Pages

Lawyers & Lawcourts Headline

Lawyers & Lawcourts

Thursday 30 June 2011

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, faced a protest outside Parliament over his proposals to restrict the availability of Legal Aid.

As he outlined the Government's plans to reform the criminal justice system, Mr Clarke said Legal Aid would no longer be routinely available in cases including most private family law, clinical negligence, non-discrimination employment, and immigration.
The Sound Off For Justice campaign led a protest in which they presented Mr Clarke with a "Magna Carta cake" to remind him of the "obligations to protect the ancient document’s promises to the British people".
The "Let Them Eat Cake!" party on College Green saw members of the public and MPs gather to cut up the cake to symbolise the "cutting of access to justice for large swathes of the British population".
The Law Society’s president, Linda Lee said: “Back in 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed, it was set out that ‘to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice’.
"The principles set out by Ken Clarke and this Coalition Government are set to go back on all that we have fought for in this country and creates a two-tiered justice system, that favours the rich and leaves the vulnerable and needy with nowhere to turn, when they need it the most. Cameron’s Big Society will be the big loser, if he does not believe that the law is for all.”

Mr Clarke defended the proposals, telling the House of Commons:
"Few of these are easy choices, but they are often disputes about financial issues, rather than life and liberty - it's sensible to give them a lower relative priority," he said.
"Across some of these areas, reformed no win, no fee arrangements will be available.
"But our broader ambition is that people will be encouraged to use alternative, less adversarial means of resolving their problems.
"For private family law cases, the Government is increasing spending on mediation and legal advice in support of mediation by two thirds or £10 million, to £25 million each year. Mediation has a high rate of success in family cases."
He spoke of concern across the House about the future of not-for profit advice centres.
"I agree that they do very important work in providing quality, worthwhile advice of the kind required by very many people who should not need adversarial lawyers," he said.
"However, Legal Aid only represents one of several income streams for many organisations, with 85 per cent of Citizens Advice Bureaux funding coming from other sources, and half of all Bureaux getting no legal aid funding at all."
The Coalition will provide extra funding of £20 million this financial year to improve the effectiveness of advice services, he said.
Under the Bill, defendants who decline legal aid and pay privately in the higher criminal courts will no longer be able to recover the costs of an expensive private lawyer if acquitted.
Firms will be expected to insure against criminal prosecutions and will no longer be able to recover costs.
Mr Clarke also said he had never proposed replacing short-term prison sentences with community sentences for female offenders.
"However if we can increase confidence that they will be meaningfully punitive I think they could make the justice system more sensible in some situations," he said.
He concluded: "If we get this right, the prize is a justice system that properly contributes to a safer, fairer society - a justice system that is user-friendly, that works, that doesn't deny access to justice, and has less daunting waste with costs under control.
"This is a major reforming Bill that I would have liked to introduce 20 years ago if I had stayed long enough at the Home Office."

 

Wednesday 29 June 2011

Bank of America pays £5.3bn to settle sub-prime mortgage claims

Bank of America has agreed to pay $8.5bn (£5.3bn) to settle claims that the bank sold poor-quality mortgage loans to investors ahead of the housing collapse.

The deal represents the single biggest settlement so far tied to the sub-prime mortgage boom and bust. The bank said the settlement covers nearly all the residential mortgage-backed securitisation (RMBS) investments tied to its controversial Countrywide lending unit. The RMBSs had an original balance of $424bn.

The settlement follows legal action from a group of 22 investors including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, and Blackrock, which argued Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors by continuing to service bad loans while running up servicing fees.

The payment would wipe out all the profits that BoA, the US's largest bank by assets, has made since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. The bank will pay $8.5bn in cash to settle the claims and set aside $5.5bn for further possible liabilities tied to sub-prime loans.

Bank of America's chief executive, Brian Moynihan, said: "This is another important step we are taking in the interest of our shareholders to minimise the impact of future economic uncertainty and put legacy issues behind us. We will continue to act aggressively, and in the best interest of our shareholders, to clean up the mortgage issues largely stemming from our purchase of Countrywide."

The bank bought Countrywide for $4.1bn in 2008 just as the largest sub-prime home lender was running aground. It has proved a costly purchase. This is the third settlement Bank of America has made relating to Countrywide in the past six months. In January, the bank paid $2.8bn to settle claims that it mis-sold mortgages to state-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In April, the company and Countrywide signed a $1.1bn agreement with Assured Guaranty to resolve the bond insurer's claims that it to had been misled by the bank. Assured Guaranty's chief executive Dominic Frederico said negotiating with BoA had been like "Chinese water torture".

