Velasco: ACTA only for WTO members

During the recent Civil Liberties Committee meeting (8 may) Pedro Velasco-Martins (Commission DG Trade) claimed that ACTA only targets WTO members as participating nations. I do not read that from the text of the agreement where it says prospecting nations. I do not see any provision which says that only WTO members are eligible to join.

He also admitted that ACTA leads to criminal harmonisation and Sweden is supposed to change its criminal laws. Here we have to keep in mind that criminal enforcement laws are not harmonised within the EU acquis. Thus, with ACTA the Commission supports a conduct disloyal to the European Parliament prerogatives: harmonisation with third nations without a direct involvement of the European Parliament.

Velasco-Martins also quotes the TRIPs agreement as a reference which predates the current EU framework. We find interesting legal questions associated with the TRIPS agreement, e.g. whether it is “directly executive”, its premises of trade-relation, and its competence-reserved adoption by the EU. Finally invoking also raises the important question why WTO members do not reform TRIPs instead. The answer is lack of consent within WTO to move forward with TRIPs+. Coalitions of the willing (governing ACTA) are less appropriate practices of international trade relations.

Video recording of the meeting

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

No hope that public opposition to the agreement would subside

Canadian professor Michael Geist comments on recent developments in Europe:

The European Parliament’s INTA Committee yesterday soundly rejected a proposal to refer the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to the European Court of Justice for review. ACTA critics viewed the proposal as a delay tactic designed with the hope that public opposition to the agreement would subside in the year or two it would take for a court review. The 21-5 vote against the motion means that the INTA committee will conclude its ACTA review later this spring with a full European Parliament vote expected in June or July. The lack of support for ACTA within the European Parliament is now out in the open with multiple parties indicating they will not support the agreement.

Not quite. It rather seems that the conservatives (EPP) are unwilling to accept ACTA as an Europarl elections topic. The substantial questions arises whether a fast burial is beneficial as long as the fundamental treaty questions underlying Article 207 remain unreviewed by the court, and DG Trade continues with more of the same in bilaterals. Certainly the delay tactics would be beneficial to grow and sustain a broader popular movement. I am told the liberals didn’t like a fast burial.

Read Full Post »

All agree with Karel de Gucht

ACTA is a project under the Global Europe Strategy which attracts quite some controversy. I don’t mind if I add to that controversy because the agreement is both flawed in content and process. EU-Commissioner Karel De Gucht told during the September 8 2010 plenary debate

“What we are aiming at is simply setting an international standard in IPR enforcement that is reasonable, balanced and effective, and thus goes beyond the current WTO rules on IPR: the TRIPS agreement. This is the ultimate objective, on which I am sure we all agree.”

His staffer Rupert Schlegelmilch recently argued during the European Parliament workshop (1st March 2010) ACTA does  not aim to set a new standard.

European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (2006/2292(INI))

60.   Stresses that European IPR policy towards developing countries should  not go beyond TRIPs Agreement obligations, but that it should instead  encourage the use of TRIPs flexibilities;

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations 

6.  Deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate  through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO,  which have established frameworks for public information and  consultation;

As you can see we all agree.

Read Full Post »

ACTA verfassungskonform nach Artikel 23 GG?

Die 23 ist meine Zahl. Meine Eltern hatten beide am 23. Geburtstag, addiert man ihre Monate kommt man auf meinen Geburtstag am 23., 23 Jahre vor der Jahrtausendwende. Im Grundgesetz konkretisiert Artikel 23 die Mitarbeit Deutschlands in der Europäischen Union. Da wunderst Du Dich kaum wenn Dir Kollegen ein “glueckwunsch, du wurdest gefeft” zujabbern. Und Fourtou (42) ist hoffentlich die falsche Antwort auf alle Fragen.

Ich stell mir einen Weile eine Frage zum “gemischen Charakter” des Abkommens, zum Strafrechtskapitel, das unter europavertraglich ungeklärter Vertretung Deutschlands durch die Ratspräsidentschaft der EU verhandelt wurde, während die Elemente des Gemeinsamen Besitzstandes (“Acquis Communautaire”) durch die Kommission verhandelt wurden. Strafrecht wird auch in Artikel 27 zur Digitalen Durchsetzung direkt referenziert.

Die Mitgliedstaaten verhandelten hier – disloyal zur noch nicht erfolgten EU-Harmonisierung von IPR-Strafrechtssanktionen unter Beteiligung des Europäischen Parlamentes im EU-Rechtsrahmen – alleine mit Drittstaaten strafrechtliche Bestimmungen, die mit den übrigen Bestimmungen mit EU-Kommissionskompetenz zu einem Abkommen zusammengerührt werden.

