In March 2010, a leaked draft negotiating text showed that the European Commission had proposed language in ACTA to require criminal sanctions for «incitement, complicity and complicity» in certain crimes, including «at least in cases of intentional trademark infringement and piracy of copyright or related rights on a commercial scale». [41] In a report published on 11 March 2009, the European Parliament called on the European Commission to «make immediately available to the public all documents relating to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)». [42] Section 4 of ACTA deals with the criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights, according to Professor Michael Blakeney. The section (in Article 23) focuses mainly on the criminalisation of intentional trademark infringement or commercial-scale piracy by means of copyright or related rights. Cross-border trade in counterfeit and pirated goods is a growing global problem, often involving organized criminal networks. ACTA participants must work together to meet this challenge. The chapter on international cooperation aims to answer the following questions: is this really a trade agreement? Acta was negotiated as a trade deal, which gave it some freedom of democratic control. Critics argue that this is copyright legislation enforced under the guise of a trade deal so it is not as much discussed. It does not matter because the Members of the European Parliament have not been consulted. It is even negotiated outside of existing trade bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. The article states that the agreement will remain open for signature until 1 May 2013 for its negotiators, as well as for any other member of the World Trade Organization supported by consensus by the negotiators.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was a draft multilateral treaty establishing international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The agreement aims to create an international legal framework to combat counterfeiting, generics and copyright infringements on the Internet and to create a new governing body outside existing bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the United Nations. The 1. In October 2011, eight ACTA negotiators signed the highest level of plurilateral agreement ever reached on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. This chapter contains all the necessary provisions for institution-building, including matters relating to the implementation of the Agreement, the nature and timing of the holding of meetings of the Parties and other administrative details of the Agreement. At the end of the date referred to in Article 39, any WTO Member State 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. On the 22nd. In February 2012, the European Commission asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess whether ACTA violates the EU`s fundamental human rights and freedoms[66], resulting in 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] The European Union and its 28 Member States at the time shared competences for 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] On 3 February 2012, Poland announced that it had interrupted the ratification process because it «did not conduct sufficient consultations before the signing of 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] It has been reported that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has stated that it will not use the Accelerated Trade Promotion Authority to implement ACTA, but rather the form of a «single executive agreement.» [78] On March 6, 2012, State Department counsel Harold Koh refused to support the USTR`s theory that he could enter into an agreement that the United States would not amend. Without congressional approval, Koh described ACTA as an «executive agreement of Congress» that Congress had approved ex ante, citing the PRO-IP Act. [79] This proposed method of adoption has drawn criticism in Congress.
[80] According to Senator Ron Wyden, «There are questions of constitutional authority as to whether the government can enter into this agreement without congressional approval. In any case, when international treaties like ACTA are designed and constructed under the guise of secrecy, it is difficult to argue that they represent the general interests of the public. The controversy surrounding ACTA should come as no surprise. [81] More recently, on March 20, 2012, Senator Wyden noted, «I believe that Congress should approve binding international agreements before the United States is forced to comply with those agreements. This is a point where the government and I disagree, and it is especially true for issues that affect our country`s ability to implement policies that encourage innovation. [82] As noted on the State Department`s website, in February 2012, the EFF sent a FOIA request to the State Department for important documents describing the State Department`s analysis of ACTA`s constitutional basis — the «Circular 175» memorandum and the accompanying memorandum of law. The Circular 175 process is how the State Department «seeks to confirm that the conclusion of treaties and other international agreements by the United States is within constitutional and other legal limits, with due regard to the foreign policy implications of the agreement and with the appropriate participation of the State Department.» The memoranda of Circular 175 are accompanied by a memorandum of law prepared by the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which usually contains a discussion of the appropriate legal analysis underlying the performance of the contract in question. The signing of the EU and many Member States has led to widespread 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.»