DOCSLIB.ORG

KAMMER Entscheidung Der Großen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KAMMER Entscheidung Der Großen 8-9/2001 Amtsblatt EPA / Official Journal EPO / Journal officiel OEB 381 ENTSCHEIDUNGEN DER DECISIONS OF THE DECISIONS DE LA GRANDE GROSSEN BESCHWERDE- ENLARGED BOARD OF CHAMBRE DE RECOURS KAMMER APPEAL Entscheidung der Großen Decision of the Enlarged Décision de la Grande Beschwerdekammer vom Board of Appeal dated Chambre de recours en date 2. April 2001 2 April 2001 du 2 avril 2001 G 1/99 G 1/99 G 1/99 (Übersetzung) (Language of the proceedings) (Traduction) Zusammensetzung der Kammer: Composition of the board: Composition de la Chambre : Vorsitzender: P. Messerli Chairman: P. Messerli Président : P. Messerli Mitglieder: J.-C. Saisset Members: J.-C. Saisset Membres : J.-C. Saisset C. Andries C. Andries C. Andries G. Davies G. Davies G. Davies B. Jestaedt B. Jestaedt B. Jestaedt A. Nuss A. Nuss A. Nuss R. Teschemacher R. Teschemacher R. Teschemacher Patentinhaber/Beschwerdegegner: Patent proprietor/Respondent: Titulaire du brevet/Intimé : MINNESOTA MINING AND MINNESOTA MINING AND MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY MANUFACTURING COMPANY MANUFACTURING COMPANY Einsprechender/Beschwerdeführer: Opponent/Appellant: Opposant/Requérant : Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Ltd. Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Ltd. Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Ltd. Stichwort: reformatio in peius / 3M Headword: Reformatio in peius / 3M Référence : Reformatio in pejus / 3M Artikel: 100, 101 (1), 102 (1), (2) und Article: 100, 101(1), 102(1), 102(2), Article : 100, 101(1), 102(1), 102(2), (3), 106 (1), 107, 108, 112 (1) a), 102(3), 106(1), 107, 108, 112(1)(a), 102(3), 106(1), 107, 108, 112(1)a), 114 (1), 123 (2) und (3), 125 EPÜ 114(1), 123(2), 123(3), 125 EPC 114(1), 123(2), 123(3), 125 CBE Regel: 57a, 58 (2), 64 b), 66 (1), Rule: 57a , 58(2), 64(b), 66(1), 87 EPC Règle : 57bis, 58(2), 64b), 66(1), 87 EPÜ 87 CBE Schlagwort: ”reformatio in peius – Keyword: ”Reformatio in peius – Mot-clé : ”Reformatio in pejus – Ausnahme vom Verschlechterungs- exception to the prohibition” – exception à l’interdiction” – ”Statut verbot” – ”Stellung des Beschwerde- ”Status of appellant/opponent” – du requérant/opposant” – ”Statut du führers/Einsprechenden” – ”Stellung ”Status of appellant/patent requérant/titulaire du brevet” des Beschwerdeführers/Patent- proprietor” inhabers” Leitsatz Headnote Sommaire Grundsätzlich muß ein geänderter In principle, an amended claim, En principe, il convient de rejeter une Anspruch, durch den der Einspre- which would put the opponent and revendication modifiée qui placerait chende und alleinige Beschwerde- sole appellant in a worse situation l’opposant et unique requérant dans führer schlechtergestellt würde als than if it had not appealed, must be une situation plus défavorable que ohne die Beschwerde, zurückgewie- rejected. However, an exception to s’il n’avait pas formé de recours. Il sen werden. Von diesem Grundsatz this principle may be made in order peut néanmoins être fait exception à kann jedoch ausnahmsweise abge- to meet an objection put forward by ce principe afin de répondre à une wichen werden, um einen im the opponent/appellant or the Board objection soulevée par l’oppo- Beschwerdeverfahren vom Einspre- during the appeal proceedings, in sant/requérant ou par la chambre au chenden/Beschwerdeführer oder von circumstances where the patent as cours de la procédure de recours, si der Kammer erhobenen Einwand maintained in amended form would le brevet tel que maintenu sous une auszuräumen, wenn andernfalls das otherwise have to be revoked as a forme modifiée devait sinon être in geändertem Umfang aufrecht- direct consequence of an inadmis- révoqué, cette révocation étant la erhaltene Patent als unmittelbare sible amendment held allowable conséquence directe d’une modifica- Folge einer unzulässigen Änderung, by the Opposition Division in its