Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IRELAND WILL NEED to hold a referendum amending its constitution before 25 EU member states can proceed with plans to create a single unified system to recognise each others’ patents.
Junior minister Seán Sherlock has confirmed that plans to harmonise the registration and recognition of patents throughout the EU will need the creation of a single court to rule on disputes – and therefore a referendum for Ireland to acknowledge that court.
The Supreme Court has previously held that any transfer of sovereignty, or the transfer of judicial powers to an international body, requires a referendum – meaning a vote will be needed to amend the Constitution so that the new ‘Unified Patent Court’ can be recognised.
The court will rule in disputes that arise as a result of the harmonisation of patents in the 25 EU member states (not including Spain and Poland, which are opting out of the system), and will decide which patent remains in place in examples where conflicting patents are held in separate countries.
Currently, patents can only been enforced on a national level, which means it must be formally translated into one of the official languages of the country concerned. The new system will circumvent this and grant automatic recognition to any new patent.
Responding to Dáil questions from Sinn Féin’s Seán Crowe, Sherlock said the new system was aimed at “enhancing the Single Market for intellectual property”, arguing that the new court would offer “a judicial remedy for unitary patents which will lessen costs and improve legal certainty in the EU.”
He said the referendum was “not without precedent”, however, pointing to a referendum held in 1992 to allow Ireland ratify an Agreement relating to Community Patents which ended up being abandoned before it ever took legal effect.
In that case, though, the referendum formed part of a single proposal put to the electorate alongside the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty – a matter which virtually monopolised the attention of voters at the time.
Final talks on completing the harmonised patent system are due to take place under the Irish presidency of the EU Council.
No time frame was given for the referendum to be held, but Sherlock said the agreement was expected to come into effect some time in 2014 – meaning a referendum may be needed later this year.
It is possible that the referendum, which is unlikely to prompt major public debate, could be put to the public alongside the referendum on abolishing the Seanad – a vote the government intends to hold in the autumn.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Angela Kerins, the reason I no longer donate money to charity.
@David Oppenshore: Well said sir. Money only going to pay CEO salary and outrageous expenses.
No charity, sporting or other such organisation should be given public money unless they first waive any ‘rights’ to protect themselves from public scrutiny of their finances. They can carry on freely without that money if they chose. Take it or leave it.
@Sega Yolo: totally agree
@Sega Yolo: perfectly said.
Imagine that. Kerins took home a ludicrous salary whilst miserably mismanaging the running of a charity and somehow is managing to outdo herself and create a lasting damage on the public’s ability to hold future disasters to account…
Just when you think you know the limits of someone’s toxicity to society, she goes and out does herself once more without even being in the room.
The Irish charity industry is destroyed by the greed of the few!
Vote with your feet,
Don’t give a penny to them!
@Niall Power: will never give a penny to any charity that pays their CEO and subordinates excessive salaries.
The pac committee full of incompetent politicians is not fit for purpose. The questioning of the fai officials the other day was very weak, pure amateurish, they really didn’t know their brief, what questions to ask.
@Adrian: they could have asked what day it was and still not received a straight answer.
@Dave O’Keeffe: they’re not legal experts, they were afraid to ask the questions the other day because of the potential legal repercussions, hence the farce that it was. They need legal experts on those committees, they should be able to come to some arrangement without turning them into tribunals. A bunch of incompetent politicians protecting their own interests, paying themselves 15k fees while asking stupid questions like “how many bank accounts do you have?”, turns the whole process into a joke and achieves nothing.
@Adrian: the questions were 100%. The problem was the FAI officials refused to answer. Nothing the pac can do about that.
@Adrian: They were told what they could ask “legally”. The law seems to protect the wealthy wrongdoers.
People in high positions have to be held accountable in public. However I struggle with the idea of giving the likes of Ruth Coppinger and others the power to carry out public investigations and give them compellabilty. If that became the case I could see people’s good name and reputation coming second to political point scoring.
Totally irrelevant nothing to do with FAI. The FAI is not a charity – it is a business and why they kept quoting the Kerins case is s mystery to me.
Looking at some of the motley members of various committees one would have to be dubious. Some are up to the task but many others fail miserably. Some are rude, arrogant, ill-informed and totally oblivious to their briefs. If they are that determined to cross the line then they should be open to full retribution in the courts. The verdict in the Angela Kearns case was spot on!!
@Chris Gaffney: I don’t know about that, why should good TDs and Senators who ask the difficult questions be muzzled by a ruling like that? I do get that there are some clowns on these committees, and they say things for headlines and there 30 seconds on sixone so the voters back home can see them sticking up to the dubs, but the real nature of these committees should be open, honest and sometimes difficult conversations with people like Delaney.
Lawmakers unhappy that the have to work within the law, my heart goes out to them.
Even if there was no Kerins ruling the public voted to reduce the powers of the committee so they are limited from the offset .
Kerins is looking for and going to get a multi million damages award for her suffering at PAC ..this is the biggest joke of all.
Delaney puffed and bluffed and ran circles round the PAC the Kearins judgment rules thst the PAC cannor go outside its remit or in other words tits terms of reference. Once the PAC keep within its remit lile asking questions on the €1000 loan then it would not fall foul on the Supreme Courts judgement.
Who can afford to bring a case to the High Court or Supreme Court ?
The Courts and Judges are only there to interpret the Law and ensure it is upheld. They do no make law.
If the PAC feel that the ‘Laws’ of our land are not sufficient, then it is up to them as legislators to change the ‘Laws’, so that their tongues are not tied when questioning individuals and agencies about their conduct. They have no one to blame but themselves for the situation the PAC finds themselves in.
1/ The Kerins issue is not case law yet, is awaiting determination on appeal, & is not relevant. Mr. D used the pending determination to ward off awkward questions, left them hanging out there, & thereby damaged his public standing.
2/ The committee did not need to subject anyone, including Mr. Delaney, to interrogation on their income or expenses, & just stay on track about the application of public funds & FAI corporate management. The investigative journalists have put these questions out, the public are expecting the FAI to provide the answers.
3/ Sport Ireland can with hold funding, insist on a forensic audit of the FAI accounts for the years when public funding was drawn down, & require appropriate governance structures, in accordance with the separate reviews already commissioned.
have your say