central judicial system. At its fifth meeting on 19 and 20 November 2003, the Working Party came up with a draft agreement and a draft statute for the European Patent Court. The EPO level proposal parallelized a similar EU level proposal for a Luxembourg European Patent Court by the European Commission and Council in conjunction with the community patent. In 2006, the European Commission launched a public consultation on future patent policy in Europe, where the EPLA featured next to the community patent, harmonisation and mutual recognition of national patents, and general issues. Both proponents and critics of the EPLA spoke out at the ensuing hearing on 12 July 2006. On 12 July 2006, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, said "the European Patent Litigation Agreement is seen as a promising route towards more unitary jurisdiction" while closing the above-mentioned public hearing on future patent policy in Europe. In October 2006 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Future action in the field of patents. As regard to the EPLA it considered "that the proposed text needs significant improvements, which address concerns about democratic control, judicial independence and litigation costs, and a satisfactory proposal for the Rules of Procedure of the EPLA Court;" and asked its Legal Service to provide an interim legal opinion on a potential overlap with the acquis communautaire. In November 2006, an informal panel of judges from different European countries met in San Servolo, Italy, and adopted rules of procedures for the EPLA court. They signed a Resolution, the so-called "Second Venice Resolution". In February 2007, an interim legal opinion of the Legal Service of the European Parliament was non-officially published and provided a negative opinion on the EPLA. The opinion concludes that the EPLA, specifically compliance by the Member States of the European Union with Article 98 EPLA, would prima facie constitute a breach of Article 292 of the EC Treaty ("Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein") and took into account that member states of the EU had not competence where the EU already had legislated and that the European Union already had legislated in the field of Intellectual Property. As a result, the European Community's competence would be exclusive for the matters governed by EPLA and Member States therefore would