tion irrecevable que la division die die Einspruchsabteilung in ihrer interlocutory decision. d’opposition avait admise dans sa Zwischenentscheidung für gewähr- décision intermédiaire. bar erachtet hatte, widerrufen werden müßte. Unter diesen Umständen kann dem In such circumstances, in order to Dans de telles circonstances, le titu- Patentinhaber/Beschwerdegegner zur overcome the deficiency, the patent laire du brevet/intimé peut être Beseitigung des Mangels gestattet proprietor/respondent may be autorisé, afin de remédier à cette werden, folgendes zu beantragen: allowed to file requests, as follows: situation, à présenter les requêtes suivantes : 382 Amtsblatt EPA / Official Journal EPO / Journal officiel OEB 8-9/2001 – in erster Linie eine Änderung, durch – in the first place, for an amendment – en premier lieu une requête en die ein oder mehrere ursprünglich introducing one or more originally modification visant à introduire une offenbarte Merkmale aufgenommen disclosed features which limit the ou plusieurs caractéristiques initiale- werden, die den Schutzbereich des scope of the patent as maintained; ment divulguées qui limitent la Patents in der aufrechterhaltenen portée du brevet tel que maintenu ; Fassung einschränken; – falls eine solche Beschränkung – if such a limitation is not possible, – si une telle limitation s’avère nicht möglich ist, eine Änderung, for an amendment introducing one or impossible, une requête en modifica- durch die ein oder mehrere ursprüng- more originally disclosed features tion visant à introduire une ou plu- lich offenbarte Merkmale aufgenom- which extend the scope of the patent sieurs caractéristiques initialement men werden, die den Schutzbereich as maintained, but within the limits divulguées qui étendent la portée du des Patents in der aufrechterhaltenen of Article 123(3) EPC; brevet tel que maintenu, mais dans Fassung erweitern, ohne jedoch les limites de l’article 123(3) CBE ; gegen Artikel 123 (3) EPÜ zu versto- ßen; – erst wenn solche Änderungen nicht – finally, if such amendments are – enfin, si de telles modifications möglich sind, die Streichung der not possible, for deletion of the inad- s’avèrent impossibles, une requête unzulässigen Änderung, sofern nicht missible amendment, but within the tendant à la suppression de la modi- gegen Artikel 123 (3) EPÜ verstoßen limits of Article 123(3) EPC. fication irrecevable, mais dans les wird. limites de l’article 123(3) CBE. Sachverhalt und Anträge Summary of facts and submissions Exposé des faits et conclusions I. Der Vorlage liegt folgender Sach- I. The facts leading to the present I. Les faits ayant conduit à la présente verhalt zugrunde: Die Beschwerde- referral are as follows. The respond- saisine sont les suivants. L’intimé gegnerin ist Inhaberin des europäi- ent is proprietor of European patent est titulaire du brevet européen schen Patents Nr. 0 225 103, das auf No 0 225 103, which was granted on n° 0 225 103, lequel a été délivré sur die europäische Anmeldung the basis of European patent applica- la base de la demande de brevet Nr. 86 308 961.1 erteilt wurde. Die tion No 86 308 961.1. The sole oppo- européen n° 86 308 961.1. L’unique einzige Einsprechende legte als nent lodged an appeal as the sole opposant est le seul à avoir formé un alleinige Beschwerdeführerin appellant against the interlocutory recours contre la décision intermé- Beschwerde gegen die Zwischen- decision of the Opposition Division diaire de la division d’opposition de entscheidung der Einspruchsabtei- maintaining the patent in amended maintenir le brevet sous une forme lung ein, das Patent in geändertem form. The maintained claim 1 com- modifiée. Il est donc le seul requé- Umfang aufrechtzuerhalten. prised a feature which has been rant. La revendication 1 du brevet tel Anspruch 1 enthielt in der aufrecht- added to claim 1 as granted. During que maintenu comprenait une carac- erhaltenen Fassung ein der erteilten the appeal proceedings, the respond- téristique qui avait été