Bijlagen bij COM(2004)582 - Wijziging van Richtlijn 98/71/EG inzake de rechtsbescherming van modellen

Dit is een beperkte versie

U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2004)582 - Wijziging van Richtlijn 98/71/EG inzake de rechtsbescherming van modellen.
document COM(2004)582 NLEN
datum 14 september 2004
Agreement.

2.5. Financial impact on revenue: [7]

[x] Proposal has no financial implications (involves technical aspects regarding implementation of a measure)

OR

[…] Proposal has financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows:

(NB All details and observations relating to the method of calculating the effect on revenue should be shown in a separate annex.)

(€ million to one decimal place)

+++++ TABLE +++++

4. LEGAL BASIS

(Show main legal basis only.) Article 95 of the EC Treaty.

5. DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS

5.1. Need for Community intervention [8]

5.1.1. Objectives pursued

(Describe the problem(s)/need(s) (in measurable terms) that the intervention is designed to solve/satisfy (the baseline situation against which later progress can be measured). Describe the objectives in terms of expected outcomes (for example as a change in the above baseline situation).

At the time when the Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of the design of spare parts was adopted, it was not possible to harmonise the design regime in relation to the after market in spare parts in the car sector.

The key point is whether design protection could be used for a component part used to repair a complex product and thus in an after-market situation. The current situation is that consumers have no choice and they might be overcharged for spare parts (panels, lighting and automotive glass) to repair their vehicle. The aim is to give consumers a choice as to which spare parts are used to repair their vehicle.

5.1.2. Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluation

(This involves:

(a) explaining how and when the ex ante evaluation was conducted (author, timing and where the report(s) is/are available) or how the corresponding information was gathered;[9]

In 2003 the Commission committed a study to the European Policy Evaluation Consortium (Technopolis, Paris) on impact assessment of the possible options to liberalise the after-market in spare parts.

(b) describing briefly the findings and lessons learnt from the ex ante evaluation.)

Different options on how to liberalise the after-market in spar parts was examined:

Status quo : If national regulations remain unchanged, the privileged position of vehicle manufacturers in the countries where design protection exists today will continue to exist and harmonisation of the internal market is not achieved.

No design protection in the aftermarket : As a consequence, in those Member States where such a protection exists today, the aftermarket will no longer be open solely to the vehicle manufacturers, but, theoretically, to any supplier of automotive glazing, lighting or body panels.

Term-limited protection : After this limited period any producer will be free to produce spare parts. During the term prices could increase since there is no competition.

Remuneration system : Uncertainties over ownership of design rights, fairness and whether all producers of spare parts would pay their remuneration to the original designer, will remain.

Term-limited design protection plus remuneration system : Costs will be relatively high. Probably few independent sector actors will in such a case make the investments.

Conclusions : With this proposal the Commission intends to harmonise and complete the internal market in the area through the full liberalisation of the market for spare parts.

5.1.3. Measures taken following ex post evaluation

(Where a programme is being renewed the lessons to be learned from an interim or ex post evaluation should also be described briefly.)

5.2. Action envisaged and budget intervention arrangements

(This point should describe the logic behind the proposal. It should specify the main actions to achieve the general objective. Each action should have one or more specific objectives. These should indicate the progress expected over the proposed period. They should also look beyond immediate outputs but be sufficiently precise to allow concrete results to be identified. Specify for each main action:

the target population(s) (specify number of beneficiaries if possible);

Vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, auto repair shops, insurers and final consumers.

the specific objectives set for the programming period (in measurable terms);

preparation of a proposal amending Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs.

the concrete measures to be taken to implement the action ;

the immediate outputs of each action; and

the contribution of these outputs to the expected outcomes in terms of satisfying needs or solving problems

Information should also be given on the budget intervention arrangements (rate and form of the required financial assistance).)

5.3. Methods of implementation

(Specify the methods to be used to implement the planned actions: direct management by the Commission using either regular or outside staff or by externalisation. In the latter case, give details of the arrangements envisaged for this externalisation (TAO, Agencies, Offices, decentralised executive units, management shared with Member States - national, regional and local authorities.)

Indicate the effect of the externalisation model chosen on the financial intervention, management and support resources and on human resources (seconded officials, etc.).)

