ITRE ACTA report amendments

Update (31/05/2012): See La Quadrature's final voting list (.doc), with compromise amendments (below table). Most important amendments to reject are 39, 40 and 41.

On May 31st, 2012, the ITRE committee of the EU Parliament will adopt amendments to its report on ACTA.

Below are the amendments tabled on the draft report, graded by La Quadrature. Generally speaking, grades depend on whether amendments acknowledge ACTA's dangerous flaws and understand the need to reform copyright so as to adapt it to new technologies and social practices. Also, amendments aimed at delaying the procedure have been graded negatively.

La Quadrature du Net recommends:

• to reject amendments 32, 39, 40, 41, which minimise the lack of safeguards in ACTA or else refuse to clearly call for a rejection of ACTA.
• to adopt amendments 2, 24, 38 which point to some of ACTA's most important flaws, and urge for a more balanced approach to copyright and patent enforcement.

Amendments 1 – 10

Amendment 1 +

Amendement 1 Paragraph 1 Marita Ulvskog (Sweden / SD) +
1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods;	1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods; regrets, however, that the agreement was negotiated by the European Commission in secrecy, without engaging or providing the European Parliament with adequate information;
Comments:

Amendment 2 ++

Amendement 2 Paragraph 1 Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) ++
1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods;	1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods; regrets, however, that the Council and the Commission did not associate enough the Parliament to the definition of the negotiation mandate and failed to provide adequate transparency over the course of the discussions;
Comments:

Amendment 3 +

Amendement 3 Paragraph 1 Juozas Imbrasas (Lithuania / EFD) +
1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods;	1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods but regrets that a right balance with regard to the rights to privacy and data protection has not been found; questions ACTA's utility due to the restricted number of signatories;
Comments:

Amendment 4 +

Amendement 4 Paragraph 1 Rolandas Paksas (Lithuania / EFD) +
1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods;	1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods but regrets that a right balance with regard to the rights to privacy and data protection has not been found; questions ACTA's utility due to the restricted number of signatories;
Comments:

Amendment 5 O

Amendement 5 Paragraph 1 Adam Gierek (Poland / SD) O
1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods;	1. Welcomes the aims expressed by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiating parties to tackle the trade in counterfeited goods, especially at the EU's borders;
Comments:

Amendment 6 -

Amendement 6 Paragraph 1 a (new) Jens Rohde (Denmark / ALDE), Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) -
	1a. Is in favour of international agreements which strengthen the respect for intellectual property rights considering the importance hereof for the EU's economy and job market as recent OECD studies(1) estimate that international piracy and counterfeit account for approximately 150 billion EUR per year;
Comment : There is no proof that a new agreement is necessary. Existing international rules, and the TRIPS agreement in particular, need better implementation. 1. OECD study: Magnitude of counterfeiting and piracy of Tangible products: an update, November 2009 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/27/44088872.pdf.

Amendment 7 -

Amendement 7 Paragraph 1a (new) - Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD)
	1a. Consideră că legislatia UE referitoare la respectarea drepturilor de autor in Societatea Informaționala este una dintre cele mai moderne și în deplină conformitate cu acordurile internaționale în materie;
Comments: Current EU copyright rules are widely criticized, and need to be reformed to adapt copyright to new technologies and social practices. The EU Commission itself has recognizes that EU copyright law suffers from an obvious lack of symmetry between exclusive rights on the one hand, and limitations and exceptions on the other hand.

Amendment 8 +

Amendement 8 Paragraph 2 Rolandas Paksas (Lithuania / EFD) +
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers and could have unacceptable side effects on the fundamental rights of individuals if its provisions are not correctly implemented; doubts, in this regard, that ACTA provides for sufficient safeguards such as sufficient judicial protection, due process and the principle of the presumption of innocence;
Comments:

Amendment 9 +

Amendement 9 Paragraph 2 Juozas Imbrasas (Lithuania / EFD) +
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers and could have unacceptable side effects on the fundamental rights of individuals if its provisions are not correctly implemented; doubts, in this regard, that ACTA provides for sufficient safeguards such as sufficient judicial protection, due process and the principle of the presumption of innocence;
Comments:

Amendment 10 +

Amendement 10 Paragraph 2 Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) +
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that ACTA wrongly bundles together too many different types of IPR under the same umbrella, treating physical goods and digital services in the same way; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;
Comments:

Amendments 11 – 20

Amendment 11 -

Amendement 11 Paragraph 2 Jens Rohde (Denmark / ALDE), Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) -
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA and recognizes the concern that a wider set of instruments of enforcement might meet the unique needs of each sector better; recognizes the concern that some definitions of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based might not be sufficiently clear, which might lead to legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;
Comments: This amendments softens the language of the report, which rightly denounced big flaws in ACTA.