ajoutée à la Fassung hinzugefügtes Merkmal. Die ent/proprietor filed a main request revendication 1 du brevet tel que Beschwerdegegnerin/Patentinhaberin including this feature and a first délivré. Au cours de la procédure de reichte im Beschwerdeverfahren auxiliary request deleting it. recours, l’intimé/titulaire du brevet a einen Hauptantrag ein, in dem présenté une requête principale qui dieses Merkmal enthalten war, sowie incluait cette caractéristique et une einen ersten Hilfsantrag, in dem es première requête subsidiaire dans gestrichen wurde. laquelle elle était supprimée. II. In der Vorlageentscheidung II. In the referring decision T 315/97 II. Dans la décision de saisine T 315/97 (ABl. EPA 1999, 554) hielt es (OJ EPO 1999, 554), Technical Board T 315/97 (JO OEB 1999, 554), la die Technische Beschwerdekam- of Appeal 3.4.2 stated that, although Chambre de recours technique 3.4.2 mer 3.4.2 trotz der Feststellung, daß the added feature was based on a a déclaré qu’elle ne pouvait envisa- das hinzugefügte Merkmal auf eine passage of the description, it was not ger de faire droit à la requête princi- Passage in der Beschreibung zurück- able to envisage giving a positive pale, bien que la caractéristique ajou- gehe, nicht für möglich, dem Haupt- decision on the basis of the main tée fût fondée sur un passage de la antrag stattzugeben. Die vorlegende request. The referring Board consid- description. Elle a par ailleurs estimé Kammer vertrat die Ansicht, daß die ered that the deletion of this feature que la suppression de cette caracté- Streichung dieses Merkmals im in the first auxiliary request would ristique dans la première requête ersten Hilfsantrag dazu führen würde, lead to an extension of the protection subsidiaire aurait pour effet d’étendre
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1
    Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2015 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1. decisions [A106(1)] G0005/91 [T0479/04] Article 106i - Decisions subject to appeal Composition of the opposition division, partiality. (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions1 of the Receiving Section2, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divisions3 Under the EPC is no legal basis for separate appeal and the Legal Division. It4 shall have suspensive5 ef- against an order by a director of a department of first fect. instance such as an opposition division rejecting an ob- 6 jection to a member of the division on the ground of (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings suspected partiality. The composition of the opposition as regards one of the parties can only7 be appealed to- 8 9 10 division could however be challenged on such a ground gether with the final decision , unless the decision in an appeal against its final decision or against a sepa- 11 12 allows a separate appeal . rately appealable interlocutory decision under article (3) The right to file an appeal against decisions relating 106 (3) EPC. to the apportionment or fixing of costs in opposition proceedings may be restricted in the Implementing D0015/95 [D0028/97, D0001/98, D0023/99, Regulations. D0024/99, D0009/03, D0025/05, D0004/11] Ref.: Art. 104 R. 63, 65, 68, 90 Of the Disciplinary Committee. PCT: R. 82ter Appealability of a Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint. A Disciplinary Committee de- cision dismissing a complaint is a decision in the legal 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Reform in Serbia 2008–2012