6. FINANCIAL IMPACT

6.1. Total financial impact on Part B - (over the entire programming period)

(The method of calculating the total amounts set out in the table below must be explained by the breakdown in Table 6.2. )

6.1.1. Financial intervention

Commitments (in € million to three decimal places)

+++++ TABLE +++++

6.1.2. Technical and administrative assistance, support expenditure and IT expenditure (commitment appropriations)

+++++ TABLE +++++

6.2. Calculation of costs by measure envisaged in Part B (over the entire programming period)[10]

(Where there is more than one action, give sufficient detail of the specific measures to be taken for each one to allow the volume and costs of the outputs to be estimated.)

Commitments (in € million to three decimal places)

+++++ TABLE +++++

If necessary explain the method of calculation

7. IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

Human and administrative resource requirements will be covered from within the budget allocated to the managing DG in the framework of the annual allocation procedure.

7.1. Impact on human resources

+++++ TABLE +++++

7.2. Overall financial impact of human resources

+++++ TABLE +++++

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

7.3. Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

+++++ TABLE +++++

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

(1) Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.

+++++ TABLE +++++

(In the estimate of human and administrative resources required for the action, DGs/Services must take into account the decisions taken by the Commission in its orientation/APS debate and when adopting the preliminary draft budget (PDB). This means that DGs must show that human resources can be covered by the indicative pre-allocation made when the PDB was adopted.

Exceptional cases (i.e. those where the action concerned could not be foreseen when the PDB was being prepared) will have to be referred to the Commission for a decision on whether and how (by means of an amendment of the indicative pre-allocation, an ad hoc redeployment exercise, a supplementary/amending budget or a letter of amendment to the draft budget) implementation of the proposed action can be accommodated.)

8. FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

8.1. Follow-up arrangements

(Adequate follow-up information must be collected, from the start of each action, on the inputs, outputs and results of the intervention. In practice this means (i) identifying the indicators for inputs, outputs and results and (ii) putting in place methods for the collection of data).

8.2. Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation

(Describe the planned schedule and arrangements for interim and ex post evaluations to be carried out in order to assess whether the intervention has achieved the objectives set. In the case of multiannual programmes, at least one thorough evaluation in the life cycle of the programme is needed. For other activities ex post or mid-term evaluations should be carried out at intervals not exceeding six years.)

A study on ex-post evaluation could be envisaged within the framework of the Design Directive as a whole.

9. ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

(Article 3(4) of the Financial Regulation: "In order to prevent risk of fraud or irregularity, the Commission shall record in the financial statement any information regarding existing and planned fraud prevention and protection measures.")

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORMTHE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES( SMEs)

Title of proposal

Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/71/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs.

Document reference number

COM(2004) 582

The proposal

1. Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of the design of spare parts was adopted on 13 October 1998. At the time, it was not possible to harmonise the design regime in relation to the after market in spare parts. There was a lack of agreement on the role of design protection in respect of “must match” spare parts for complex products. Therefore, at present article 14 of the Directive stipulates that Member States shall maintain their existing laws in this regard and may change those provisions only in a way that liberalises the spare parts market.

The Commission committed itself to analysing the consequences of the provisions of Directive 98/71/EC for Community industry, for consumers, for competition and for the functioning of the internal market, in particular considering harmonisation, and, after consultation with the parties most affected, the Commission committed itself to proposing to the European Parliament and to the Council, any changes to Directive 98/71/EC needed to complete the internal market.

The impact on business

2. Who will be affected by the proposal?

- which sectors of business?

In principle, all sectors are affected by compliance with intellectual property, but in particular full liberalisation will benefit independent producers and distributors of component parts of complex products. A complex product is composed of multiple components which can be replaced permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product, such as cars, bikes, motorbikes, watches or electrical household appliances.

According to an extended impact assessment undertaken, the sector which will be most affected, given its economic value, is the automotive market. This market is supplied by parts manufacturers of which there are three groupings:

- vehicle manufacturers

- original equipment suppliers

- independent suppliers.

- which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and medium-sized firms)?

It concerns both large and small businesses, in particular those active in the field of creation and innovation. Estimates for the annual volume of the total EU market in automotive replacement parts range from 42 to 45 billion €, of which the market in replacement body panels, auto glazing and lighting units is estimated to account for approximately 25% or 9-11 billion €.

- are there particular geographical areas of the Community where these businesses are found?

