[A2k] IP & Commission work programme - EU Speech by McCreevy ]
Michelle Childs
michelle.childs@cptech.org
Fri Jun 23 12:07:15 2006
--
Note comments on patents, levies and term extensions. Thanks Cornelia!
Michelle
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DSPEECH/06/400=
&type=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
<http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DSPEECH/06/40=
0&type=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den>
SPEECH/06/400
Charlie McCreevy
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
The Commission's work programme for 2007
European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI)
Brussels, 21 June 2006
Mr Chairman, Honourable Members,
It is a pleasure for me to be here today. It has become tradition that
every spring Commissioners discuss with the Parliamentary Committees
responsible for their respective portfolio the priorities for the
forthcoming year. I welcome such opportunities because I recognise that
the Commission does not have a monopoly on good ideas.
In setting policy priorities, we must make sure that what we do matters to
citizens and companies that live their lives in the real world, far away
from inter-institutional dialogues, reflection periods, co-decision and
qualified majority voting. As elected representatives of our citizens, you
reflect a wealth of experience and are familiar with the hopes and
concerns of the bulk of our companies and people that never make it to
Brussels or Strasbourg to plead their case. Their input via you in
priority setting is crucial if we want policy that makes a difference for
them.
Without pretending to cover all aspects of our ongoing and future
initiatives, let me offer you some views on a number of issues I consider
important for the development of the internal market in the next months
and in 2007.
But let me begin by reiterating that I do not regard a short legislative
agenda as anything to be ashamed of. The number of directives proposed or
adopted is not a yardstick for success. For me, success is making it
easier for business and consumers to take up and pursue business
opportunities. An integrated market without internal barriers that is not
stifled by excessive and detailed legislation or harmonization is the best
service we can render our companies and consumers.
Studies have shown that in the 10 years since 1992, GDP in the EU has
risen by an extra 1.8% on account of the Internal Market and 2.5 million
extra jobs were generated by it. This is what matters. I am convinced that
in continuing to make it easier for companies and consumers to operate
across borders we can extend this success and see more growth and more
jobs being created as a result of the Internal market. This does not
require dozens of legislative measures. The bulk of the internal market
legal framework really is already in place. I accept that it is not always
applied properly, but no amount of new legislation will change this.
We should make existing laws work. This requires ownership. It also
requires companies and countries to have more confidence in their own
abilities. They must see the internal market as an opportunity, not as a
threat.
Agreeing on legislation in Brussels is just the start of a process. What
is agreed must be implemented and applied. Community law serves a broader
purpose than merely being a playground for academics and university
students or an inexhaustible source of litigation for lawyers.
Opening up markets is a two-way street. I am still to come across a
country or a business that does not want to gain access to other markets
but too often such ambitions do not instil a sense of reciprocity and
protectionist rhetoric undermines the very foundations of the internal
market.
But I am in no way pessimistic. It is our job to work to make the Single
Market the reality and provide the benefits to our citizens. We have
plenty of opportunities ahead of us. The world is changing and we must
change with it. Just as a business has to keep up to date - watching
carefully for changes in the market place or for new opportunities - so we
in the European Union have to make sure that what we are doing remains
relevant and effective. We need to make the most of the advantages we
enjoy.
Taking periodic stock. Planning ahead. These are good disciplines. That is
why the Commission in its "Citizens' agenda" has announced that it is
undertaking a fundamental and forward-looking review of the Internal
Market.
In this, we will seek to reach a shared assessment of where we are and
where we should be going. The Parliament's views on this will, of course,
be very valuable. The Commission will report by June 2007, with an interim
report going to the Spring European Council next March. Now that I have
set out some of my overall views on the Internal Market, let me highlight
some specific activities that fall within the remit of this Committee.
Company law and corporate governance
First on the recent public consultation on the Company Law and Corporate
Governance Action Plan. The first phase of implementing the Action Plan
presented under the previous Commission has been completed. Nearly all
measures scheduled have been adopted. Even more importantly, they are
starting to make a difference on the ground. More transparency, better
governance, more reliable information for investors.
Before moving on I decided to consult stakeholders. We must bear in mind
that the business environment is constantly changing. I want to make sure
that what we propose reflects businesses' needs and realities. Quality
instead of quantity, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
More than 250 respondents from the EU and third countries have sent us
their views, generally supporting the work done since 2003. A number of
respondents expressed their "regulatory fatigue" and called for a
stabilisation period - except for the "enabling legislation", such as the
directive on the Transfer of Registered Office or the Statute of a
European Private Company, currently under study. We will be particularly
attentive to tomorrow's hearing organised by this committee. The result of
the consultation will be published in a detailed report.