    VESNA RAKIĆ- VODINELIĆ ANA KNEŽEVI Ć BOJOVIĆ MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 CENTAR ZA UNAPREĐIVANJE PRAVNIH STUDIJA prof. dr Vesna Rakić Vodinelić • dr Ana Knežević Bojović dr Mario Reljanović JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Library Editor Prof. dr Jovica Trkulja Published by Center For Advanced Legal Studies Goce Delceva 36, 11 000 Beograd tel: 2608 360, fax:2608 346 e-mail: [email protected], www.cups.rs For The Publisher prof. dr dr.h.c. Vladimir Vodinelic Reviewed by prof. dr Momčilo Grubač prof. dr Mihajlo Dika prof. dr Zoran Ivošević Translated by Ana Knežević Bojović Language Editing Svetlana Imperl Prepress and printing „Dosije studio“, Beograd Circulation 500 copies ISBN 978-86-7546-076-3 dr VESNA RAKIĆ VODINELIĆ dr ANA KNEŽEVIĆ BOJOVIĆ dr MARIO RELJANOVIĆ JUDICIAL REFORM IN SERBIA 2008–2012 Belgrade 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface. 9 Abbreviations. 11 Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić PART ONE I: REFORMING THE JUDICIARY – THE 2008–2010 PERIOD . 13 1. Introductory Observations . 13 1.1. Is There a Formula of „Good Judiciary“? . 13 1.2. Elements of the „Good Judiciary“ Formula. 17 1.3. Judicial Councils . 18 1.4. Legal Reception of European Standards Concerning the Judiciary in Serbia . 22 2. Normative Grounds . 35 2.1. International Legal, Theoretic, Constitutional and Statutory Grounds of the Latest Judicial Reform . 35 2.2. The Constitution and the ConStitutional act for the Implementation Of the Constitution . 39 2.3. Judicial Organisation Statutes . 44 2.4. Decision on Establishing the Criteria and Norms for Assessing the Competence, Capacity and Worthiness for the Appointment of Judges and Court Presidents .
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Border Cooperation in the Execution Of
    Crime, Law and Social Change (2020) 74:381–404 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09900-7 Cross-border cooperation in the execution of sentences between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium: an empirical and comparative legal study on the implementation of EU framework decisions 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA Robin Hofmann1 & Hans Nelen1 Published online: 14 May 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract This study aims at comparing legal practices in the execution of sentences within the framework of cross-border cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium and Ger- many. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the implementation of the EU Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners and 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions in the three countries is analyzed. Interview data with legal practitioners suggest that social rehabilitation, consents of the convicted individuals and the actual place of living, play an important role in the initiations of transfers. Empirical evidence that both Framework Decisions are increasingly instrumentalized for migration control purposes, as the current scien- tific debate suggest, is weak in the three case countries. The relatively small numbers of transfers of prisoners and judgements show, that the transfer instrument is still not implemented to its full potential. This study exemplifies remaining challenges connect- ed to the principle of mutual trust in the daily practice of cross-border legal cooperation within the EU. Keywords Comparative criminal law . Penology . Cross-border cooperation . Sentencing . Crimmigration . Prison population . Prisoner transfer * Robin Hofmann [email protected] 1 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, 6211 LHMaastricht, The Netherlands 382 Hofmann R., Nelen H.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial Translation)
    Constitutional Court Judgment No. 237/2005, of September 26 (Unofficial translation) The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court comprising Mr. Guillermo Jiménez Sánchez, President, Mr. Vicente Conde Martín de Hijas, Ms. Elisa Pérez Vera, Mr. Ramón Rodríguez Arribas and Mr. Pascual Sala Sánchez, Judges, has rendered IN THE NAME OF THE KING the following J U D G M E N T in the appeal for protection proceedings Nos. 1744-2003, 1755-2003 and 1773-2003, the first of which was filed by Ms. Rigoberta Menchú Tumn, Ms. Silvia Solórzano Foppa, Ms. Silvia Julieta Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Santiago Solórzano Ureta, Mr. Julio