BoA's shares rose at it appeared to be putting its Countrywide woes behind it. But there are likely to be more settlements to come for BoA and its competitors. The banking industry is being investigated by all 50 state attorneys general over alleged abuses by the biggest mortgage firms. They are pressing the banks to pay up to $30bn in fines and penalties.

In an April research note, Paul Miller of FBR Capital Markets projected that Bank of America could face a total of $25bn of losses from the bad loans. Its rivals JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo also have large exposures to legal claims.

 

Police are urgently reviewing the cases of tens of thousands of crime suspects following a court ruling which restricts officers to bailing suspects for up to 96 hours before they have to be charged or released completely.

Police are urgently reviewing the cases of tens of thousands of crime suspects following a court ruling which restricts officers to bailing suspects for up to 96 hours before they have to be charged or released completely.
The ruling – made by a district judge at Salford Magistrates’ Court and upheld in the high court by Mr Justice McCombe – overturns the previous system, under which suspects could only be detained in the police station for a maximum of 96 hours (four days) but were regularly released on bail for weeks or months while further enquiries are made and then brought in later for more questioning.
More


But under the new rules, bail will be included as time in police custody and if no charge has been issued within four days, suspects will have to be released and can only be arrested again if new evidence is found. Police are concerned that thousands of criminals from shoplifters to murderers could escape prosecution if they cannot be charged within the shortened timeframe.
Sir Norman Bettison, chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, said that police forces were running around “like headless chickens”.
“It’s on the verge of a disaster now because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is, ‘What do we do, boss?’,” Sir Norman said.
“I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go ... my holding position with my officers is that I can’t believe this is what was envisioned,” he said, adding that the force was awaiting advice from the CPS.
Sir Norman said that West Yorkshire police, which represents 5 per cent of the national force, currently has around 4,260 suspects on bail – meaning that around 85,200 suspects are on bail around the country.
The only route to appealing the ruling is through the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that this case has been lodged. However, there is likely to be a significant delay since the three justices who will decide whether the case should be heard by the court have until the end of July to make their decision.
Theresa May, home secretary, acknowledged that the ruling was a matter of “great concern”, and said she was working with the Association of Chief Police Officers on how to advise the police.
“There may be an opportunity to appeal this decision,” Mrs May said. “We are also looking at whether or not it’s necessary to introduce legislation in order to deal with this issue. We are conscious of the concerns this judgment has brought in terms of operational policing.”
The ACPO’s lead for custody, assistant chief constable Andy Adams, said the ruling had a “profound impact” on how police worked and changed the system that had operated for the past quarter of a decade.
“This issue needs clarification so that all those involved in the administration of justice can be clear about the impact and consequences,” Mr Adams said. “We are working in partnership with colleagues across the criminal justice system, particularly the Crown Prosecution Service, and have commissioned a QC to advise on the ruling and its impact on policing.”
“We are working with the Home Office to seek to reduce any immediate impact before the expedited hearing at the Supreme Court,” he added.

Criminals could walk free if they are not charged within 96 hours

The ruling, made by a district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court and backed by the High Court, means an end to the practice of releasing people on bail and calling them back for further questioning later - a common practice in most major inquiries.
Police forces can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release them.
After the four days is up, officers can no longer question suspects and can only rearrest them if they have new evidence, the ruling says.
Police chiefs have been left baffled by the "bizarre" ruling and both the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are currently considering the ramifications for forces across England and Wales.
Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I think this is a matter of great concern.

 

