Brussels, 31/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - After being rejected by the three European Parliament (EP) committees whose opinions had been sought, the future of ACTA, the international anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, is looking increasingly compromised in Europe.
The title of this article could have been “Chronicle of a death foretold (continued)”. As expected, on 30 and 31 May the three EP committees rejected the highly controversial multilateral agreement negotiated outside the WTO and behind closed doors by Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, the United States and the EU in an attempt to protect intellectual property from traditional counterfeiting (such as with clothing and medicines) and also digital counterfeiting (such as illegal downloading) on the basis of a set of harmonised international standards.
On Thursday, the civil liberties committee adopted (by 36 votes to 21, with one abstention) the opinion proposed by Dimitrios Droutsas (S&D, Greece) calling for the agreement to be rejected as it does not respect EU fundamental rights. In the view of most committee members, ACTA fails to guarantee full respect for privacy and full protection for sensitive personal information. The role of web policeman given by ACTA to internet access providers also poses them a problem. The MEPs on the committee call, however, for a European strategy to address counterfeiting and piracy, one which fully respects fundamental rights in Europe.
On the same day, the industry committee voted by 31 to 25 to approve the opinion put by Amelia Andersdotter (Greens/EFA, Sweden) also calling for the agreement to be thrown out. Most committee members felt that ACTA does not provide a balance between intellectual property rights, the freedom of companies, protection of personal information and the freedom to receive and supply information. Apart from the fact that, in its approach, the agreement takes no account of the specific characteristics of each sector with regard to intellectual property, its lack of clear definitions means there is a risk of legal uncertainty for European companies.
The previous day, the legal affairs committee voted 12 to ten, with two abstentions, against the opinion put by Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) which supported ACTA. A fresh opinion reflecting the committee's position will now be drafted by Evelyn Regner (S&D, Austria).
These opinions are just that - opinions - and are not binding on the international trade committee - the competent committee on this issue - which will adopt its own position on 21 June. The agreement will then be put to the vote in plenary session. The overall rapporteur on ACTA, David Martini (S&D, UK), called on 25 April for ACTA to be rejected because of its lack of clarity on fundamental rights, and for it to be renegotiated. Its flaws - which include too vague a definition of the term “commercial scale” and the implicit demand that internet service providers police the internet - mean that, in practice, ACTA could have the unwelcome effect of weakening civil liberties, Martin argued.
At the end of April, the European Commission formally asked the EU Court of Justice to clarify the legality of ACTA, adoption of which by the Parliament would seem more in doubt than ever. (EH/transl.rt)