The proposal for a directive on the exercise of voting rights by
shareholders currently on your table, got strong support in the
consultation. I would like to thank you for the work you are doing. I am
sure you will agree with me that we should pursue our objective to obtain
an agreement as soon as possible. Shareholders and companies rely on us to
solve problems quickly. We must equip our rules in this area for the 21st
Century.
Intellectual property
I would also like to say a few words on intellectual property rights.
Intellectual property rights are at the heart of a knowledge-based
economy. Innovation is key for Europe's chances to remain competitive.
Protection of intellectual property stimulates and rewards innovation. A
solid legal framework is essential. We must get this right. We also need
to keep up. Compared to others, Europe is losing ground. We need to see
where progress can be made.
The Community Patent remains blocked in the Council pending a solution on
the language regime. No workable consensus on the patentability of
Computer Implemented Inventions was possible. Opinions remain divided on
this question. From my side I maintain the position I gave when the
Parliament rejected the Common Position. I will not bring a new initiative
forward on this during my time as Commissioner for the Internal Market. I
will leave this choice to my successor.
Recognising the economic importance of patents, I felt it was not a good
thing to leave the entire patent agenda in limbo. For this reason we
launched early this year a broad consultation on future patent policy in
Europe. The consultation was a considerable success in terms of
stakeholders' participation. We have received 2000 replies.
The next step is a public hearing on 12 July. The hearing will focus on
four topics: the principles and values that underpin the patent system;
the proposed Community patent; non-Community initiatives such as the
London Protocol and the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA); and
possible areas for harmonisation at Community level. I am very pleased
that the European Parliament has shown interest in this consultation, in
particular, that your Chairman, Mr Gargani, has agreed to be the first
speaker at the hearing.
We intend to publish a report summarising the outcome of the written
consultation and of the public hearing. I hope to come back here to
discuss the conclusions with you in the autumn. One thing is certain,
progress in the patent field has to be made. Businessmen, faced with a
21st century global economy, scratch their heads in disbelief when they
see us stuck in discussions about language regimes and regional
distribution of courts. What they want is a cheaper and reliable patent
system. That's why I think we should look at all possible routes forward,
be they Community or non-Community initiatives.
On the related issue of design protection, the so-called 'spare parts
proposal', we have seen little progress. I can only regret this.
Over-protecting the designs market does nothing to stimulate
competitiveness - on the contrary, this may just perpetuate "economic
rents". I have no doubt that the adoption of this proposal would result in
more choice and lower prices. There are economic benefits to be gained -
for consumers as well as industry. Consumers will benefit from lower
prices and more choice. Business will benefit because newcomers will have
a chance to enter this market and create growth and jobs.
Safety issues have been raised repeatedly. Safety must remain a primary
concern, but let me stress that this concern has already been addressed by
other EU laws, for instance by the type approval framework directive in
the automobile sector. I hope that discussions on the "spare parts
proposal" can resume quickly. Businesses and consumers are waiting for
concrete results. This is what they are entitled to.
On copyright, I look forward to your opinion on the Recommendation on
Online Music which the Commission adopted last year. We are now monitoring
its impact. I am pleased to be able to report that things already seem to
be moving forward. We have seen a number of deals for EU-wide licences
struck since the start of this year, and we are also seeing moves towards
improved governance in the more forward-looking collecting societies.
In bringing forward the Recommendation, we wanted to inject a bit of pace
into the online music market. It is an area with rich potential for
growth, to the ultimate benefit of all concerned - business, rightsholders
and consumers. We are also looking at the question of copyright levies.
This is on our work programme for later this year. We fully share the view
that copyright holders deserve to be rewarded for their work. But we need
to ensure that this is done in a fair, efficient and equitable way.
Levies - on media and equipment - impose a cost on both producers and
consumers. We need to be sure that this is the most appropriate way to
reward rights holders and to examine whether it is putting a brake on
innovative products and services. Through digital rights management, there
are new technological means through which rights holders can, more
directly, protect their interests. The key question is whether existing
levies imposed on digital devices should be reduced or phased out and be
replaced by direct payment systems. We have launched a consultation to get
the views of consumers and stakeholders. I have written to your chair
about this and would very much welcome your views on this process.
Finally there is the question of the term of protection for sound
recording and its role in fostering a more competitive EU phonogram
industry. Currently, the term of protection for performers and producers
is fifty years from the time of a recording. The question is whether this
should be extended possibly to match the USA which offers 95 years'
protection.
