Article 36 — Programming and reporting
In brief
This article requires the Office (EUIPO) to reflect its new tasks under the regulation in a separate section of its multiannual strategic programme and annual work programme, and to report on them in a dedicated section of its annual activity report. The relevant programming and reporting continue to be governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.
Key points
- The tasks entrusted to the Office must appear in a separate section of its multiannual strategic programme and annual work programme.
- That section must set out objectives, activities, expected results, performance indicators and the estimated human and financial resources, taking account of relevant Union policies and priorities.
- Programming remains governed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 for its preparation, adoption, implementation and amendment.
- The annual activity report must include a specific section reviewing the main activities, the results against objectives and indicators, and the resources used.
- That report section must also assess overall performance of the tasks, including revenue from charges and any material effect on the Office’s other statutory tasks, and outline planned activities for the following years.
What it means in practice
This article mainly concerns the internal governance of the EUIPO rather than imposing direct obligations on market participants. For IP holders, investors and valuers, it offers transparency: the Office’s plans, performance indicators and results for IP-backed finance and valuer certification will be visible in its programming documents and annual reports, allowing stakeholders to track how the new functions are resourced and delivered.
Official text — Article 36 (COM(2026) 567)
Source: European Commission, proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Innovation Act, COM(2026) 567 final, 9 September 2026. Read the official proposal (PDF). Text may change during the legislative process.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
Programming and reporting provisions rarely attract attention, but in this instance the accountability design is substantively important. By folding the new IP-finance tasks into a separate, ring-fenced section of the EUIPO’s multiannual strategic programme and annual work programme, and requiring a dedicated chapter in the annual report, the legislator is building in the transparency needed to judge whether the Competence Centre actually delivers. In my view the most telling requirement is the obligation to report any material effect on the performance of the other statutory tasks of the Office: this is an implicit acknowledgement that grafting an ambitious finance mandate onto a trade-mark and design office carries a real risk of mission creep and resource diversion.
What I would watch is how the performance indicators are defined, because they will shape the political assessment when this Regulation is reviewed by the Parliament and the Council. My reading is that co-legislators are likely to sharpen the reporting obligations further, in particular the disclosure of revenue from charges and of resources consumed, so that the sustainability of financing the Centre from the Office’s operational budget can be scrutinised. Addressees should read this article as the mechanism through which the whole IP-finance experiment will be held to account.