Wednesday 22 June 2011

UK extradition rules are unfairly weighted

THE UNFAIRLY WEIGHTED UK extradition treaty with the US needs a thorough reworking, according to a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) that found that UK citizens, like Gary McKinnon, are not afforded the same legal protection as Americans.
"The committee concludes that the current statutory framework does not provide effective protection for human rights," wrote the group. "The rights most often relevant to extradition are: prohibition of torture; fair trial; liberty and security; private and family life; and prohibition of discrimination."
Because of this the group is asking the UK Government to do more to improve protection for its citizens and specifically their human rights.
"Human rights provisions in the Extradition Act are clearly inadequate. The Government should spell out detailed safeguards in the statutory framework. Parliament should be asked to commence the 'most appropriate forum' safeguard in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and a requirement to show a prima facie case should be added when a person is requested for extradition," explained Dr Hywel Francis MP, the chair of the committee.
"A most appropriate forum safeguard would require the judge in an extradition case to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country."
Cases like Gary McKinnon's have really highlighted how unfair the current laws are, and fittingly extraditions to the US are given some attention in the recommendations.
McKinnon faces a very long sentence if he is extradited to the US, and although at times it has looked likely that the UK secretary of state - it doesn't matter which one - would deny the US request, this has never happened.
This should change, according to the report, and the committee urged that judges be granted the power to refuse extradition requests before they end up before the Home Secretary. This would be a significant change, according to at least one commenter quoted in the report, the human rights group Liberty.
"The flaws of the extradition system have also been highlighted by numerous judges whose role in relation to extradition has, in many cases, been confined to a rubber stamp," it is quoted as saying, while the Freedom Association added this, "the national judiciary's role in the process is just to rubber stamp the extradition of a UK citizen, even if it has grave concerns about the case and about the treatment the citizen will receive."

 

Sunday 19 June 2011

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has been told to pay more than £1,000 to his former landlord, following a county court ruling.



Paul Sampson, 48, succeeded in parts of a legal battle against the former Cabinet Minister over a dispute surrounding offices the Labour MP had rented in Normanton, West Yorkshire.

The dispute centred around four offices the MP rented from Mr Sampson for £80 a week from June 2005 until July 2010.

After he left them last summer, Mr Sampson claimed that there were a number of issues regarding the property and initially sought a total payment of almost £2,000 to cover the costs.

Mr Balls eventually conceded three issues before the case was heard at Leeds County Court yesterday, agreeing to pay a total of £830 for the redecoration of the property, the removal of rubbish and also the removal of furniture left behind.

The MP, who did not attend the hearing, was also ordered to pay £265 towards Mr Sampson’s legal costs.

Mr Balls won his battle against the disputed claims of rent owed to Mr Sampson, paying for a replacement burglar alarm after he had taken one with him and the replacement of a stained carpet.

Mr Sampson claimed he had agreed a five per cent increase in rent with Mr Balls with a gentleman’s handshake, the court heard.

He said he was subsequently owed over £300 as a result, but District Judge John Flanagan turned down his claim, saying there was no memorandum to prove this agreement.

Mr Sampson also asked for £306 to replace a carpet which he claimed had been damaged beyond repair in the space of two areas.

The judge again refused his claim, saying he could have put a point in the tenancy agreement about the maintenance of the carpet but had failed to do so.

Finally, Mr Sampson asked for the replacement of a sophisticated burglar alarm. Nicholas Toms, representing Mr Balls, said that there was no burglar alarm when the MP took over the office and he had to install a new one.

He had to apply to the House of Commons to cover the cost and subsequently took the alarm with him when he moved to his new office in Morley, near Leeds.

Mr Sampson claimed there had been an alarm when Mr Balls moved in and that he should pay to replace it.

The district judge again found in Mr Balls’s favour, saying the evidence suggested there was not an alarm when he had taken over the premises




Monday 13 June 2011

Juror faces charges after contacting defendant on Facebook

A MEMBER OF A JURY in a drugs trial allegedly contacted a defendant through Facebook and is now facing contempt of court charges.
Joanne Fraill from Blackley in Manchester sat on the jury of a major drug dealing trial that had run for 10 weeks and cost upwards of £6m, but the case has been aborted after allegations of juror misconduct.
Fraill is accused of using Facebook to contact one of the defendants in the case, Jamie Sewart, who allegedly asked her to provide information on the jury's ongoing deliberations.
It's not clear how the two came into contact, but presumably Fraill searched for Sewart on Facebook and added her as a friend. We do not yet know the motivations for this contact, but even if it was intended in an innocent manner it throws the entire case into jeopardy.
Both Fraill and Sewart will be brought before Attorney General Dominic Grieve in the High Court in London on Tuesday, where the case against them will be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge.
The case raises questions about what kinds of communications access juries should have. Juries are usually commanded not to discuss the case with anyone outside the courtroom, while in some cases they are sequestered in hotels to prevent them from talking with family and friends.
Social networking, which can be accessed from smartphones and other portable devices, is a new challenge for the courts, but the Administrative Offices of the US Courts issued guidance in February 2010 that jurors should not use websites like Facebook and Twitter.
Members of the press and public in the UK were allowed to send tweets after Lord Judge approved the use of Twitter in the courtroom last December, providing it did not interfere with the case. He might reconsider this decision after this latest court disaster.
Another of the defendants in the case, Gary Knox, who was previously convicted for dealing drugs, is using the revelation to apply for a mistrial on the basis of the juror's inappropriate behaviour, according to The Times.
If Knox and the other defendants manage to get off on the basis of this juror's actions then Fraill could face heavy sanctions. It's likely, however, that the entire jury will be dismissed and the case will be retried with a new jury and tighter rules over what they can and cannot do.
With the cost of this prosecution already in the millions, this case could become even more expensive.