Könnte man zur Unterzeichnung von ACTA durch die Bundesregierung eine Kontrolle vor dem BVerfG einfordern oder kann dies erst nach der Ratifikation erfolgen? Ich sehe nämlich durch die ACTA Strafrechtsharmonisierung der Mitgliedstaaten am ordentlichen EU-Rechtsrahmen vorbei den Gedanken von Artikel 23 GG und das Demokratieprinzip in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Eine Übernahme der Gesetzgebung durch die Exekutive. Denn der Treppenwitz der Kommission stimmt leider.

Artikel 23

(1) Zur Verwirklichung eines vereinten Europas wirkt die Bundesrepublik Deutschland bei der Entwicklung der Europäischen Union mit, die demokratischen, rechtsstaatlichen, sozialen und föderativen Grundsätzen und dem Grundsatz der Subsidiarität verpflichtet ist und einen diesem Grundgesetz im wesentlichen vergleichbaren Grundrechtsschutz gewährleistet. Der Bund kann hierzu durch Gesetz mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates Hoheitsrechte übertragen. Für die Begründung der Europäischen Union sowie für Änderungen ihrer vertraglichen Grundlagen und vergleichbare Regelungen, durch die dieses Grundgesetz seinem Inhalt nach geändert oder ergänzt wird oder solche Änderungen oder Ergänzungen ermöglicht werden, gilt Artikel 79 Abs. 2 und 3.

(1a) Der Bundestag und der Bundesrat haben das Recht, wegen Verstoßes eines Gesetzgebungsakts der Europäischen Union gegen das Subsidiaritätsprinzip vor dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union Klage zu erheben. Der Bundestag ist hierzu auf Antrag eines Viertels seiner Mitglieder verpflichtet. Durch Gesetz, das der Zustimmung des Bundesrates bedarf, können für die Wahrnehmung der Rechte, die dem Bundestag und dem Bundesrat in den vertraglichen Grundlagen der Europäischen Union eingeräumt sind, Ausnahmen von Artikel 42 Abs. 2 Satz 1 und Artikel 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 zugelassen werden.

(2) In Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union wirken der Bundestag und durch den Bundesrat die Länder mit. Die Bundesregierung hat den Bundestag und den Bundesrat umfassend und zum frühestmöglichen Zeitpunkt zu unterrichten.

(3) Die Bundesregierung gibt dem Bundestag Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme vor ihrer Mitwirkung an Rechtsetzungsakten der Europäischen Union. Die Bundesregierung berücksichtigt die Stellungnahmen des Bundestages bei den Verhandlungen. Das Nähere regelt ein Gesetz.

(4) Der Bundesrat ist an der Willensbildung des Bundes zu beteiligen, soweit er an einer entsprechenden innerstaatlichen Maßnahme mitzuwirken hätte oder soweit die Länder innerstaatlich zuständig wären.

(5) Soweit in einem Bereich ausschließlicher Zuständigkeiten des Bundes Interessen der Länder berührt sind oder soweit im übrigen der Bund das Recht zur Gesetzgebung hat, berücksichtigt die Bundesregierung die Stellungnahme des Bundesrates. Wenn im Schwerpunkt Gesetzgebungsbefugnisse der Länder, die Einrichtung ihrer Behörden oder ihre Verwaltungsverfahren betroffen sind, ist bei der Willensbildung des Bundes insoweit die Auffassung des Bundesrates maßgeblich zu berücksichtigen; dabei ist die gesamtstaatliche Verantwortung des Bundes zu wahren. In Angelegenheiten, die zu Ausgabenerhöhungen oder Einnahmeminderungen für den Bund führen können, ist die Zustimmung der Bundesregierung erforderlich.

(6) Wenn im Schwerpunkt ausschließliche Gesetzgebungsbefugnisse der Länder auf den Gebieten der schulischen Bildung, der Kultur oder des Rundfunks betroffen sind, wird die Wahrnehmung der Rechte, die der Bundesrepublik Deutschland als Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union zustehen, vom Bund auf einen vom Bundesrat benannten Vertreter der Länder übertragen. Die Wahrnehmung der Rechte erfolgt unter Beteiligung und in Abstimmung mit der Bundesregierung; dabei ist die gesamtstaatliche Verantwortung des Bundes zu wahren.

(7) Das Nähere zu den Absätzen 4 bis 6 regelt ein Gesetz, das der Zustimmung des Bundesrates bedarf.

Read Full Post »

Eurogreens: Dear Mr. President, where is our Info?

Greens/EFA Group complains, reminds European Commission of the Article 218(10) obligations to “keep Members of Parliament “immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure”. Bold face is from me.

