Riassunto analitico
In an increasingly globalised reality, where international relations play a primary role, the European Union can not but be the primary representative of this intercultural scenario based on widespread multilingualism. However, its nature is being undermined by bureaucracy, costs and political choices leading to harsh criticism especially from some of its Member States. This is the case with the conflict arisen due to by the tri-lingual regime proposed by the Commission, subsequently approved by the Council and the European Parliament. The possibility of a new unitary patent system had been discussed for decades. However, continued oppositions to the proposed language system left negotiations unchanged for a very long time. The need to provide Europe with a unitary patent protection system that could be competitive and on par with that of other powers, such as the United States or Japan, has led the Member States to consider the possibility of establishing enhanced cooperation in order to finally reach an agreement and bring this system to life. The decision to proceed with this project, however, caused the fierce opposition of Italy and Spain since they saw themselves completely excluded from the established language regime. The official languages, recognised as the ones through which it is possible to apply for uniform European patent protection, are: English, French and German. Italy and Spain perceived this exclusion as a violation and betrayal of what is one of the fundamental principles of the Union, namely, multilingualism and respect for linguistic diversity, which have always characterised and distinguished the Union. The Court of Justice carefully considered and analysed the grounds submitted by the two Member States, which were defeated following the Court's ruling. In fact, the Court does not fail to emphasise in several passages of the judgment, which brings together the two cases, how the allegations are unfounded and have no reason to exist. The case certainly gives rise to a broader reflection, namely, how the realisation of certain principles often cannot reconcile with practicality, the utility that reality demands, but also, how political choices very often appear to conflict with the pursuit of certain objectives.
|