Alfonso Solórzano Foppa, Mr. Lorenzo Villanueva Villanueva, Ms. Juliana Villanueva Villanueva, Mr. Lorenzo Jesús Villanueva Imizocz, Ms. Ana María Gran Cirera, Ms. Montserrat Gibert Grant, Ms. Ana María Gibert Gran, Ms. Concepción Gran Cirera, Mr. José Narciso Picas Vila, Ms. Aura Elena Farfán, Ms. Rosario Pu Gómez, C. I. Est. Prom. Derechos Humanos, Mr. Arcadio Alonzo Fernández, Conavigua, Famdegua and Ms. Ana Lucrecia Molina Theissen, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Gloria Rincón Mayoral and defended by the attorney Mr. Carlos Vila Calvo, and by the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Isabel Cañedo Vega and defended by the attorney Mr. Antonio García Martín; No. 1755-2003 by the Asociación de Derechos Humanos de España, represented by Court Procurator Ms. Irene Gutiérrez Carrillo and defended by the attorney Mr. Víctor Hortal Fernández; and No. 1773-2003 by Asociación libre de Abogados, Asociación contra la Tortura, Associació d’Amistat amb el Poble de Guatemala, Asociación Centro de Documentación y Solidaridad con América Latina y África and Comité Solidaridad Internacionalista de Zaragoza represented by Court Procurator Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution on Inadmissibility
    * REPUBLIKA E KOSOVEs - PEnYJiJIHKA~ KOCOBO - REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO GJYKATA KUSHTETUESE YCTABHM CY,lJ; CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Prishtina, on 17 December 2020 Ref. no.:RK 1665/20 This translation is unofficial and serves for informational purposes only. RESOLUTION ON INADMISSIBILITY In Case No. KI189/19 Applicant Alban Miftaraj Constitutional review of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO composed of: Arta Rama-Hajrizi, President Bajram Ljatifi, Deputy President Bekim Sejdiu, Judge Selvete Gerxhaliu-Krasniqi, Judge Gresa Caka-Nimani, Judge Safet Hoxha, Judge Radomir Laban, Judge Remzije Istrefi-Peci, Judge, and Nexhmi Rexhepi, Judge Applicant 1. The Referral was submitted by Alban Miftaraj, with permanent address in Prishtina (hereinafter: the Applicant). 1 Challenged decision 2. The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court of 26 June 2019, which was served on him on 15 July 2019. Subject matter 3. The subject matter of the Referral is the constitutional review of the challenged Judgment [ARJ-UZPV. No. 85/2019] of the Supreme Court, of 26 June 2019, which allegedly violates the Applicant's rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] and 55 [Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), in conjunction with Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the ECHR). Legal basis 4. The Referral is based on paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Articles 22 [Processing Referrals] and 47 [Individual Requests] of Law No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice a Few Lessons Learned
    Mass Claims Proceedings in Practice A Few Lessons Learned By Pierre A. Karrer* Every mass claims process is different from the next. Mass claims pro- ceedings are set up by usually complex political processes. Legal and moral is- sues come to the fore. Money matters, but it is particularly important to see that somebody still cares. The relevant facts are difficult to establish and are often traumatic. to the next, a few lessons Still, as one goes from one mass claims1 process may be learned and may be worth recording. 1. SHOULD MASS CLAIMS COMMISSIONS BE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS? 1.1. No. They should, however, be composed and operate to some extent like arbi- tral tribunals. 1.2. To be composed in arbitral fashion gives a mass claims commission legitimacy. The two sides of the controversy, or at least the champions of two sides of a controversy which may involve many more players, have a say about the com- 2 position of the commission. * Dr. iur.