AGENCE EUROPE
Parliament demands Commission ensure greater transparency in ACTA talks
Brussels, 10/03/2010 (Agence Europe) – Lest the anti-counterfeit trade agreement, ACTA, which is being negotiated secretly between the EU and Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and the United States since 2007, suffer the same fate as the SWIFT agreement, the European Commission, which is negotiating on behalf of the EU must, in future, ensure greater transparency. ACTA is to protect intellectual property (from clothing to medicines) against both conventional counterfeiting and digital counterfeiting (illegal downloading), on the basis of harmonised international standards.
Ahead of the 8th round of ACTA talks in New Zealand in April, at which there is due to be discussion of the controversial chapter on piracy and illegal downloading from the internet, MEPs Alexander Alvaro (ALDE, Germany), Françoise Castex (S&D, France), Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D, Greece) and Zuzana Roithová (EPP, Czech Republic) redoubled their efforts at the end of February to get a debate with the Commission, and to require it to respect its duty of transparency, with regard both to the Parliament and to civil society, in this extremely sensitive issue. Success has been theirs. Addressing the plenary session on Tuesday 9 March, Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht defended the Commission decision that these negotiations required “a minimum of confidentiality”, so that each party to ACTA could feel comfortable making concessions and trying options before finally reaching agreement. He did, however, promise greater transparency in future. He also said that, in the past, attempts to negotiate such an Agreement at the World Trade Organisation or the World Intellectual Property Organisation were “systematically blocked by other countries”. In addition, although the EU would have preferred a global solution, it had no other choice than to engage in a “coalition of the willing”. A further key point has also been won: in discussions on the internet chapter, the Commission will not support the “three strikes and you’re out” principle, which provides for a warning or a fine for the first two illegal downloads, then cutting off internet access for the third. “Let me be clear on this, so there is no room for ambiguity. The ‘three-strike rule’ or graduated response systems are not compulsory in Europe. Different EU countries have different approaches, and we want to keep this flexible, while fully reflecting fundamental rights, freedoms and civil liberties. The EU does not support and will not accept that ACTA creates an obligation to disconnect people from the internet because of illegal downloads,” he said.
In a joint resolution from the EPP, S&D, ALDE, Greens/EFA, ECR and GUE/NGL groups, adopted by 633 votes to 13, with 16 abstentions, in Strasbourg on Wednesday 10 March, Parliament notes that, since the Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December 2009, the Commission has had a duty to inform the Parliament of all stages of international negotiations. Criticising the lack of transparency hitherto in the conduct of the ACTA negotiations, and regretting that no negotiating mandate had been put to it for approval, the Parliament calls on the Commission and the Council to grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries, and to engage proactively with ACTA partners to rule out any further negotiations of an a priori confidential nature. The Commission is also asked to communicate with the Parliament before and after the round of negotiations in April. Unless the Parliament is “immediately and fully informed” at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves the right to take appropriate action, including referring the matter to the Court of Justice to safeguard its prerogatives.
Furthermore, Parliament deplores the decision made by ACTA stakeholders not to negotiate within bodies such as the WTO or the WIPO, which provide frameworks for information and public consultation exercises. It also calls on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment of ACTA’s implementation of fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR (intellectual property rights) enforcement measures, and on e-commerce, prior to any EU agreement to a consolidated ACTA treaty text. The Commission is also asked to limit ACTA talks to the current system of IPR application against counterfeiting, and to ensure that the enforcement of ACTA provisions – especially its provisions on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – are fully in line with acquis communautaire. Parliament also demands that no personal search be undertaken at the EU borders and requests full clarification of any clauses that would allow for warrantless searches and confiscation of information storage devices, such as laptops, cell phones and MP3 players, by border and customs authorities. Parliament also considers that in order to respect fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy, with full respect for subsidiary, the proposed agreement must refrain from imposing any so called “three strikes” procedures to punish illegal downloading. Any agreement must contain a clause whereby cutting access to the internet must be subject to prior judicial control, it stresses. Finally, the Parliament underlines that ACTA must not compromise access to generic medicines. (E.H./transl.rt/jl)