Performers feel that they are entitled to greater protection, at least for
their own lifetimes. The European music industry claims an extension is
vital for its competitiveness. The results of an impact assessment will be
available by the end of 2006. We are consulting all stakeholders during
this process with an open mind.
While not primarily within the remit of this Committee, I do want to make
some final remarks on the Services Directive.
I was delighted that Ministers were able to reach a political agreement on
29 May. No Member State voted against. The text of the agreement is very
close to the Commission's amended proposal, which in turn reflected
closely the compromise reached in this House.
The result is a balanced and workable text that will deliver substantial
benefits to the services sector and that retains the core of our ambitions
in this sector, namely facilitation of establishment, freedom to provide
services and administrative co-operation and simplification. This is a
truly remarkable achievement, especially when one considers how much
progress we have been able to make, against the odds, in the past 12
months. We should capitalise on the political momentum that this proposal
has now gathered to complete the second reading as soon as possible. The
earlier this happens, the earlier we will be able to reap the economic
benefits in terms of growth, competitiveness and jobs.
Parliament has delivered the breakthrough on this proposal. Everyone
recognises this. The Compromise reached in February was balanced. It was
also fragile. Therefore I took it upon me to defend it before the Council
who accepted it without changing the crucial provisions. The Council's
political agreement is equally balanced and fragile and I call upon
Parliament not to unpick it.
The position of the Council, the Parliament and the Commission have
converged so much on this proposal that I think it is fair to say that
there is overall consensus. We should not undermine this by pursuing
further changes that will not have much of a material effect anyway.
Chairman, Honourable Members,
An exchange of views is something quite different from a monologue. I am
here to hear your views. I have set out mine but think we should hear from
you now.
Thank you.
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
--
[ Converted text/html to text/plain ]
fyi
Cornelia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
De: BEUC - news
Date: jeu. 22/06/2006 12:12
=C0: BEUC - legal; BEUC - economic
Cc: BEUC - communications; BEUC - Institutional; BEUC - news; Karim Trabels=
i
Objet : intellectual property & Commission work programme - EU Speech by
McCreevy
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DSPEECH/06/400=
&type=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den[1]
SPEECH/06/400
Charlie McCreevy
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services
The Commissions work programme for 2007
European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI)
Brussels, 21 June 2006
Mr Chairman, Honourable Members,
It is a pleasure for me to be here today. It has become tradition that ever=
y
spring Commissioners discuss with the Parliamentary Committees responsible =
for
their respective portfolio the priorities for the forthcoming year. I welco=
me
such opportunities because I recognise that the Commission does not have a
monopoly on good ideas.
In setting policy priorities, we must make sure that what we do matters to
citizens and companies that live their lives in the real world, far away fr=
om
inter-institutional dialogues, reflection periods, co-decision and qualifie=
d
majority voting. As elected representatives of our citizens, you reflect a
wealth of experience and are familiar with the hopes and concerns of the bu=
lk
of our companies and people that never make it to Brussels or Strasbourg to
plead their case. Their input via you in priority setting is crucial if we
want policy that makes a difference for them.
Without pretending to cover all aspects of our ongoing and future initiativ=
es,
let me offer you some views on a number of issues I consider important for =
the
development of the internal market in the next months and in 2007.
But let me begin by reiterating that I do not regard a short legislative
agenda as anything to be ashamed of. The number of directives proposed or
adopted is not a yardstick for success. For me, success is making it easier
for business and consumers to take up and pursue business opportunities. An
integrated market without internal barriers that is not stifled by excessiv=
e
and detailed legislation or harmonization is the best service we can render
our companies and consumers.
Studies have shown that in the 10 years since 1992, GDP in the EU has risen=
by
an extra 1.8% on account of the Internal Market and 2.5 million extra jobs
were generated by it. This is what matters. I am convinced that in continui=
ng
to make it easier for companies and consumers to operate across borders we =
can
extend this success and see more growth and more jobs being created as a
result of the Internal market. This does not require dozens of legislative
measures. The bulk of the internal market legal framework really is already=
in
place. I accept that it is not always applied properly, but no amount of ne=
w
legislation will change this.
We should make existing laws work. This requires ownership. It also require=
s
companies and countries to have more confidence in their own abilities. The=
y
must see the internal market as an opportunity, not as a threat.
Agreeing on legislation in Brussels is just the start of a process. What is
agreed must be implemented and applied. Community law serves a broader purp=
ose
than merely being a playground for academics and university students or an
inexhaustible source of litigation for lawyers.