José Manuel Barroso
President
European Commission
Brussels, 29 February 2012

Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

Dear Mr President,

We have learned through the media that the Commission intends to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the ACTA agreement with the Treaties.

While we welcome this decision, which our group has been calling for ever since the content of the draft agreement was known well enough for the request to be admissible, we do not accept the procedure chosen by the Commission to inform Parliament, nor the timing of the referral.

As you know, Article 218(10) requires that Parliament be /immediately and fully informed at all stages of a procedure/ relating to the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements. A referral for opinion to the Court is undoubtedly a rather important event in such a procedure.

Moreover, the Framework Agreement, which establishes the modus operandi for good and loyal cooperation between our institutions is, as you know, quite explicit as regards the communication of important decisions by the Commission to Parliament, stating (para 13) that the /Commission shall not make public any significant initiative or decision before notifying Parliament thereof in writing/. We would ask you to do this, even if it now will be retrospective.

At this stage we do not even know whether ACTA has already been referred to the Court, nor do we have any information about the timetable foreseen. We demand an explanation for why the Commission, which has had full knowledge of ACTA, did not take this step at a much earlier stage, even before its request to Council to sign the agreement?

For months the Commission has ignored the concerns now raised by, among others, millions of citizens using their right to petition, the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the European Data Protection Supervisor, prominent European academics and several civil society groups.

Bearing in mind that the Council has just requested Parliament’s consent on the agreement, on the basis of which it has started its own procedures, we also wonder about the precise timing of the Commission’s referral. Coordination and communication are also to this end, as you know, key elements in the Framework Agreement.

We very much hope that the Commission will ask the Court to assess whether ACTA strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, intellectual property rights and, on the other, the right to private life, the right to the protection of personal data, freedom of expression and the freedom to receive or impart information, the right to protection of property and the freedom to conduct a business, both inside the Union and in external action and, more generally, with respect to the Union’s obligations concerning support for democracy and the rule of law in international relations and compliance with Art. 208 TFEU on policy coherence for development.

The Commission should invite the Court to include in its assessment the elements of the acquis which implement and give substance to fundamental rights and basic freedoms of the Union.

We will seek to ensure that the European Parliament uses its own powers to request the Court to assess the above-mentioned questions and the other outstanding economic and political issues raised by the agreement.

In the light of these elements, we will request your attendance at the next plenary session to debate your strategy on ACTA with the European Parliament.

Yours,

[signatures]

Rebecca Harms Daniel Cohn-Bendit

Co-Presidents Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament

Read Full Post »

EU Trade Negotiators trash Europarl role at WTO

From the WTO TRIPS council tweets James Love, a reliable expert source from the consumer side.

At the WTO TRIPS Council meeting, the EU negotiators were informally trashing the EU Parliament’s “theoretical” role in the #ACTA approval.

I’m not sure what EU and US expected when they scheduled a WTO TRIPS Council #ACTA discussion. What they got was #ACTA bashing, at the WTO.

@glynmoody EU #ACTA negotiators were out of touch, arrogant, and contemptuous of democratic processes.

He previously mentioned Pedro Velasco-Martins was leading the WTO TRIPS Council delegation. He is the current Mr. ACTA at the Commission. Arrogance is part of their administrative culture at DG Trade.

At the European Parliament STOA meeting for instance he spoke of China as a “very old, traditional country” while MEP Ruebig was spreading stupid nonsense. They are professional trade negotiators. Skilled persons which screw other nations up for us and vice versa. You cannot expect them to respond to “suggestions” from Parliament as it would be usual. More than 50 written questions from Parliament to the Commission. Any other Commission initiative would be dead and gone by then.

Tomorrow 10:30 Commissioner de Gucht would be in Parliament. In the afternoon the trade negotiator Pedro Velasco-Martins would present in the Trade Committee (INTA) on ACTA. Guess they are would be working until late night to draft something nice to tell Parliament representatives.

Read Full Post »

Offenlegung von Rechtsgutachten würde ACTA Ratifizierung kompromittieren

Unglaublich und irre. EP-Vizepräsident Rainer Wieland verweigert meinen “Zweitantrag” auf Zugang zum Rechtsgutachten des Handelsausschuss (INTA) zu ACTA. Er bestätigt die Argumente von Klaus Welle, die mir so lächerlich erschienen, dass ich überhaupt einen Zweitantrag zum Dokument gestellt habe. Dass nämlich die Offenlegung eines Rechtsgutachtens (SJ-0501/11) zur Interpretation eines bereits unterzeichneten Abkommens ACTA die Ratifizierung beeinträchtigen könne, und folglich Beziehungen mit externen Unterzeichnerstaaten. Deshalb muss das geheim bleiben.

