Differences between revisions 34 and 61 (spanning 27 versions)
Revision 34 as of 2009-01-18 13:01:14
Size: 9805
Editor: AnteWessels
Comment:
Revision 61 as of 2009-05-30 23:30:38
Size: 4111
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
Dear ..., We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council.
Line 5: Line 5:
We write to express our concerns about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
(ACTA) under negotiation. ACTA may limit access to medicines, limit access to the internet, give patent trolls free reign and harm the most innovative sectors of the economy. A document released by the Canadian government shows controversial issues are discussed, such as termination of internet access without court order.
Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Leaked documents show the negotiating parties use a very broad definition of piracy. In an obfuscated way, the definition comes down to "willful, large scale infringements". As a result, bona fide entrepreneurs and civilians are criminalized, and excessive civil and administrative measures can be invoked against them. The following examples may fall under ACTA:
Line 8: Line 7:
In the EU decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. + a newspaper, whistle blower or weblog author revealing a document,
Line 10: Line 9:
ACTA will contain a new international benchmark for legal frameworks on so called "intellectual property" rights (IPR) enforcement. While ACTA takes the form of a trade agreement, it is de facto legislation. The ACTA legislative process is as secret as possible and as remote as possible from the citizen. The EU even agreed on secrecy, in violation of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. + ambiguous cases of trademark confusion,
Line 12: Line 11:
ACTA circumvents Community transparency and democratic safeguards regarding legislation. According to a U.S. spokesman, ACTA will only be made public once all parties have already agreed to it. None of the EU's national parliaments nor the European Parliament may be able to scrutinize its contents in any meaningful way. ACTA constitutes a loss of parliamentary legislative power. + parallel importation (buying and selling of genuine products),
Line 14: Line 13:
In the case of trade agreements, both the national parliaments and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. Taking an active role, parliaments can restore some of their legislative power. + making a product or medicine (in many sectors, there are so many patents, with unclear scope and validity, it is impossible to tell whether one violates a patent),
Line 16: Line 15:
We call upon you to take an active role, to set parliamentary scrutiny
reservations, in order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary
legislative power.
+ the production of spare parts (may violate an unexamined design right, with unclear scope and validity),
Line 20: Line 17:
+ an office worker emailing a copy of a market research report to his colleague at work,
Line 21: Line 19:
== Introduction on ACTA + emailing a list of people (may violate an unexamined database right, with unclear scope and validity),
Line 23: Line 21:
+ a library, in order to preserve digital sound recordings for posterity, unlawfully breaking the technical protection measure wrapping the digital recording each time it lawfully receives a sound recording either by purchase or by legal deposit,
Line 24: Line 23:
Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating the
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). On its website, the European
Commission calls ACTA "path breaking". In the U.S., ACTA is treated as an
Executive Agreement, meaning that it will not go through the US Congress for
approval.
+ youngsters enthusiastically sharing their favorite music with friends.
Line 30: Line 25:
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concerns about this modus
operadi: "We are concerned, however, that the ACTA under consideration will
prescribe rules for protection so specifically that it could impede
Congress's ability to make constructive policy changes in the future. (...)
Regarding the potential breadth of ACTA, we strongly urge you not to permit
the agreement to address issues of liability for service providers or
technological protection measures." [senate]
In all these cases, the rights holder can go to a civil court for damages. But harsh anti-piracy measures, meant to fight criminal organizations, are excessive. A too broad definition may have far reaching consequences on legal certainty, innovation, competitiveness, freedom of speech, privacy and access to medicines, software and the Internet. ACTA could become a dangerous tool for abusive strategies.
Line 38: Line 27:
In September, more than a 100 public interest organisations from around the world have called on officials from the countries negotiating ACTA to immediately publish the draft text of the agreement. [100g] Leaked documents and industry comments fuel concerns that the treaty may give patent trolls the means to extort companies, undermine access to low-cost generic medicines, lead to monitoring all citizens' Internet communications, interfere with fair use of copyrighted materials and criminalize peer-to-peer electronic file sharing. It is essential the public and parliaments can scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether they will be able to do that. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.
Line 40: Line 29:
A document released by the Canadian government has confirmed that many topics mentioned above are indeed part of the negotiations. In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, no drafts or translations are published. In a Resolution, the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The Council did not release documents.
Line 42: Line 31:
In a Resolution the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate. In the case of trade agreements, both the EU Member States and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. The following vetoes apply to ACTA:
Line 44: Line 33:
+ in so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and educational services, the Member States have a veto,
Line 45: Line 35:
+ in so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have a veto,
Line 46: Line 37:
== Stealth legislation + the Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA,
Line 48: Line 39:
+ the European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures,
Line 49: Line 41:
It is still unclear whether ACTA will be published prior to political agreement in the Council. And if published, it may happen during Parliamentary recess. The Council both denies the right of access to Community documents (art 255 TEC); and the right to translations the national parliaments have under the "Protocol on the role of the national parliaments in the European Union". The Protocol stipulates that translations have to be available 6 weeks prior to adoption by the Council. + furthermore, the Community is not competent to take disproportional measures.
Line 51: Line 43:
The Community acquis on "IPR" enforcement was developed in a transparent and
democratic way. Both the national parliaments and the European Parliament
were involved. As regards to international "intellectual property" agreements,
they have traditionally been conducted in a more open and transparent manner.
ACTA sets a precedent of stealth legislation.