 

The fate of six West Indian prisoners on death row will be decided through the adjudication of the privy council this summer amid fresh pressure from the Caribbean to limit the UK's role in determining capital punishment cases

.

In July, senior British lawyers will fly to St Kitts and Nevis to represent, in local courts, four islanders who have been condemned to hang after being convicted of murdering a key witness in a gangland trial.

The lives of Romeo Cannonier, Louis Gardener, Sheldon Isaac and Ruedeney Williams were saved in 2009 when judges on the judicial committee of the privy council sitting in Westminster granted them a temporary stay of execution – known formally as a "conservatory order". One of the men, Sheldon Isaac, has suffered brain damage from a gunshot. Their appeals could yet return to London.

Next month, the JCPC will hear the case listed as Ernest Lockhart v the Queen. Lockhart faces the rope in the Bahamas; he was found guilty of a fatal shooting on the evidence of a co-defendant.

At the end of the summer, the same court will consider evidence against Marcus Daniel, who has been condemned to death for the murder of a young woman in Trinidad. Doubts have been raised about his mental health and whether he suffers from a severe personality disorder.

A decade after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was set up to act as a supreme court for the region, supposedly replacing the JCPC, death penalty cases and other complex appeals are still being sent to London for adjudication. Only three states – Belize, Barbados and Guyana – have signed up to the CCJ; even Trinidad, where the court is situated, is not a member.

No one expected the historical anomaly of British supreme court justices ruling on such high profile and politically sensitive Caribbean cases to persist for so long. Even the UK judges appear to resent the additional judicial workload.

Reviled by critics in the Caribbean as an obstructive hangover of colonial rule, the work of the JCPC has, however, become increasingly influential around the world. Campaigners against the death penalty claim its jurisprudence has helped to reprieve almost 5,000 prisoners from death row in African states.

The farthest-reaching decision approved by the Privy Council came in a judgment that outlawed mandatory death sentences for murder on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

That ruling has now been adopted by Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. "Death sentences on 900 people in Uganda were commuted; another 4,000 were taken off death row in Kenya last year and about 40 in Malawi - all as a result of those countries adopting privy council precedents," explained Saul Lehrfreund of the London-based Death Penalty Project, which represents most of the applicants who come before the privy council.

The latest influx of capital punishment cases comes as pressure grows for more hangings in the Caribbean. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, has extolled the death penalty as "a weapon in [our] arsenal" to fight the murder rate.

Her government introduced a bill to alter the constitution and sidestep restrictions imposed by the privy council, particularly a 1994 ruling that bans executions not carried out within five years from the date of sentence.

"[The legislation] simply seeks to plug some of the loopholes that have been exploited and manipulated by murderers who have been properly convicted and sentenced to death according to law," Persad-Bissessar said earlier this year. The bill was defeated but the issue remains live.

Trinidad and Tobago's top judge, chief justice,Mr Justice Ivor Archie, commented (pdf) last year: "It takes at least three trips to the privy council and the expenditure of enormous time, financial and other resources to facilitate an execution." The country has more than 40 inmates on death row, but its last hanging was in 1999.

Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar, who run the Death Penalty Project out of the Soho offices of the solicitors Simons Muirhead and Burton, remain unconvinced.

"If [Caribbean countries] made as much effort to try to improve the standard of policing and standard of forensics, that would significantly reduce the crime rate," they said.

"The problem is that the real solution costs too much and won't be done in four years. No one is interested in long-term solutions. Executing a few people is considered [to be] the answer.

"The people are more sophisticated that the politicians. They don't believe the death penalty will have an impact on the crime rate, [though] they may believe [that murderers] need to be killed as retribution."

Most of the British lawyers involved in death row cases work on a pro bono or voluntary basis. Lehrfreund and Jabbar will be joined by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Julian Knowles QC when they go out to St Kitts in July.

The tiny island was the scene of the last execution in the Caribbean in December 2008. Charles Laplace, who was sentenced to death for killing his wife, had not been informed of his right to appeal and was said to hav been suffering from a serious mental imbalance.