Opening up markets is a two-way street. I am still to come across a country=
or
a business that does not want to gain access to other markets but too often
such ambitions do not instil a sense of reciprocity and protectionist rheto=
ric
undermines the very foundations of the internal market.
But I am in no way pessimistic. It is our job to work to make the Single
Market the reality and provide the benefits to our citizens. We have plenty=
of
opportunities ahead of us. The world is changing and we must change with it=
.
Just as a business has to keep up to date watching carefully for changes in
the market place or for new opportunities so we in the European Union have =
to
make sure that what we are doing remains relevant and effective. We need to
make the most of the advantages we enjoy.
Taking periodic stock. Planning ahead. These are good disciplines. That is =
why
the Commission in its Citizens agenda has announced that it is undertaking =
a
fundamental and forward-looking review of the Internal Market.
In this, we will seek to reach a shared assessment of where we are and wher=
e
we should be going. The Parliaments views on this will, of course, be very
valuable. The Commission will report by June 2007, with an interim report
going to the Spring European Council next March. Now that I have set out so=
me
of my overall views on the Internal Market, let me highlight some specific
activities that fall within the remit of this Committee.
Company law and corporate governance
First on the recent public consultation on the Company Law and Corporate
Governance Action Plan. The first phase of implementing the Action Plan
presented under the previous Commission has been completed. Nearly all
measures scheduled have been adopted. Even more importantly, they are start=
ing
to make a difference on the ground. More transparency, better governance, m=
ore
reliable information for investors.
Before moving on I decided to consult stakeholders. We must bear in mind th=
at
the business environment is constantly changing. I want to make sure that w=
hat
we propose reflects businesses' needs and realities. Quality instead of
quantity, if it aint broken, dont fix it.
More than 250 respondents from the EU and third countries have sent us thei=
r
views, generally supporting the work done since 2003. A number of responden=
ts
expressed their "regulatory fatigue" and called for a stabilisation period
except for the "enabling legislation", such as the directive on the Transfe=
r
of Registered Office or the Statute of a European Private Company, currentl=
y
under study. We will be particularly attentive to tomorrows hearing organis=
ed
by this committee. The result of the consultation will be published in a
detailed report.
The proposal for a directive on the exercise of voting rights by shareholde=
rs
currently on your table, got strong support in the consultation. I would li=
ke
to thank you for the work you are doing. I am sure you will agree with me t=
hat
we should pursue our objective to obtain an agreement as soon as possible.
Shareholders and companies rely on us to solve problems quickly. We must eq=
uip
our rules in this area for the 21st Century.
Intellectual property
I would also like to say a few words on intellectual property rights.
Intellectual property rights are at the heart of a knowledge-based economy.
Innovation is key for Europes chances to remain competitive. Protection of
intellectual property stimulates and rewards innovation. A solid legal
framework is essential. We must get this right. We also need to keep up.
Compared to others, Europe is losing ground. We need to see where progress =
can
be made.
The Community Patent remains blocked in the Council pending a solution on t=
he
language regime. No workable consensus on the patentability of Computer
Implemented Inventions was possible. Opinions remain divided on this questi=
on.
>From my side I maintain the position I gave when the Parliament rejected th=
e
Common Position. I will not bring a new initiative forward on this during m=
y
time as Commissioner for the Internal Market. I will leave this choice to m=
y
successor.
Recognising the economic importance of patents, I felt it was not a good th=
ing
to leave the entire patent agenda in limbo. For this reason we launched ear=
ly
this year a broad consultation on future patent policy in Europe. The
consultation was a considerable success in terms of stakeholders'
participation. We have received 2000 replies.
The next step is a public hearing on 12 July. The hearing will focus on fou=
r
topics: the principles and values that underpin the patent system; the
proposed Community patent; non-Community initiatives such as the London
Protocol and the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA); and possible
areas for harmonisation at Community level. I am very pleased that the
European Parliament has shown interest in this consultation, in particular,
that your Chairman, Mr Gargani, has agreed to be the first speaker at the
hearing.
We intend to publish a report summarising the outcome of the written
consultation and of the public hearing. I hope to come back here to discuss
the conclusions with you in the autumn. One thing is certain, progress in t=
he
patent field has to be made. Businessmen, faced with a 21st century global
economy, scratch their heads in disbelief when they see us stuck in
discussions about language regimes and regional distribution of courts. Wha=
t
they want is a cheaper and reliable patent system. Thats why I think we sho=
uld
look at all possible routes forward, be they Community or non-Community
initiatives.