In the landmark ECJ judgment on the Turco case (joined cases C-39/05 P and
C-52/05 P), the Court stressed the importance of the public right of access
to the documents of the institutions, including preparatory ones, especially
in the case of legislative acts: "Openness in that respect contributes to
strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the
information which has formed the basis of a legislative act. The possibility
for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action
is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights."

While ACTA is not a legislative act in the strict sense, it will be legally
binding for the member states. ACTA is therefore de facto legislation and
ACTA texts should be made directly accessible.

ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the European Parliament's
and the member states' vetoes apply and should be used.


== Safeguarding parliamentary legislative power


Without parliamentary scrutiny reservations, the Council can silently adopt
ACTA. Parliaments can stop this silent process and enforce transparency by
making scrutiny reservations. This will give room to scrutinise ACTA and
competence issues:

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and
educational services, the Member States have a veto.

+ In so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have
a veto.

+ The Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA.

+ The European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted
under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional
framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures.

+ Definitions have to be as clearly and narrowly as possible.

+ the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or a Member State may
obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement
envisaged is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty.

For details, we would like to refer you to the attachment.


== Conclusion


By taking an active role, parliaments can safeguard transparency and
parliamentary legislative power. If parliaments do not take an active role,
ACTA may turn out unbalanced and disproportional, setting a precedent of
stealth legislation.
ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the vetoes apply and should be used. In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations. If ACTA's final draft indeed combines a too broad definition of piracy with harsh measures, we call upon the parliaments to exercise vetoes against ACTA.
Line 112: Line 46:





== Attachment


+ ACTA will relate to trade in cultural and audiovisual services and
educational services. This falls within the shared competence of the
Community and its Member States. Consequently, the negotiation of ACTA shall
require the common accord of the Member States as well. ACTA has to be
concluded jointly by the Community and the Member States. (TEC 133.6)
Alternatively, these services may be excluded from ACTA.

+ the intention expressed in a leaked discussion paper to address
non-commercial acts by civilians does not fall within TITLE IX Common
Commercial Policy. The Community is not competent. And even if it would fall
within TITLE IX, it does not fall within "commercial aspects of intellectual
property" (TEC 133.5). Therefore, unanimity in the Council is needed and
Parliament has to be consulted (TEC 133.7)

+ if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting
cooperation procedures, assent of the European Parliament has to be obtained.
(TEC 300.3) The same is true if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under
the procedure referred to in Article 251.

+ the Community did not adopt criminal measures yet in the field
of "intellectual property" rights, unanimity in the Council is needed to add
criminal measures to ACTA. (TEC 133.5)

+ ACTA cannot be concluded before the study on whether criminal measures are
essential, is ready, and the criminal measures proven essential. (TEC 133.6,
ECJ C-176/03) [study]

+ the agreement has to be compatible with internal Community policies and
rules. (TEC 133.3) To leave room to amend internal rules after assessment, an
agreement has to be more conservative than adopted rules, e.g. IPRED 1.