In praise of the privy council, Fitzgerald told students at Sussex University last month: "It has outlawed executions after delay; introduced judicial review and natural justice at the mercy stage; struck down the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for murder as unconstitutional; and introduced a new, restrictive approach to the imposition of the death penalty in murder cases."

Appeals from West Indian colonies to the privy council were first heard in 17th century. In a more recent tradition, each country's flag is now raised inside the JCPC courtroom opposite parliament when cases are considered.

In the 1920s, at the height of the British Empire, it was said that people living on a quarter of the world's land could technically bring their appeals to the privy council. There are still 27 jurisdictions outside the UK for which the privy council is the final court of appeal. They include the Channel Islands, British overseas territories such as the Falklands and Gibraltar, and former colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Several Caribbean states have recently tried to quit this relationship. Jamaica and St Vincent both signalled their intent to join the CCJ. Jamaica's attempt was struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds that it required a referendum for approval; in St Vincent a referendum was held but lost. "This may indicate that people don't necessarily trust their politicians and may feel that the JCPC gives an added level of protection," Lehrfreund comments. (The CCJ has been more successful in its functions as an international tribunal, resolving disputes between Caricom nations.)

The outgoing president of the court, Michael de la Bastide, whose tenure comes to an end in August has expressed disappointment that more countries have not signed up to the CCJ. In March this year, he said it would be a "regional catastrophe" if the court was allowed to fail. "The region continues to be beholden to a foreign government for its final court of appeal and, in so doing, is failing to take full responsibility for its legal process."

Two years ago Lord Justice Phillips, the first president of the UK's supreme court, questioned whether some privy council cases needed to be heard by a panel of five justices, as Caribbean cases were taking up a lot of time. He supported the idea of Commonwealth countries establishing their own final courts of appeal.

Mr Justice Archie of Trinidad and Tobago has claimed that "less importance" is given to appeals from the islands. "If you will pardon the cricketing analogy, it looks as though the test side is not necessary to deal with us any more so they could send the 'B' team," he said.

"Do we have to await the final humiliation of being asked to leave? ... After 48 years of supposed independence, it astonishes me that there is even a debate about whether the the CCJ should be our final appellate court.

Asked about its role, a JCPC official said: "The judicial committee of the privy council does not lobby or encourage countries to join or leave its jurisdiction. It is the government's policy to continue to make this service available, and a number of Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries countries have long appreciated the service that some of the UK's most senior judges have offered in providing their final court of appeal. Those judges sit as part of their duties as privy counsellors, and as part of their wider judicial commitment to upholding common law principles."

On its website, the CCJ has a series of frequently asked questions. One inquires about the role of its rival, the privy council in London. Its answer includes the statement: "Persons interpreting and applying the law should be attuned to the relevant dynamics of social interaction, which determine the quality and intensity of human intercourse, and the values conditioning such dynamics… In short, the decisions may tend not to reflect the needs of the society, because the people applying the law would not understand the society."

Disagreements with states that have the death penalty have become politically more pronounced since the UK government made opposition to capital punishment more of an international policy priority. "Abolition of the death penalty is an area that the government is keen to emphasise and put at the forefront of its human rights agenda," Jeremy Browne, the Foreign Office minister and Liberal Democrat MP, declared in January, shortly after visiting Trinidad.

Saturday 11 June 2011

Experts are warning that the UK tax authority is more inclined to prosecute evaders as figures show millions of pounds of unpaid tax has been recouped.


Follow-up enquiries have added millions to the collections made following high-profile disclosure campaigns.

Criminal investigations have been launched into 10 people with offshore accounts and six in medical trades.

Maximum fines for tax evaders have recently increased, but can be reduced for those who come forward voluntarily.

"Criminal investigations have not been the weapons of choice for HM Revenue and Customs, but now they are part of the armoury," said Gary Ashford, representative for the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

Campaigns
Tax evaders include "chip shop owners, taxi drivers and landladies", HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has said. It has been set targets by the government to harvest unpaid tax.

The original campaign aimed at evaders with offshore accounts was launched in 2007 and gathered £400m after 45,000 came forward.

Subsequent inquiries have brought in another £91m and 1,000 enquiries are continuing, the BBC has been told.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas”

Chris Harrison
HMRC
A second campaign was launched in September 2009. This garnered £85m from 5,500 disclosures. Follow-up inquiries yielded another £6m.

Ten criminal investigations are ongoing, although these will not necessarily lead to prosecutions.

New penalties were introduced in April which raised the maximum fine level for those with offshore accounts to 200% of unpaid tax, in addition to the repaying the tax owed.

