infoJustice

February 28:  MEP and ACTA Rapporteur David Martin indicated he wants the European Parliament to refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice to ensure that the agreement does not conflict with other treaty obligations and EU Common Law.  [see European Parliament press release]  He believes that “Parliament should prepare its own questions, rather than simply associating itself with the European Commission’s parallel referral of ACTA to the court.”

In a piece in theparliament.com, Martin  noted that the “vague” text could lead to unintended consequences: “The interpretation of ACTA is entirely unknown, leaving a number of crucial ‘what ifs?’ Could overzealous border agencies impound generic medicines over concerns that similar packaging and names amounts to trademark infringement? Will internet service providers feel obliged to monitor user activity and report illegal downloading? Does any possible action resulting from Acta infringe on the European charter of fundamental rights? Parliament cannot consider holding a vote on Acta until we have detailed information on these issues.”

February 29:  The International Trade Committee held its first exchange of views on ACTA.  In his statement to the committee, EC Trade Commissioner Karel DeGuct said that

• ACTA will help Europe solve its economic problems because “Europe’s future depends on us redefining our role in a new world economy; Creativity and innovation are our most valuable assets; Intellectual property rights are the means by which we harness their value for the benefit of growth and jobs; And those rights mean nothing if they are not enforced.”
• “ACTA is an enforcement treaty. That means it does not cover the details of what is legal and what is illegal but it does address procedures for ensuring that what is illegal can be redressed… In practice, this means that Europe will not need to make any change to our current legislation in order to comply with ACTA.”
• “ACTA will not censor the internet… ACTA will not oblige the inspection of individual laptops or MP3 players by customs officials… And ACTA will not impose any restrictions on trade in generic medicines.”

As reported by BNA, [password protected] MEP Martin argued:

• The Parliament should submit a request to the European Court of Justice to review ACTA – similar to the request submitted by the EC.
• The Parliament will conduct “interim report” in the summer that asks the EC to address particular concerns:  “Border agencies and their right to seize counterfeit goods at EU borders; Internet service providers and their responsibilities in enforcing ACTA; Criminal sanctions EU Member States will be required to impose to enforce ACTA.”
• “Only when we have answers to these kinds of questions and only when we have a legal opinion from the [CJEU] will we be able to move to the final stage of a ratification vote. If the [CJEU] comes back and says that ACTA is in violation with the EU acquis (the legal framework underpinning the EU) or the Charter of Fundamental Rights then ACTA is dead.”

February 29:  The EU Green/EPA Group sends a letter to EC President Barroso regarding the Commission’s intention to seek the ECJ opinion on ACTA, citing concerns about “the procedure chosen y the Commission to inform Parliament” and the “timing of the referral.”  The letter requests Barroso’s attendance at the next plenary session.  Regarding the opinion sought from the ECJ, the Greens/EPA group says:

We very much hope that the Commission will ask the Court to assess whether ACTA strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, intellectual property rights and, on the other, the right to private life, the right to the protection of personal data, freedom of expression and the freedom to receive or impart information, the right to protection of property and the freedom to conduct a business, both inside the Union and in external action and, more generally, with respect to the Union’s obligations concerning support for democracy and the rule of law in international relations and compliance with Art. 208 TFEU on policy coherence for development.

March 1: The International Trade Committee holds a public workshop on ACTA, where the Committee is presented with a petition signed by over 2.4 million people urging the EU not to ratify the agreement. Among the experts who testified

• Michael Geist summed up his statement with “ACTA’s harm greatly exceeds its potential benefits. Given ACTA’s corrosive effect on transparency in international negotiations, the damage to international intellectual property institutions, the exclusion of the majority of the developing world from the ambit of the agreement, the potentially dangerous substantive provisions, and the uncertain benefits in countering counterfeiting, there are ample reasons for the public and politicians to reject the agreement in its current form.  In doing so, governments would help restore confidence in the global intellectual property system and open the door to a new round of negotiations premised on transparency, inclusion, and evidence-based policy-making.” [full prepared testimony]
• Christophe Geiger discussed how the treaty is really meant to create new norms which would then be applied elsewhere.  It is a way to  gradually raise IP norms to TRIPS-Plus levels outside of WTO. [Source: story in the EU Observer]

At the march 1 hearing, a number of MEPs raised concerns related to the lack of transparency during the ACTA negotiations.  According to the European Parliament News Service summary of the proceeding:

• “French Green Yannick Jadot complained that ‘procedural excuses’ had been used to avoid involving Parliament”
• “Swedish Green Carl Schlyter complained that emerging economies were not involved in ACTA negotiations, noting that 95% of all counterfeiting takes place in countries that will not be affected by ACTA.  He also observed that if the aim now was to spread ACTA via bilateral agreements with countries not yet party to it, this would not be a democratic way to influence other countries.”
• “Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, DE), also noted that the countries where most piracy takes place are outside ACTA and insisted that it should be tackled through existing international structures instead.”