The entire territory of the Community is concerned (repair shops). Production of personal vehicles was just under 15 000 000 per annum in 2001 and 2002, with a slight decrease in production in 2002. Germany and France together account for about half of production, and Spain, UK, Italy and Belgium for another 40%, the remainder being produced in Austria, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

3. What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

The abolition of design protection for spare parts in the aftermarket will enhance competition. The means of enforcing intellectual property rights and competition law are available to businesses by the legislation of the Member States.

4. What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?

The extended impact assessment study focused on the automotive sector, given the economic impact in this sector, however its conclusions and subsequent harmonisation at European level are of application to any sector where replacement and repair of complex products occur.

- on employment

Liberalisation would have an affect on who produces the spare parts and the channels trough which they are distributed and sold, but no direct link is expected with an increase or a decrease in employment. New actors may emerge in any link of the value chain or existing actors may change role. No quantitative increase can be calculated at this stage, nevertheless any change, however small it might be, will have a substantial beneficial impact for the independent sector, given the huge market at stake.

- on investment and the creation of new businesses

Liberalisation of the design protection regime will open markets hitherto closed to competition and create a European market of sufficient scale that new entrants will be expected.

- on the competitiveness of businesses

Competition in the automotive repair sector is affected not only by the design protection regime, but also by broader initiatives aimed at reforming the overall structure of the motor vehicle sector. In 2002 the Commission adopted a new Regulation (EC) no. 1400/2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle industry. With the expiry of the so-called Block Exemption Regulation 1475/95 there is the prospect of increased competition in the sale of vehicles to consumers and increased access to original equipment parts within the servicing and repair sector. Changes in distribution of spare parts may take place, but under influence of Block Exemption Regulation, and hence will not apply to design protected parts. In the countries concerned, the consumer therefore will eventually have a choice of repairer for body-integrated parts but no choice of the parts themselves. This proposal intends to remedy such situation and lead to increased competition in all parts of the chain:

- between suppliers of the different types of parts, with increasing competition coming from outside Europe;

- between VMs and their suppliers who will compete for control of distribution;

- between VMs and independent distribution;

- between the formerly “franchised dealerships” segment and the independent distribution and repair segments but also within each individual segment;

- between insurance companies.

- on the consumer

Insurers are in effect the primary or immediate consumers in much of the replacement parts market, in as much as the share of insurance covered by Casco, for the rest and the remainder of the market, end consumers pay directly for replacement parts. The final consumer has a direct interest in the quality of the repair insofar as it affects the subsequent appearance, safety and value of the vehicle.

The issue of the safety, quality and structural integrity of spare parts are clearly crucial for consumers. However design protection rewards the intellectual effort of the creator of a design and protects the appearance of the product, not its technical qualities. If the design of a bumper is not protected because it does not fulfil the requirement of novelty, it does not necessarily mean that it is less safe than another protected bumper. Even more when the same manufacturer would produce both parts for the car manufacturer and for the independent or retail repairer.

5. Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements etc)?

The proposal does not contain specific measures for SMEs.

Consultation

6. List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their main views.

As a first step in the consultation exercise, the Commission had bilateral discussions with the five main groups concerned with a view to obtaining a clearer picture of the economic issues revolving around spare parts for cars and motorcycles, in particular body parts. These main groups are: vehicle manufacturers (including car and motorcycle manufacturers, represented by ACEA, ACEM, UNICE), suppliers (CLEPA), independent component producers (ECAR), insurance companies (CEA), and consumer organisations (AIT/FIA, BEUC, and FEMA). In order to prepare for these bilateral discussions, the services of the Commission drafted a questionnaire (Annex I) on the economic situation concerning spare parts for cars and motorcycles, and more specifically body parts. This questionnaire was sent to all the mentioned organisations in November 1999, responses reached the Commission by June 2000.

Then the Commission started bilateral discussions with the mentioned parties, additionally individual companies and organisations, which are represented by each of those groups, have been invited to attend these meetings. Meetings with ACEM, CLEPA, CEA, ACEA, FEMA, ECAR, BEUC, and AIT/FIA took place.

The results of this consultation showed a wide divergence on the position of interested parties, in particular between producers of complex products and independent producers of component parts of such complex products.

Manufacturers of complex products consider that design protection for spare parts is an inevitable consequence of the Intellectual Property Right (“IPR”) concerned. The existence of a design right provides compensation for investment in design and also rewards creativity. As such it parallels other IPRs. According to this view, primary and after-markets are not separable, and to make any such distinction would be artificial and should be avoided in the interests of consistency in the application of general IPR principles.