Amendment 12 +

Amendement 12 Paragraph 2 Maria Badia i Cutchet (Spain / SD) +
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers; also notes that while ACTA pretends to encourage artistic creation and preserve the interest of the artists, the artistic community seems particularly divided on the potential and possible benefits of this agreement;
Comments:

Amendment 13 O

Amendement 13 Paragraph 2 Adam Gierek (Poland / SD) O
2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;	2. Notes that counterfeiting, copyright and trademark infringements are covered by ACTA thus creating a one-size-fits-all instrument of enforcement which doesn't meet the unique needs of each sector; is concerned by the lack of definition of key terminologies on which the ACTA enforcement mechanisms are based, especially regarding copyright in computer programs and their registration; fears that this creates legal uncertainty for European companies and in particular SMEs, technology users, online platform and internet service providers;
Comments:

Amendment 14 +

Amendement 14 Paragraph 2 a (new) Ivailo Kalfin (Bulgaria / SD) +
	2a. Regrets that ACTA was drafted in insufficient transparency, without taking into consideration stakeholder opinions and bypassing the legitimate international bodies, which results in many structural deficiencies in the text and which contradicts well established practices and principles in the internet space.
Comments:

Amendment 15 O

Amendement 15 Paragraph 2 a (new) Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD) O
	2bis. Notes that ACTA would freeze the possibility for the European Parliament to modify EU Intellectual Property Rights legislation; believes the EU should have first reviewed the IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED) and adapted EU law towards the internet environment before negotiating such an agreement;
Comments: This amendment is interesting because it underlines the fact that ACTA would greatly inhibit the legislative power of EU lawmakers. But in the second part, it calls for a new ACTA without really giving indication as to the substance of the revision of IPRED it calls for.

Amendment 16 O

Amendement 16 Paragraph 3 Maria Badia i Cutchet (Spain / SD) O
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs; to that extent, innovation is the most valuable EU asset and, thus, should be the basis to generate a comprehensive approach to achieve a balanced and overarching model that both respects the rights and fair remuneration of creators and right-holders and user-friendly access of users and citizens to cultural content and goods;
Comments:

Amendment 17 O

Amendement 17 Paragraph 3 Adam Gierek (Poland / SD) O
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation,as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Notes that Art. 27 of the ACTA Agreement appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for generating cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for all users;
Comments: This amendments implies that ACTA's negative effects are limited to article 27. But provisions on damages, injunctions and criminal measures are harmful as well.

Amendment 18 O

Amendement 18 Paragraph 3 Jens Rohde (Denmark / ALDE), Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) O
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Welcomes the ambition of ACTA to strengthen EU industries; recognizes the concerns regarding ACTA's digital enforcement provisions and recalls the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;
Comments:

Amendment 19 +

Amendement 19 Paragraph 3 Juozas Imbrasas (Lithuania / EFD) +
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Notes that while the European Commission's ambition when signing ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it is contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;
Comments:

Amendment 20 +

Amendement 20 Paragraph 3 Rolandas Paksas (Lithuania / EFD) +
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Notes that while the European Commission's ambition when signing ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it is contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;
Comments:

Amendments 21 – 30

Amendment 21 +

Amendement 21 Paragraph 3 Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) +
3. Notes that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it appears to be contrary to the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;	3. Deplores that while the ambition of ACTA is to strengthen EU industries, it contradicts the ambition of the EP in the Digital Agenda to make Europe the scene for cutting edge internet innovation, as well as the strong ambition to promote net neutrality and access to the online digital market for SMEs;
Comments:

Amendment 22 +

Amendement 22 Paragraph 4 Francesco De Angelis (Italy / SD) +
4. Recalls that data concerning the scale of IPR infringements are inconsistent, incomplete, insufficient and dispersed, and that an objective, independent impact assessment is needed for any additional legislative proposal;	4. Recalls that data concerning the scale of IPR infringements are inconsistent, incomplete, insufficient and dispersed, and that an objective, independent impact assessment is needed for any additional legislative proposal; underlines that the provisions foreseen in ACTA may harm the attainment of EU2020 objectives, and specifically the call on promoting openness and capitalizing on Europe’s creative potential in the frame of the “Innovation Union” EU2020 Flagship Initiative.
Comments:

Amendment 23 -

Amendement 23 Paragraph 4 Jens Rohde (Denmark / ALDE), Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) -
4. Recalls that data concerning the scale of IPR infringements are inconsistent, incomplete, insufficient and dispersed, and that an objective, independent impact assessment is needed for any additional legislative proposal';	4. Recalls that the Commission's yearly customs reports show a consistent increase in seized goods suspected of violating IPR with an increase in cases from 43,500 in 2009 to almost 80,000 in 2010(1); however, recognises the concern that data concerning the scale of IPR infringements are incomplete and dispersed; supports objective and independent impact assessments for legislative proposals;
Comments: 1 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/statistics_2010.pdf.

