CYPRUS HARMONIZES LAW WITH EU COPYRIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT

UNCLAS NICOSIA 001370

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ECON ETRD CY
SUBJECT: CYPRUS HARMONIZES LAW WITH EU COPYRIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTIVES BUT MISSES CHANCE TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN IPR ENFORCEMENT

REFS: (A) NICOSIA 245, (B) NICOSIA 755, (C) 05 NICOSIA 1842

(U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Please protect
accordingly.


1. (U) Summary. In its last session before the summer holidays, on
July 13, the House approved five bills aimed at harmonizing Cypriot
IPR legislation with that of the EU. While these bills will help
further strengthen Cypriot IPR legislation, the House deferred until
fall consideration of language that would require vendors to be able
to demonstrate that they were selling legitimate product or face
criminal liability -- a key recommendation of the law enforcement
community. Despite significant progress in recent years and a
renewed commitment from Cypriot Customs and Police, piracy levels of
software, CDs and DVDs remain above 50 percent. End Summary.


2. (U) On July 13, 2006, the House of Representatives approved five
bills for the harmonization of Cypriot legislation with EU
Directives 2004/48/EK (Enforcement Directive) and 2001/84/EK
(Copyright Directive) regarding IPR. The five bills strengthen IPR
protection in Cyprus in five key areas: (a) industrial designs, (b)
geographic origins, (c) trademarks, (d) patents, and, (e) original
works of art.


3. (U) The EU Copyright Directive had called on member states to
comply by April 29, 2006 but the bill was not tabled before the
House until June 29, 2006. Under pressure from the Office of the EU
Harmonization Director and the European Commission (which had sent a
warning letter to the GOC concerning its failure to comply on time),
Cypriot legislators rushed the bills through the House on July 13 -
the last day when the full House assembly met prior to its long
summer vacation, lasting until October 1.


4. (U) Discussion of the bills by the House Legal Affairs
Committee, prior to the full assembly meeting, was eventful.
Several MP's, mainly from communist AKEL but also, surprisingly,
from right-wing DISY opposed provisions in the bills that would have
reversed the burden of proof onto the defendant (i.e., vendors would
be required to demonstrate that they were selling legitimate product
or face criminal liability),arguing that these violated the
defendants human rights. These provisions were inserted by the
Attorney General's Office at the strong urging of Cypriot law
enforcement authorities, who are currently inundated with IPR cases,
and feel that they have their hands tied by the cumbersome
provisions of the existing Copyright Law.


5. (U) As it stands currently, the Copyright Law requires police
officers to testify before court that they have examined each and
every piece of evidence brought before the judge. When trying cases
involving seizures of hundreds or thousands of pirated CDs, this
task becomes impossible for law enforcement authorities. Reversal
of the burden of proof would address this problem effectively (Refs
A and B). A key recommendation of the Embassy-sponsored IPR
workshop in November 2005 (Ref c),reversal of the burden of proof
would greatly enhance the Police and Customs' ability to confiscate
pirated goods and successfully prosecute cases.


6. (SBU) Comment: By all accounts Cypriot Police and Customs have
made IPR enforcement a priority and are doing tremendous work.
Their efforts, however, continue to be hampered by legal
requirements that make prosecution of IPR violations difficult and a
climate in which judges frequently fail to impose penalties severe
enough to have a deterrent effect or prevent recidivism. As a
result Cyprus remains in the bottom six of the EU-25 in terms of the
level of piracy of software, DVDs and CDs. Harmonization of Cypriot
law with the EU Enforcement and Copyright directives as well as a
new Attorney General's Office interpretation of existing law to
allow sampling of evidence will help. Nevertheless, the decision to
defer the passage of the amendments requiring vendors to be able to
prove their products come from a legitimate source is disappointing.
The AG's office plans to put forward these amendments again in the
fall. Getting them through on their own instead of as part of a
package with EU-mandated changes and a firm deadline, however, may
be challenging -- especially given competing parliamentary
priorities. End Comment.

SCHLICHER