Brussels, 06/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - MEPs from all political groups on the European Parliament (EP) international trade committee called on 1 March for more information on how the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would be enforced before advising Parliament as a whole on whether or not to approve it. Rapporteur David Martin (S&D, UK) asked the committee to back his plan to refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice, separately from the Commission referral.
At a first debate on the international anti-counterfeiting accord, ACTA, on 1 March, Martin suggested that, before voting on whether or not to ratify the agreement and while it was awaiting the opinion of the Court of Justice sought by the European Commission, which could take one or two years, the EP should prepare an interim report setting out questions to the European Commission and EU member states on how the agreement is to be enforced. These might refer to how border control agencies would be expected to deal with counterfeit imports, obligations in terms of sanctions, and the role of internet suppliers. The EP should lodge a separate request for the legal opinion of the EU's highest court.
There is a “critical interest” in defending EU intellectual property rights. “It is not the intentions of ACTA that raise concerns but its possible unintentional consequences. ACTA lacks detail. The main concern is how the text might be read”, Martin said. If ACTA does not impose the “three strikes” rule, it is difficult to see how internet service providers will interpret the tasks given to them, he argued, promising to meet as many representatives of civil society as possible in the coming weeks to discuss citizens' concerns.
The EPP Group's shadow rapporteur, Christofer Fjellner (Sweden) agreed that the EP must now scrutinise the ACTA text in detail. “It's not the trade deal that changes citizens' everyday lives but the legislation that enforces it”, he told Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, adding: “I've heard from the Commission and member states that there will not be a big change in legislation. I will not take your word for it. We need to scrutinise it”.
De Gucht was again criticised for the lack of transparency during the negotiation of the agreement. Yannick Jadot (France), speaking for the Greens/EFA, complained that “procedural excuses” had been used to avoid involving the EP, and he complained that MEPs had learned of the Commission decision to refer ACTA to the Court of Justice from the press. “I'm not sure that this is in line with our inter-institutional agreement with the Commission”, he said.
Very much in the firing line, De Gucht repeated that ACTA could not come into force without the consent of the Parliament, which had equal responsibility with the member states on this matter. He even suggested that EP should pay more attention to member states' laws that threaten fundamental freedoms. “The so called 'three strikes' rule is effective in French law and that is a law that was passed to implement EU directives. On the contrary, ACTA explicitly states that you cannot impose anything similar to the three-strikes rule on the international level”, he pointed out. He is awaiting the opinion of the Court of Justice in gauging the balance between three fundamental rights: freedom of expression and access to information, protection of privacy, and ownership rights.
The European Parliament and national parliaments have to ratify ACTA before it can come into effect. The Court of Justice opinion of the threats of ACTA to freedom of expression and internet filtering will be decisive. (EH/transl.rt)