Strategy of the intellectual property development for the period of ...

ights, with the aim to emphasize the protection of legality, the decision making processin the second degree was introduced in the administrative procedure. However, the twodegree decision making process is selectively introduced: the appeal is allowed for thedecisions of the Office in all the procedures except the procedure for grant, terminationand maintenance of patent or petty patent. Also, the appeal is not allowed against thedecisions of the Ministry of Agriculture which decides in the procedure regarding theright of the plant varieties breeders. Finally, the Government is the instance of the seconddegree, which has no special expert body that would be competent to decide in the seconddegree. Such circumstances give grounds for the discussion about the equality of theholders of the different kinds of intellectual property rights, as well as the competenceand the independence of the second degree instance.The problem of the expert competence in the subject matter of the intellectual propertyrights essentially limits the space for actual protection of legality in this subject matterand in the administrative suit. As it is not realistic to secure some other kind of aspecialized panel of the Administrative Court in the foreseeable future, other ways mustbe considered to increase the capacity of court in the administrative suits to passdecisions based on the merit on the thing, and not only with regard to the proceduralissues.Finally, let us take a step back to consider the total institutional capacity of the Office, theissue of its future financing should be resolved. That question is present for almost onedecade, in particular, since the global trend has been recognized to shift the focus of thefunctions of national administration for intellectual property from purely administrativeone to service oriented, based on information-coordination-mediation. Those nonadministrative functions, which become dominant, request more flexibility of theinstitution with regard to the possibility to answer the requests facing it. Bearing in mindthat such flexibility (with regard to experts, working programs, etc.) can not be achievedin the conditions of purely budget financing, there are more states in Europe, where theintellectual property administrations are self-financed or use the combination of budgetfunds and own income (Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Switzerland, France, Great Britain,Denmark, Finland, Moldavia, etc ).The financing of all the development functions of the Office in the last 10 years camefrom the development funds of the European Union, from the income that the Officerealized on the basis of the Cooperation and Extension Agreement with the EuropeanPatent Organization (from the designation fees of the Republic of Serbia in the Europeanpatent applications) and from the technical assistance of the World Intellectual PropertyOrganization. In October 2010, the Republic of Serbia became the member of theEuropean Patent Organization, which significantly increased the obligations of the Office(the participation in the work of the Administrative Council as the executive body of theEPO, participation in the working bodies of the EPO, obligations from theimplementation of the Action Plan intended for the states members, etc.), and all theincome has been abolished on the basis of fees for the designation of the European patentapplications, because the mentioned Cooperation and Extension Agreement is no longerimplemented. Also, on the basis of the three year long IPA National Project of the16