(Zurich); LLM (Yale), FCIArb; Hon. President, ASA Swiss Arbitration Associa- tion; Chairman, Property Claims Commission of the German Foundation "Remembrance, Responsi- bility and the Future." The views here expressed are the author's, not necessarily the Commission's. I. For a presentation of the Property Claims Commission's work which is now ending, see Karrer, "Mass Claims to provide rough justice", in Festschrift Peter Schlosser, 2005. See also www.iom.int; www.compensation-for-forced-labour.org. 2. For instance, two members of the Property Claims Commission were appointed by the Governments of the United States of America (Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • NILLESEN POLLITT FINAL Dutch Regulatory Failure7
    Cambridge Working Papers in Economics CWPE 0446 UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics The Consequences for Consumer Welfare of the 2001-2003 Electricity Distribution Price Review in the Netherlands Paul H. L. Nillesen and Michael G. Pollitt Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper 50 Cambridge Working Papers in Economics UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Department of Applied Economics Not to be quoted without permission M assachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research CMI Working Paper THE CONSEQUENCES FOR CONSUMER WELFARE OF THE 2001-2003 ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PRICE REVIEW IN THE * NETHERLANDS Paul H L Nillesen1 Assistant Director, Corporate Finance & Recovery PricewaterhouseCoopers De Entree 201 Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected] Michael G Pollitt2 Senior Lecturer in Business Economics Judge Institute of Management Cambridge CB2 1AG United Kingdom [email protected] September 2004 Abstract The Dutch regulatory process for setting the first X-Factors in the electricity distribution sector has gone badly wrong. During two-and-a-half years four different X-Factors were published by the regulator. These X-Factors fluctuated wildly. We demonstrate that Dutch electricity consumers will pay at least €300mln. more over three years for the distribution of electricity than might otherwise have been the case. We estimate that benefits for the companies in terms of extra revenue from lowered X-Factors amounts to 3~5 percent of total asset value. We provide a history of the regulatory process and analyse the impact of the different X-Factors on the final bills of consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Origin of Specis” (Patent Specifications) BASIC FACTS (A.K.A
    The Origin of Specis (or, nearly everything you wanted to know about patents, but couldn’t be bothered asking) 22.Sep.2021 © Tony McStea 1992-2021 22.Sep.2021 About the Author… (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan) When I was a lad, I served a term As patent tech. assistant in a big paint firm I wrote applications and I argued and tried Patent offices to show that grant was justified And this sort of thing so suited me That now I’m patent attorney in industry. Acknowledgement My grateful thanks to all of you out there who helped me with this revised version by offering comments, corrections, criticisms, suggestions and advice, some of which I ignored, which is why the booklet still exists. The responsibility for any errors (not to mention the mediocre drawings and terrible jokes (or is it mediocre jokes and terrible drawings?)) is entirely mine. The responsibility for any views or opinions expressed herein is also entirely mine. N.B. Most costs mentioned herein were correct (more or less) at June, 2015, but, because of the tendency of official fees to fluctuation (and exchange rates to go up and down like yo-yos), and the consequent work of constantly adjusting them, they have been left as they are and are there to be general guides only. 22.Sep.2021 Note: changes to US Law On 16 March 2013 (thus missing by one day the Blessing of St. Patrick on the entire enterprise), the Leahy-Smith “America invents” Act (AIA), the most significant change to US patent law in half a century, came fully into effect.
