An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, European Digital Rights (EDRi, an umbrella organization of 32 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French professional association for Web 2.0 companies) and the Free Knowledge Institute, states that “the current draft OF ACTA deals with the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens. would be deeply restrictive. above all, freedom of expression and confidentiality of communication.” [106] The FSF argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and mistrust. [107] Aaron Shaw, a researcher at Harvard University`s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, argues that “ACTA would create excessively strict legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Although the exact terms of ACTA have not yet been decided, the negotiators` preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement,” such as. B the removal of “legal safeguards that protect Internet service providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers”, leaving ISPs with no choice but to comply with intrusions into privacy. Shaw goes on to say that “[ACTA] would also facilitate data breaches by trademark and copyright owners against individuals suspected of violating activities, without any type of legal process.” [108] The signing of the EU and many Member States sparked numerous protests across Europe. The European Parliament`s rapporteur, Kader Arif, has resigned. His successor, British MEP David Martin, recommended that parliament reject ACTA, saying: “The expected benefits of this international agreement are more than outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties.” On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected its assent and rejected it by 478 votes in favour, 39 votes against and 165 abstentions. [10] [11] February 26, 2012. What is wrong (yet) with ACTA and why governments should reject the illegitimate agreement Helena Drnovšek-Zorko, Slovenian Ambassador to Japan, issued a statement on 31 January 2012 expressing deep remorse for the signing of the agreement. “I signed ACTA out of bourgeois recklessness because I didn`t pay enough attention to it. Quite simply, I have not clearly associated the agreement I have been tasked with signing with the agreement which, according to my own civil convictions, restricts and retains the freedom of engagement with the largest and most important network in the history of mankind, thus restricting in particular the future of our children,” she said.
[81] [150] After the expiry of the article 39 date, any WTO member country may attempt to accede to the Agreement. The conditions of acceptance would be determined individually by the Committee on a case-by-case basis. The contract would enter into force for successful candidates thirty days after receipt of their act by the depositary. In September 2008, a number of stakeholders asked the parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the wording of the agreement under development. In an open letter, the groups argued: “Given that the text of the treaty and relevant discussion papers remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are justified.” Speakers included: Consumers` Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), Canadian Library Association, Consumers` Union of Japan, Consumer Focus (United Kingdom) and Médecins Sans Frontières campaign. [120] The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge filed an application under the Access to Information Act, which was denied. [12] [121] 23 October 2007. European Union, “European Commission seeks mandate to negotiate an important new international pact to fight counterfeiting and brands”, press release of the European Trade Commission. On 22 February 2012, the European Commission asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess whether Act A violates the EU`s fundamental rights and freedoms[66], leading to a delay in the ratification process in the EU.
[67] However, given its exclusion from the negotiations, the secrecy of the negotiations and the recent protests, InTA, the European Parliament`s Committee on International Trade, requested that its vote on ratification take place as planned in June or July 2012, despite the objections of the European Commission. [68] October 23, 2007. Cory Doctorow, “Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Turns into Maximum Copyright Free for All,” Boing Boing. The European Union and its 28 Member States at the time shared responsibility for the purpose of this Convention. This means that entry into force on its territory requires the ratification (or accession) of all states, as well as the consent of the European Union. [48] The approval of the European Union requires the consent of the European Parliament and the Council. [49] On 26 January 2012, the European Union and 22 Member States signed the Treaty in Tokyo. According to the Depositary of Japan, the other members (Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia) were to sign it after the completion of their respective national procedures. [3] The 3. In February 2012, Poland announced that it had halted the ratification process because it “did not conduct sufficient consultations before signing the agreement at the end of January and it was necessary to ensure that it was absolutely safe for Polish citizens”. [48] [50] Bulgaria[50],[51], the Czech Republic,[50][52][53], Latvia[54], Lithuania[55] and the non-signatory countries, Germany[56], Slovakia[53],[57] and Slovenia[50],[58], also stated that they had stopped the treaty conclusion process.
On 17th February 2012 Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced that Poland would not ratify ACTA. [59] [60] [61] On February 21, 2012, a report noted that “many European countries that have signed the treaty have withdrawn ratification in response to public outcry, thus hindering the ratification and implementation of the treaty.” [61] The EDPS adopted an opinion on the eu`s ongoing negotiations on a Multilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), aimed at strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights and combating counterfeiting and piracy. In the light of the information provided on ACTA, the EDPS is concerned about the possible incompatibility between the planned measures and the data protection requirements. The EDPS makes a number of recommendations aimed at providing the European Commission with guidance on the aspects of data protection that should be taken into account in the ACTA negotiations. In particular, it points out that: The articles provide that right holders have access to civil or (where appropriate) administrative proceedings (Article 7) and have the possibility for judges to “make an order to a party to refrain from an offence” (Article 8). They may also require that pirated copyrighted goods and counterfeit trademark goods be destroyed in civil proceedings (Article 10). In accordance with Article 11, they may ask (suspected) infringers to provide information about the goods they are “controlling”. .