Mr Ashford said HMRC was taking a "very tough line" against these evaders.

Medics
The tax authority has also threatened to publish the names of people who deliberately evaded tax.

This could have serious implications for those in medical professions who were uncovered as part of a campaign by HMRC targeting that sector, according to Mr Ashford.

Some £10m has been gathered from 1,500 disclosures during the campaign. Six criminal investigations have been launched.

Medical professionals who admitted unpaid tax before 30 June could pay past tax, plus interest, and a penalty of 10% of the unpaid tax.

Mr Ashford advised evaders to make a disclosure, as they could still reduce the penalties they faced by coming forward voluntarily.

More recently, HMRC has launched tax payment campaigns against plumbers and restaurant owners.

"We are confident that these and more cases will be taken forward in the future," said Chris Harrison, HMRC criminal investigations deputy director.

"This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas. We are committed to ensuring everyone pays what they owe so that the maximum is available to spend on public services used by everyone."

Spain has lodged a complaint about plans for an EU-wide patent system with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is obliged to hear the case.



The European Commission has defended the plans, claiming they are not unfair to countries that do not join up.

Plans to streamline cross-border patent protection processes were proposed by 12 EU countries last year, were backed by the European Commission in April and have been supported in all by 25 of the EU's 27 member states.

Under the new plans a European patent holder will make only one application to the European Patent Office for patent protection across the 25 EU countries that have signed up to the scheme, with successful patents being published in English, French or German. The countries hope it will make it easier and cheaper for inventors to safeguard against infringement.

The two countries that have not signed up the plan are Spain and Italy. Though reports have emerged that Italy has also objected to the plans, an ECJ spokesman told OUT-LAW.COM that it has only received an objection from Spain.

Implementation of the plans would not lead to discrimination of businesses in Italy and Spain, Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier has said, according to reports.

"I am confident that the enhanced co-operation procedure presented by the Commission is not discriminatory," Barnier said according to a Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) report. "We are assured that Italian and Spanish business will suffer no discrimination."

The OHIM website and EurActiv news service have reported that Italy, too, has lodged a complaint about the plans, which were made possible by an 'enhanced cooperation' mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This allows groups of nine or more EU countries to use EU structures to make agreements that will bind only those countries which opt in to them.

Italy said that a patent agreement between the other EU countries was an attempt to create a "clique of power" and contravened "the equal right to dignity and the respect for the languages and culture of each member states", according to the EurActiv report.

"Enhanced cooperation was never intended to be used as a divisive instrument, effectively stretched in order to nullify the norms of the European Treaties which call for humanity, but as methods for groups of states to develop means of integration in which other states are not interested," the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, according to a report on the Eur Activ news website.

"The use of enhanced co-operation within the patent sector is contrary to the spirit of the single market, because it tends to create division and distortion within the market, and will thus prejudice Italian businesses," the Ministry said, according to the report.

Spain said future European patents cannot be based on linguistic discrimination, according to the Eur Activ report.

"We cannot understand why Spanish and other languages cannot have the same status of French, English and German," Spain's EU affairs minister Diego Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

"[The Spanish government] insists that the reinforced cooperation mechanism was used to impose a solution which excludes Spain with a mechanism which, paradoxically, was thought up to facilitate the integration of the Member States,” Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

“Spanish is a great European language and Spanish companies, Spanish innovators and patentors cannot be discriminated against for reasons of language," Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

The European Commission has been trying to establish a unitary patent protection system for many years without success.

At the moment obtaining Europe-wide patent protection is only possible by validating a patent registered with the European Patent Office (EPO) in each individual country. To be valid in a country a patent must be translated into its language. The Commission has sought a cheaper system because of what it has said is the prohibitive cost of that process.

In December, 12 member states got together to push for new unifying patent protection regulations. Since December a further 13 countries have backed the proposals.

The countries were forced to revise their plans in March after the European Court of Justice said that the creation of a pan-European Patent Court to rule on disputes would contravene EU laws.

The Court would exist outside of the judicial structures already in place and so would leave citizens potentially without recourse to action though existing EU courts, the ECJ said at the time.

The Council of Ministers, along with the European Parliament, is currently reviewing the enhanced cooperation agreement plans of the 25 EU countries. It recently published draft amendments to the plans that include proposals to establish a dispute system that works within the existing EU judicial structures.

Competition ministers will discuss Italy and Spain's legal challenge at a meeting at the end of this month, according to reports.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NEW STATS