    [Show full text]
  • How Could It Go So Wrong? Reformatio in Peius Before the Grand Chamber of the Ecthr in the Case Janowiec and Others V
    XXXIII POLISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DOI 10.7420/pyil2013k 2013 PL ISSN 0554-498X Susana Sanz-Caballero* HOW COULD IT GO SO WRONG? REFORMATIO IN PEIUS BEFORE THE GRAND CHAMBER OF THE ECtHR IN THE CASE JANOWIEC AND OTHERS V. RUSSIA (OR POLISH COLLECTIVE MEMORY DECEIVED IN STRASBOURG) INTRODUCTION By a strange coincidence (or not) on 21 October 2013, the European Court of Hu- man Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) issued two judgments which created social alarm in two European States with a vivid interest in the facts under scrutiny. Both were rulings in cases introduced by individuals ex Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights1 (hereinafter ECHR). However, what was behind them was not only a personal situation. Instead, the people of those States, namely, Poland and Spain, were deeply concerned because the applications touched upon very sensitive issues at the national level. When the verdicts were given, most people in Poland and Spain gasped, because they had been expecting a very specific solution from the European Court which did not come. They turned their eyes towards the Strasbourg Court in disbelief. The ECtHR guarantees the application of the ECHR and its protocols in the ter- ritory of those European States that have ratified the treaties, but only with respect to events which occurred after the State’s ratification. No more, but no less, than that. Its function is not to heal historical wounds, nor to confirm national authorities’ views or policies on sensitive domestic issues such as the fight against terrorism or the search for truth concerning mass crimes committed decades ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Edition 2013
    Key to the European Patent Convention Edition 2013 Part VI Article 106 - Decisions subject to appeal PART VI - APPEALS PROCEDURE 1. decisions [A106(1)] G0005/91 [T0479/04] Article 106i - Decisions subject to appeal Composition of the opposition division, partiality. (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions1 of the Receiv- ing Section2, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divi- Under the EPC is no legal basis for separate appeal sions3 and the Legal Division. It4 shall have suspen- against an order by a director of a department of first sive5 effect. instance such as an opposition division rejecting an 6 objection to a member of the division on the ground of (2) A decision which does not terminate proceedings suspected partiality. The composition of the opposition as regards one of the parties can only be appealed division could however be challenged on such a together7 with the final decision8, unless the deci- 9 10 11 ground in an appeal against its final decision or against sion allows a separate appeal . a separately appealable interlocutory decision under (3) The right to file an appeal against decisions relat- article 106 (3) EPC. ing to the apportionment or fixing of costs in opposi- tion proceedings may be restricted in the Implement- D0015/95 [D0028/97, D0001/98, D0023/99, ing Regulations. D0024/99, D0009/03, D0025/05] Ref.: Art. 104 R. 63, 65, 68, 90 Of the Disciplinary Committee. PCT: R. 82ter Appealability of a Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint. A Disciplinary Committee decision dismissing a complaint is a decision in the 1. decisions [A106(1)] ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reopening of Proceedings in Cases of Trial in Absentia: European Legal Standards and Croatian Law*
    Elizabeta Ivičević Karas, PhD, Associate Professor University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, 10 000 Zagreb [email protected] REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA: EUROPEAN LEGAL STANDARDS AND CROATIAN LAW* ABSTRACT In contemporary criminal procedure, trial in absentia is considered an exception to the general principle that that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part at the hear- ing. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights defined several rules on trial in absentia, as prerequisites of compliance with fair trial standards from Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). One of those rules con- cerns the possibility of retrial. Recently Croatia was condemned before in Sanader case, for vio- lation of the right to a fair trial proclaimed in Article 6 ECHR, for the applicant’s inability to obtain a rehearing after conviction in absentia, without prior surrendering to custody based on that conviction. The execution of Sanader judgment included legislative amendments, which were adopted in July 2017. The paper analyses to what extent the present regulation of reopen- ing of proceedings in cases of trial in absentia in Croatian legislation and practice corresponds to the European legal standards. The paper contains theoretical and normative analysis, as well as the research of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. It showed that in Croatian judicial practice there are doubts on the purpose of reopening of proceedings in case of trial in absentia, which should provide “a fresh determination of the merits of the charge” by a court” in “full respect of defence rights”.
    [Show full text]
  • Case T-822/16: Action Brought on 21 November 2016
    C 22/50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.1.2017 Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978 Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety; — in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25; — in the further alternative, annul the contested decision; — order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law — infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95; — infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; — infringement of the first sentence of Article 60, Article 63(2) and the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/ 2009 and of the principle of reformatio in peius as well as of the right to be heard. Action brought on 21 November 2016 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix) (Case T-822/16) (2017/C 022/68) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S.
    [Show full text]