On the related issue of design protection, the so-called 'spare parts
proposal', we have seen little progress. I can only regret this.
Over-protecting the designs market does nothing to stimulate competitivenes=
s
on the contrary, this may just perpetuate economic rents. I have no doubt t=
hat
the adoption of this proposal would result in more choice and lower prices.
There are economic benefits to be gained for consumers as well as industry.
Consumers will benefit from lower prices and more choice. Business will
benefit because newcomers will have a chance to enter this market and creat=
e
growth and jobs.
Safety issues have been raised repeatedly. Safety must remain a primary
concern, but let me stress that this concern has already been addressed by
other EU laws, for instance by the type approval framework directive in the
automobile sector. I hope that discussions on the spare parts proposal can
resume quickly. Businesses and consumers are waiting for concrete results.
This is what they are entitled to.
On copyright, I look forward to your opinion on the Recommendation on Onlin=
e
Music which the Commission adopted last year. We are now monitoring its
impact. I am pleased to be able to report that things already seem to be
moving forward. We have seen a number of deals for EU-wide licences struck
since the start of this year, and we are also seeing moves towards improved
governance in the more forward-looking collecting societies.
In bringing forward the Recommendation, we wanted to inject a bit of pace i=
nto
the online music market. It is an area with rich potential for growth, to t=
he
ultimate benefit of all concerned business, rightsholders and consumers. We
are also looking at the question of copyright levies. This is on our work
programme for later this year. We fully share the view that copyright holde=
rs
deserve to be rewarded for their work. But we need to ensure that this is d=
one
in a fair, efficient and equitable way.
Levies on media and equipment - impose a cost on both producers and consume=
rs.
We need to be sure that this is the most appropriate way to reward rights
holders and to examine whether it is putting a brake on innovative products
and services. Through digital rights management, there are new technologica=
l
means through which rights holders can, more directly, protect their
interests. The key question is whether existing levies imposed on digital
devices should be reduced or phased out and be replaced by direct payment
systems. We have launched a consultation to get the views of consumers and
stakeholders. I have written to your chair about this and would very much
welcome your views on this process.
Finally there is the question of the term of protection for sound recording
and its role in fostering a more competitive EU phonogram industry. Current=
ly,
the term of protection for performers and producers is fifty years from the
time of a recording. The question is whether this should be extended possib=
ly
to match the USA which offers 95 years protection.
Performers feel that they are entitled to greater protection, at least for
their own lifetimes. The European music industry claims an extension is vit=
al
for its competitiveness. The results of an impact assessment will be availa=
ble
by the end of 2006. We are consulting all stakeholders during this process
with an open mind.
While not primarily within the remit of this Committee, I do want to make s=
ome
final remarks on the Services Directive.
I was delighted that Ministers were able to reach a political agreement on =
29
May. No Member State voted against. The text of the agreement is very close=
to
the Commission's amended proposal, which in turn reflected closely the
compromise reached in this House.
The result is a balanced and workable text that will deliver substantial
benefits to the services sector and that retains the core of our ambitions =
in
this sector, namely facilitation of establishment, freedom to provide servi=
ces
and administrative co-operation and simplification. This is a truly remarka=
ble
achievement, especially when one considers how much progress we have been a=
ble
to make, against the odds, in the past 12 months. We should capitalise on t=
he
political momentum that this proposal has now gathered to complete the seco=
nd
reading as soon as possible. The earlier this happens, the earlier we will =
be
able to reap the economic benefits in terms of growth, competitiveness and
jobs.
Parliament has delivered the breakthrough on this proposal. Everyone
recognises this. The Compromise reached in February was balanced. It was al=
so
fragile. Therefore I took it upon me to defend it before the Council who
accepted it without changing the crucial provisions. The Councils political
agreement is equally balanced and fragile and I call upon Parliament not to
unpick it.
The position of the Council, the Parliament and the Commission have converg=
ed
so much on this proposal that I think it is fair to say that there is overa=
ll
consensus. We should not undermine this by pursuing further changes that wi=
ll
not have much of a material effect anyway.
Chairman, Honourable Members,
An exchange of views is something quite different from a monologue. I am he=
re
to hear your views. I have set out mine but think we should hear from you n=
ow.
Thank you.
=3D=3D=3DReferences:=3D=3D=3D
1. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=3DSPEECH/0=
6/400&type=3DHTML&aged=3D0&language=3DEN&guiLanguage=3Den
--