+ Community action has to be proportional (TEC 5), it is essential to define
the qualification characteristics of the elements of piracy as clearly and
narrowly as possible. At the bare minimum, "infringing item", "commercial
scale" and "intentional infringement" have to be clearly defined.
Proportionality is more important in a trade agreement than in internal
rules, since a trade agreement can not easily be changed and has no
evaluation moments.

+ the Community can not impose criminal measures if the policy field is not
harmonised. (TEC 133.6, ECJ C-176/03) ACTA can only go so far as policy
fields are harmonised.

+ the Community can not impose precise sanctions. (TEC 133.6, ECJ C-176/03,
ECJ C-440/05) Nor can ACTA.

+ national legal systems have their own general methods for dealing with
recognized criminal offences like "attempting, aiding or abetting". The
Community does not have the authority to harmonise these systems, not even
after decision C-176/03.

+ the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or a Member State may
obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement
envisaged is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty. (TEC 300.6)

(no wiki markup)

We call upon the Parliaments of Europe to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It may be the only way to stop silent adoption in the Council.

Behind closed doors, the EU, US, Japan and other countries are negotiating ACTA. No drafts are published. Leaked documents show the negotiating parties use a very broad definition of piracy. In an obfuscated way, the definition comes down to "willful, large scale infringements". As a result, bona fide entrepreneurs and civilians are criminalized, and excessive civil and administrative measures can be invoked against them. The following examples may fall under ACTA:

+ a newspaper, whistle blower or weblog author revealing a document,

+ ambiguous cases of trademark confusion,

+ parallel importation (buying and selling of genuine products),

+ making a product or medicine (in many sectors, there are so many patents, with unclear scope and validity, it is impossible to tell whether one violates a patent),

+ the production of spare parts (may violate an unexamined design right, with unclear scope and validity),

+ an office worker emailing a copy of a market research report to his colleague at work,

+ emailing a list of people (may violate an unexamined database right, with unclear scope and validity),

+ a library, in order to preserve digital sound recordings for posterity, unlawfully breaking the technical protection measure wrapping the digital recording each time it lawfully receives a sound recording either by purchase or by legal deposit,

+ youngsters enthusiastically sharing their favorite music with friends.

In all these cases, the rights holder can go to a civil court for damages. But harsh anti-piracy measures, meant to fight criminal organizations, are excessive. A too broad definition may have far reaching consequences on legal certainty, innovation, competitiveness, freedom of speech, privacy and access to medicines, software and the Internet. ACTA could become a dangerous tool for abusive strategies.

It is essential the public and parliaments can scrutinize ACTA. It is unclear whether they will be able to do that. It is unclear whether the final draft will be published prior to Political Agreement in the EU Council. ACTA may pass silently during Parliamentary recess.

In the EU decisions are normally taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. Preparatory legal texts are published. If full disclosure is not possible, parts are published. Translations are made prior to adoption in the Council. With ACTA, no drafts or translations are published. In a Resolution, the European Parliament called for disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate. The Council did not release documents.

In the case of trade agreements, both the EU Member States and the European Parliament have vetoes on aspects of the trade agreement. The following vetoes apply to ACTA:

+ in so far as ACTA will relate to trade in cultural, audiovisual and educational services, the Member States have a veto,

+ in so far as ACTA will relate to non commercial acts, the Member States have a veto,

+ the Member States have a veto on criminal measures in ACTA,

+ the European Parliament has vetoes if ACTA entails amending an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 or if a specific institutional framework is established by instituting cooperation procedures,

+ furthermore, the Community is not competent to take disproportional measures.

ACTA's secrecy makes it impossible to assess whether the vetoes apply and should be used. In order to safeguard transparency and parliamentary legislative power, we call upon the parliaments of Europe, both the national as the European Parliament, to set parliamentary scrutiny reservations. If ACTA's final draft indeed combines a too broad definition of piracy with harsh measures, we call upon the parliaments to exercise vetoes against ACTA.

Yours sincerely,

acta letter (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:38 by localhost)