View this document on Scribd

Der Witz wird ja noch viel köstlicher: Vor Weihnachten bereits hat der INTA Ausschuss beschlossen das Dokument offen zugänglich zu machen, und Abgeordnete haben es zirkulieren lassen. Danach erst später kam die negative Antwort von Klaus Welle, zu der ich dann einen “Zweitantrag” stellte, und mir Klaus Welle im Sinne der “günstigen Auslegung” die Möglichkeit zu einem zweiten Zweitantrag eröffnete. Mal gucken ob ich jetzt noch beim EUGH Klage erhebe oder mich beim EU Bürgerbeauftragten beschwere um allgemeinen Zugang zu dem Dokument zu erhalten.

Sinnvoll wäre es, denn die Argumente sind irre. Ich bin der Auffassung, dass Rechtsgutachten zu Rechtsfragen allgemeiner Natur grundsätzlich offengelegt werden sollten. Das Argument, nach der sich das berühmte TURCO-Urteil nur auf Legislativvorhaben aber nicht auf Rechtsgutachten über die Ratifizierbarkeit internationaler Abkommen mit Rechtswirkung beziehe, das sollte doch eigentlich der EUGH mal unter die Lupe nehmen. EuGH, lohnt sich das? Was kostet das? Feedback an mich von alten Hasen erwünscht.

Addendum: Das gesuchte Dokument ist das Rechtsgutachten SJ-0501/11 und Kollegen haben mich darauf hingewiesen, dass ich evtl. INTA und JURI durcheinander gebracht haben kann. Es gibt noch ein anderes SJ-0661/11. Heute in der Pressekonferenz haben die Abgeordneten ja wenn ich mich recht erinnere sogar auf die Inhalte der Gutachten Bezug genommen. Nun wird wieder Geheimniskrämerei betrieben statt die Rechtsfragen offen zu erörtern. Ich habe z.B. bis heute nicht verstanden auf welcher Rechtsgrundlage die EU-Kommission Geheimhaltungsvereinbarungen schliesst oder wie das mit dem “Mixed Agreement” genau funktioniert.

Ich erinnere mich an das erste Stakeholder-Treffen, ich war da, wo die Kommission ihre Pläne mit ACTA vorstellte, was mir wie ein Perpetuum Mobile des EU-Rechts vorkam. Ein Mitarbeiter aus dem Parlament fragte, ob es ein Verhandlungsmandat gebe, ja sagte Devigne, das wurde schon vor seit 2 Monaten im Rat abgestimmt. Soviel zum Thema “Information des Parlaments”… Das Parlament hat damals 2008 im Susta-Bericht richtig gefordert, alles offen zu legen. Bis heute ist das nicht geschehen. Mit einer ganz langsamen Lernkurve und viele Anfragen haben die Parlamentarier schließlich herausgefunden, dass ACTA ihre Kompetenzen aus Lissabon bei der Strafrechtsharmonisierung umgeht. Das ist alles sehr tricky. Darüber sollte man eine möglichst breite Debatte unter Europarechtlern führen. Zwei Anwälte, drei Meinungen ist normal. Die sollen aber auf den Tisch. Das SJ-0661/11 sagt übrigens, dass vieles europarechtlich unproblematisch sei. Das sind Argumente zu objektiven rechtlichen Sachverhalten, die diskutiert werden sollen.

Add EUGH: Möglichkeit habe ich erwähnt, weil es interessantes Case Law schaffen könnte, eine Art Turco+. Jeder Richter am EUGH versteht, dass er – wenn er die Rechtskonformität eines Abkommens mit den Verträgen beurteilen soll – keine Rücksicht darauf nehmen darf, ob die Auffassung des Gerichts anderen Staaten behagt oder die Ratifizierung stört. Jeder Richter versteht, dass man zu so allgemeinen Sachverhalten eine offene Rechtsdebatte führen muss.

Read Full Post »

Due diligence of negotiating criminal laws in the ACTA process

Anticipation and suspicion. Snake and rabbit go for a stroll. It’s secret what would happen. I found this declassified doc extremely helpful to understand negotiations on the criminal chapter of ACTA. Now for real:

“At the beginning of the meeting, the Justice and Home Affairs Counsellor of DE supported by SE, NL, UK, IT and LUX, deplored that there has been no opportunity for the national experts to examine in depth the draft which has been submitted by the Presidency and expressed the wish that experts on the matter would be given the opportunity in the future to do so. At the same time, these delegations as well as LT and PL entered a general scrutiny reservation on the criminal provisions chapter while the UK delegation announced its intention to table relevant drafting proposals. Delegations deplored furthermore the fact that ACTA documents having the classification RESTREINT UE, were not easily accessible to the delegations, who consequently were notified those documents very late and were not able to prepare themselves at time for the meetings.”