Independent producers of component parts of complex products, however, consider that design protection for spare parts creates unjustified monopoly situations in the after-market. The prices of spare parts of equivalent quality are lower where they are not design-protected. They say that a limit to this IPR must be established to avoid a negative impact on competition, and that this is the only way to avoid manufacturers gaining full control over the after-market.

In June 2003, the Commission launched an extended impact assessment study of the possible options to liberalise the aftermarket in spare parts. The study focused on the automotive sector, given the economic impact in this sector; however its conclusions and subsequent harmonisation at European level are applicable to any sector where replacement and repair of complex products occur. The Commission received the final report end of November 2003.

The following interested parties were consulted:

- ACEA, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (collective interview, contact: M. Greven); 2 meetings were organised with representatives of ACEA’s members

- Michel Aribard, Jean-Paul Blin, French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry

- Gabriel de Bérard, President, FEDA, Fédération des Syndicats de la Distribution Automobile

- Ralf Bergner (Chief Executive), Lars Homqvist (Vice-President), Ad Ham (Chair of Aftermarket Working Group & Managing Director Automotive Europe of Bosal NV), Clepa, European Association of Automotive Suppliers

- CCFA, le Comité de Constructeurs Français d’Automobile (contact: N. Mignotte & H. Perreau); 1 meeting was organised with representatives of the French car manufacturers

- Miguel Angel Cuerno, ANCERA (Associación Nacional de Comerciantes de Equipos, Recambios, Neumàticos y Accessorios para Automóviles) independent Spanish parts distributors

- Carlo Dellacasa, ANFIA (Italian National Association for Automotive Industry), Components group

- Isabelle Fourrier (Legal Counsel) / Menno Schönlank (Marketing Director, Aftermarket Activity), Valeo

- Renatto Gallo, ASCAR (Italian Association of producers and sellers of independent spare parts for cars)

- Philippe Gaultier, Marketing director, Plastic Omnium

- Jack Gills, Executive Director, the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA), USA

- Sylvia Gotzen, Secretary General, Figiefa, International Federation of Automotive Aftermarket Distributors

- Sabine Gluthe (Intellectual Property Management) / Karl-Heinz Hinz (Quality Management) / Gerhard Bauer (Chief Trademark Councel), DaimlerChrysler

- Teresa Herrero, ANFAC Asociacion española de fabricantes de automoviles et camiones

- Jean-Louis Marsaud, Director, Comité Européen d’Assurances

- Martin McGreavy, Sales & Marketing Manager, EV (parts wholesalers)

- Jacques Monnet (Chief Executive) / Christian Boure (General Secretary), Fiev, the (French) Federation of Automotive Suppliers

- Miguel Angel Obregon, Sernauto, the Spanish association of component manufacturers for the automotive industry

- Gerhard Riehle, ECAR Campaign Coordinator

- Peter Roberts, Chief Executive, Thatcham

- Louis Shakinovsky (Legal Director) / Katherine Marshall (Senior Group Legal Counsel)/ Marcus Schmidt (Strategy Development Manager), Belron

- Brian Spratt, Chief Executive, Automotive Distribution Federation (UK)

- Marie-Pierre Tanugi-de Jongh, Directeur, A+Glass

- Roger Thomas, Vice President, Aftermarket Operations Europe, Pilkington AGR (UK) Ltd. Also member of the Groupement Européen des Producteurs de Verre Plat’s Aftermarket working group.

- Victoria Villamar Bouza, Legal Officer, BEUC Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs

- Martin Wiedermann, Automotive Lighting


[1] PB L 289 van 28.10.1998, blz. 28.

[2] PB L 203 van 1.8.2002, blz. 30.

[3] "…bestaat er geen bescherming als Gemeenschapsmodel voor een model dat een onderdeel vormt van een samengesteld voortbrengsel dat in de zin van artikel 19, lid 1, wordt gebruikt voor de reparatie van dit samengestelde voortbrengsel om het de oorspronkelijke uiterlijke kenmerken terug te geven".

[4] PB C […] van […], blz. […].

[5] PB C […] van […], blz. […].

[6] PB C […] van […], blz. […].

[7] For further information, see separate explanatory note.

[8] For further information, see separate explanatory note.

[9] For minimum information requirements relating to new initiatives, see SEC(2000) 1051.

[10] For further information, see separate explanatory note.