Brussels, 24/02/2010 (Agence Europe) - While rumours grow over the possible non compliance with fundamental liberties of the chapter relating to piracy on the internet, voices are raised in the European Parliament calling for greater transparency in multilateral talks on the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), secretly negotiated since 2007 between the EU and Australia, Canada, South Korea, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Jordan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and Switzerland. Not having received adequate answers to their written questions in January and February from the European Commission, which is negotiating ACTA on behalf of the EU, Alexader Alvaro (ALDE, Germany), Françoise Castex (S&D, France) and their colleagues, Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D, Greece) and Zuzana Roithová (EPP, Czech Republic), are to submit to their peers' signature, between 8 March and 17 June, a written declaration for debate with the Commission, a declaration that denounces the lack of transparency in ACTA negotiation and warns of the possible objections that the Parliament may have to the content of the agreement. Ironically, Alvaro asks: “Will ACTA become the next SWIFT?” Highly criticised on this dossier, the Commission and Council are warned that the Parliament will not be giving a blank cheque to ACTA which aims to protect intellectual property in relation to traditional counterfeiting (ranging from clothing to medicine) such as digital counterfeiting (illegal downloading), on the basis of harmonised international norms.
Further to the 7th negotiation round on ACTA, end January in Mexico, and in the run up to an 8th round in New Zealand in April, which should tackle the internet chapter, Castex and Roithová, Alvaro and Lambrinidis have stepped up the pace. Their aim is to have the Parliament duly briefed on the context of talks and, above all, to warn that, under the new powers conferred upon it by the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament will have the last word on this highly controversial agreement. Although it targets counterfeiting and piracy activity that in substance damages commercial interests, not those of ordinary citizens, ACTA causes concern for the organisations acting in defence of liberties, and especially the liberty of web users, in that it does not respect the right to privacy or the right of citizens to adequate defence. After the fashion of associations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the United States and the La Quadrature du Net in France, the European Parliament has been calling for several months for greater transparency. Several of its members, including Castex, spoke along these lines during the hearing of the new trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, in January.
Reacting to the rumour that the Unites States will, in discussion on the internet chapter of ACTA, argue in favour of the principle “three strikes and you're out” which, like the Hadopi law in France, provides for the two first sanctions for illegal downloading to be a warning or a fine, and the third to be cutting of internet access, the European data protection supervisor (EPDS) rose to the fray on Monday 22 February to warn against ACTA's possible incompatibility with the European data protection regime. In his view, although it is based on the “three strikes and you're out” principle, ACTA will make large scale surveillance of internet users an obligation and impose an obligation on internet service providers to adopt this principle of deconnection in three moves.
The same line is taken in Parliament where it is feared ACTA will be detrimental to fundamental rights. “Although the fight against counterfeiting is legitimate and needs a multilateral agreement, it must not bring in elements that have nothing to do with the offence of internet piracy, an offence that has not yet been defined, either in Community law or in international law. It is extremely serious that such an agreement should criminalise an offence that has not yet been identified, for users or for internet service providers”, Castex explained to EUROPE on Wednesday 24 February. “We are against piracy and cybercrime, but in favour of respect of fundamental rights. Systematic surveillance of citizens is not lawful. Access to the internet is a fundamental right and to prohibit it is a disproportionate penalty”, Lambrinidis added.
Under the terms of the written statement by Castex and Roithová, Alvaro and Lambrinidis, the Parliament considers that ACTA “should not indirectly impose harmonisation of EU copyright, patent, or trademark law. The principle of subsidiarity should be respected”. The EP urges the European Commission to “immediately make all documents related to the ongoing negotiations publicly available”. It is also of the opinion that “the proposed agreement should not force limitations upon judicial due process nor weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy”. The Parliament underlines the fact that “the evaluation of economic and innovation risks must take place prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place”. Also, the Parliament considers that “internet service providers should not bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services to an extent that would imply prior surveillance or filtering of such data”. Finally, the Parliament underlines that any measure “aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizures of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines”. (E.H./transl.tfl)