Just an test inspection into ACTA negotiations formerly covered by secrecy. These allegations are pretty serious. Be reminded, the Criminal chapter of ACTA directly corresponded to the yet unadopted IPRED2 directive. The Commission had no competence to negotiate Criminal sanctions (because IPRED2 is not adopted, though the negotiating mandate mentions criminal enforcment which are also directly referenced in the Digital chapter).

After repeated requests MEPs found out that these aspects would be negotiated by the member states themselves, represented via an unclear legal base by the Council presidency which consults a “Friends of the Presidency” group. The negotiations on criminal sanctions are disloyal to the EU ordinary legislative procedure where the European Parliament gets full say thanks to the new Lisbon rules. Apparently the NL delegation was also unaware that the Netherlands Parliament had put a reservation against an IPRED2 harmonisation of criminal laws. How could it support negotiations on the same measures in an even broader process? Due diligence it seems does not get promoted by secrecy.

Read Full Post »

The Avaaz Petition on ACTA and the Commission campaign

I haven’t signed the Avaaz Petition on ACTA (because I find it exaggarated) but 1.3 Mio citizens have:

As concerned global citizens, we call on you to stand for a free and open Internet and reject the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would destroy it.

The Commissioner responsible, Mr. Karel De Gucht, undertook an effort to answer the storm of public attention and delivered an equally distorted propaganda message to debunk the public concerns expressed by citizens of the European Union. See also the new website created as a response.

However, the agreement – while not being a SOPA cousin – has direct impact on the internet.

Commissioner De Gucht earlier responded to the European Parliament:

“ACTA will indeed impose obligations with respect to the internet because of its growing importance as a means of IPR infringement. The multilateral legal framework, and namely the TRIPs agreement, was negotiated before the expansion of the internet, and it therefore lacks the minimum standards to address such problems. It is important to have an international instrument setting out a framework for addressing this type of infringement in order to make sure that international partners have the same level of protection of IPRs that the EU currently applies, with all the due guarantees provided by its acquis. Since internet content flows freely across borders, a minimum set of internet enforcement rules will allow the EU right-holders to have their intellectual creations respected in third countries and, in the case of infringements, will equip them with legal measures to defend their assets.”

Unbearable lines are now cemented, for instance it is claimed by the Commission (as well as a  few member states and the mediocre lobby support) the agreement…

• No changes: … would not require any changes to EU laws.
• Large scale: … was only directed at large-scale action
• Transparency: .. was negotiated as usual. The EU Commission was utmost transparent during the negotiations and informed Parliament.
• Balance: …”contains the necessary safeguards to allow the participating countries to strike an appropriate balance between all rights and interests involved”
• No forum shopping: …does not lead to “harmonisation through the backdoor”.

I doubt it would be possible to defend these lines.

The French citizen advocacy group La Quadrature denounces them as outright “lies”. I wonder why Commissioner De Gucht intervenes at all into public discourse, outreaches to parliament and makes a partisan argument. I doesn’t suit the dignity of the Commission well to argue, the Commission which did very little to resolve what she was actually asked for by Members of Parliament. The proactive partisan defense of the Commission reveals that the agreement is driven by mere administrative activism, not industry demand.

Read Full Post »

Council to sign ACTA the cynical way

Stumbled upon this proposal (28.6.11) for a Decision to sign the controversial ACTA agreement at the Council

…ACTA is a balanced agreement, because it fully respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of important stakeholders such as consumers, internet providers and partners in developing countries.

and it goes on:

Regarding the signature and conclusion of ACTA, the Commission has opted not to propose that the European Union exercise its potential competence in the area of criminal enforcement pursuant to Article 83(2) TFEU. The Commission considers this appropriate because it has never been the intention, as regards the negotiation of ACTA to modify the EU acquis or to harmonise EU legislation as regards criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights. For this reason, the Commission proposes that ACTA be signed and concluded both by the EU and by all the Member States.

That’s batshit crazy! The Council appears to walk down the cynical road. Here is what Article 83(2) provides:

Article 83 (ex Article 31 TEU)
1. The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.

2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.

Essentially the Council Decision would endorse it permissable that the Commission and the member states together circumvent parliament prerogatives under the Treaties (and Treaty conditions) via an Agreement with third nations using the trade funnel. Outrageous and inacceptable.

Read Full Post »