by 0% for 2011 and by 0.8% for 2012.

Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 were adopted under the ordinary legislativeprocedure. The Committee is, therefore, to decide whether to recommend to the President, in accordancewith Rule 141(4), that Parliament intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal in order to defend the validity ofthe provisions in question.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

IMMUNITIES Viktor Uspaskich

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2203 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 0030/2014

Rapporteur: Laura Ferrara

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

Preliminary Timetable:

Exchange of views: 24.02.2015

Viktor Uspaskich

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2095 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 021&026/2014

Rapporteur: Evelyn Regner

Administrator: Robert Bray

Preliminary Timetable:

Hearing/ Exchange of views:24.02.2015

________________________________________________________________________________

19

SUBSCRIPTIONS WATCH LIVE: EP website or EuroparlTV

JURI Report: [email protected] Re-Watch: EP multimedia library

JURI Press Releases: [email protected]

CREDITS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

European Parliament - Committee on Legal Affairs

Head of Secretariat: Robert BRAY - Responsible Administrator: Alexander KEYS

Editorial/Production Assistants: Marcia MAGUIRE and Natalia EWIAKOVA

________________________________________________________________________________________________TTIP HEARING OF 27 JANUARY 2015

António Marinho e Pinto

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2191(IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 32/2014

Rapporteur: Kostas Chrysogonos

Administrator: Alexander Keys

Preliminary Timetable:

Hearing: 24.02.2015

Gabriele Albertini

Type of procedure:

Defence of immunity

Procedure: 2014/2096 (IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 7

Notices to Members: 0025/2014,0027/2014, 0029/2014, 0035/2015

Rapporteur: Andrzej Duda

Administrator: Andrea Scrimali

Preliminary Timetable:

Exchange of views: 1-2.12.2014,24.02.2015

Hearing: 24.02.2015

Béla Kovács

Type of procedure:

Waiver of immunity

Procedure: 2014/20441(IMM)

Legal basis: RoP Rule 6

Notice to Members: 31/2014

Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka

Administrator: Carine Piaguet

Preliminary Timetable:

Exchange of views:24.02.2015