Amendment 24 ++

Amendement 24 Paragraph 4 a (new) Francesco De Angelis (Italy / SD) ++
	4a. Recalls that when dealing with the nature of IPR infringements, the European Parliament has underlined the importance of the principle of proportionality(1); is therefore concerned by the fact that ACTA draws no distinction between infringements committed on a commercial scale, and infringements carried out by private users for personal and not-for-profit purposes; believes moreover that ACTA would freeze the possibility for the EP to modify in the future EU IPR legislation, while a review of the IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED) is foreseen in the next coming months.
Comments: 1. IPRED2 – First reading by the EP, April 2007. Art.2 par. b. This amendment stresses a crucial principle on which a revision of the EU Copyright law should be based: the recognition of the legitimacy of not-for-profit sharing of cultural works between individuals. Culture sharing should be placed outside of the scope of copyright, e.g. through the creation of a new exception.

Amendment 25 +

Amendement 29 Paragraph 4 a (new) Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD) +
	4a. Expresses serious concerns about copyright enforcement online, especially the obligation to apply criminal sanctions, without the necessary provision of binding safeguards for personal users, as well as the vague definition of terms, particularly with reference to the concept of "commercial use". For example, in Art. 14, point 2, the countries agree that "a party may exclude from the application of [...] small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage", which means also that a party may decide not to exclude small quantities such goods, raising serious concerns about possible infringements of the free movement of goods and persons within EU.
Comments:

Amendment 26 -

Amendement 27 Paragraph 4 a (new) Gunnar Hökmark (Sweden / EPP), Pilar del Castillo Vera (Spain / EPP) -
	4a. Highlights the need to defend and safeguard a free and open internet as well as protecting intellectual property rights; underlines that there is no contradiction between property rights and the freedom of information, whether it is on- or offline.
Comments: Useless addition, which suggests that property rights and freedom of expression are of equivalent importance.

Amendment 27 +

Amendement 28 Paragraph 4 a (new) Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) +
	4a. Expresses doubt about the effectiveness of ACTA considering that countries who are the main source of counterfeit goods are not part of the Agreement.
Comments:

Amendment 28 +

Amendement 26 Paragraph 4 a c (new) Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD) +
	4b. Expresses its concern at Article 27(1), which provides for ‘expeditious measures to prevent infringement’ without defining those measures, and Article 27(4), which provides that the competent authorities of a party signatory shall have the ‘authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement’.
Comments:

Amendement 29

Amendement 26 Paragraph 4 a c (new) Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD) -
	4c. calls on the Commission to prepare a proportionate and balanced revision of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive, and to examine benefits of strengthening user rights and build on objective data on copyright infringements, which must be provided by the Observatory on Intellectual Property Rights set up by the Commission.
Comments:

Amendment 30 +

Amendement 30 Paragraph 5 Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) +
5. Is concerned that the ACTA text does not ensure a fair balance between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, the requirement of which was recently ruled by the European Court of Justice;	5. Is highly concerned that the ACTA text does not ensure a fair balance between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, the requirement of which was recently ruled by the European Court of Justice;
Comments:

Amendments 31 – 40

Amendment 31 -

Amendement 31 Paragraph 5 Jens Rohde (Denmark / ALDE), Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) -
5. Is concerned that the ACTA text does not ensure a fair balance between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, the requirement of which was recently ruled by the European Court of Justice;	5. Considers that the several explicit obligations in ACTA on the signatories to protect fundamental rights might not be sufficiently emphasised, recognises the concern that some parts of the ACTA text might be seen as impacting on the balance between the right to intellectual property and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, the requirement of which was recently ruled by the European Court of Justice;
Comment: Soft language minimizing the severe lack of appropriate safeguards in ACTA, which has been stressed by many actors. For instance, in an opinion criticizing the EU Commission's IPR Strategy, the European Economic and Social Committee stressed that “fundamental human rights, such as the right to information, health, sufficient food, the right of farmers to select seeds and the right to culture, are not taken sufficiently into consideration.” (1) This is confirmed by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović in a letter sent to the President of the EU Parliament. (2) 1 http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Against_ACTA#EU_Economic_.26_Social_Committee_-_January_2012_-_Fundamental_rights_not_taken_into_consideration_in_ACTA 2 http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Against_ACTA#OSCE_media_representative_-_February_2012_-_EU_Parliament_must_reassess_ACTA_to_safeguard_freedom_of_expression

