Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 23k
31 August 2012
Question for written answer E-007754/2012
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

 Subject: Follow-up to Commission's answer to Question E‑005616/2012
 Answer in writing 

In response to the Commission’s answer to Question E‑005616/2012, I have two follow-up questions:

What reasons, in the Commission’s view, can there be for the external consultants’ failure to find the 2005 study on the Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and conclude from it that there is quantitative evidence that plant variety protection does in fact act as an incentive for the production of new plant varieties?

According to the external consultants used by the Commission, representatives of plant breeding firms consider that plant variety protection does in fact provide protection for new plant varieties, while representatives of the Council and the Member State governments consider that this protection does in fact provide an incentive to the production of new plant varieties. Does the Commission have any plans to investigate how it can be that stakeholders in the industry see a different set of advantages in the legislation than the legislators themselves?

Original language of question: SVOJ C 234 E, 13/08/2013
Legal notice - Privacy policy