Amendment 32 --

Amendement 32 Paragraph 5 a (new) Pilar del Castillo Vera (Spain / EPP) --
	5a. Underlines the safeguards in the text of ACTA requiring that the procedures foreseen by ACTA be “implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce and, consistent with that Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy”; Reminds that the European Parliament Legal Service opinion, SJ-0661/11, concludes that ACTA does not impose any obligations that conflict with fundamental rights, the existing EU Acquis or which require the introduction of new EU legislative acts or amendment of existing ones;
Comment: This amendment overlooks the severe lack of appropriate safeguards in ACTA, which has been stressed by many actors. For instance, in an opinion criticizing the EU Commission's IPR Strategy, the European Economic and Social Committee stressed that “fundamental human rights, such as the right to information, health, sufficient food, the right of farmers to select seeds and the right to culture, are not taken sufficiently into consideration.”(1) This is confirmed by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović in a letter sent to the President of the EU Parliament.(2) 1 http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Against_ACTA#EU_Economic_.26_Social_Committee_-_January_2012_-_Fundamental_rights_not_taken_into_consideration_in_ACTA 2 http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Against_ACTA#OSCE_media_representative_-_February_2012_-_EU_Parliament_must_reassess_ACTA_to_safeguard_freedom_of_expression

Amendment 33 +

Amendement 33 Paragraph 5 a new Juozas Imbrasas (Lithuania / EFD) +
	5a. Considers that any measures that could imply surveillance on a large-scale of Internet users behaviour and electronic communications in relation to small-scale non-profit infringement would be disproportionate and in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Comments:

Amendment 34 +

Amendement 34 Paragraph 5 a new Rolandas Paksas (Lithuania / EFD) +
	5a. Considers that any measures that could imply surveillance on a large-scale of Internet users behaviour and electronic communications in relation to small-scale non-profit infringement would be disproportionate and in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Comments:

Amendment 35 O

Amendement 35 Paragraph 5 a new Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) O
	5bis. Is concerned by the uncertainty over how ACTA will be implemented by the Commission and EU Member States ;
Comment: Good amendment, which however risks being used as a way to further delay the procedure on ACTA. Indeed, many ACTA proponents have claimed that the EU Commission and Member States could issue guarantees on how the agreement will be implemented, and that this in itself would be an appropriate safeguard against prejudicial implementations of ACTA.

Amendment 36 +

Amendement 36 Paragraph 5 a new Corinne Lepage (France / ALDE) +
	5a. Is concerned by the compatibility of ACTA with EU legislation, the EU’s fundamental rights, and access to legitimate generic medicines;
Comments:

Amendment 37 +

Amendement 37 Paragraph 5 a (new) Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (Romania / SD) +
	5a. Consideră că lupta împotriva combaterii comercializării de produse contrafăcute nu trebuie să se facă cu riscul nerespectării drepturilor fundamentale ale cetățenilor europeni;
Comments:

Amendment 38 ++

Amendement 38 Paragraph 5 a (new) Ivailo Kalfin (Bulgaria / SD) ++
	5a. Takes note of the concerns, expressed by the European Data Protection Supervisor on data privacy and protection of fundamental rights. Notes furthermore that the lack of precision in the ACTA provisions could lead to highly intrusive and unacceptable side effects on the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly in the cyberspace;
Comments:

Amendment 39 --

Amendement 39 Paragraph 6 Giles Chichester (UK / ECR) --
6. Therefore, feels compelled to call on the Committee on International Trade to withhold its consent to the agreement.	6. Therefore, feels compelled to call on the Committee on International Trade to suspend its work on the proposal pending the ruling by the ECJ.
Comment: ECJ referral would center the debate on legal issues. Through these initiatives, the EP would be perceived as escaping its political responsibility. MEPs must recognize that ACTA is a vaguely worded agreement, circumventing democratic procedures to push a repressive trend in the field of copyright, patent and trademark ; that it would set in stone today's contentious policies (an impact study is still expected on EUCD and IPRED). It would block any possibility for the EU and national lawmakers to propose positive reforms in this field. The ECJ opinion will not deal with these issues, which alone should justify the rejection of ACTA.

Amendment 40 --

Amendement 40 Paragraph 6 Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) --
6. Therefore, feels compelled to call on the Committee on International Trade to withhold its consent to the agreement.	6. Therefore, feels compelled to call on the Committee on International Trade to take into account the above-mentioned concerns in its evaluation of the agreement.
Comment: the concerns expressed in the opinion are strong enough for the ITRE committee to resolutely call on the lead committee to recommend the rejection of ACTA.

Amendments 41 – 41

Amendment 41 --

Amendement 41 Legislative resolution Daniel Caspary (Germany / EPP) --
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament decline to give its consent.	The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to take into account the above-mentioned concerns in its evaluation of the agreement.
Comment: The concerns expressed in the opinion are strong enough for the ITRE committee to call on the lead committee to recommend the rejection of ACTA.