LIBE short-list amendments

De La Quadrature du Net

La Quadrature du Net recommends:

  • to reject amendments 21, 22, 23, which minimise the lack of safeguards in ACTA or else falsely suggest that ACTA's dangers can be addresses by the Commission and/or Member States in the course of implementaiton.
  • to adopt amendments 42, which calls on the Trade committee to recommend that the Parliament withhold consent to ACTA, as well as amendements 24, 36 which stress the dangers of privatised copyright enforcement and stress the need for a revised approach to copyright enforcement.


Amendment 21 --[modifier]

Amendement 21
Paragraph 9
Anthea McIntyre (UK / ECR)
--

9. Recalls that the Commission has decided to refer ACTA to the CJEU on the question of whether ACTA is compatible with Union Treaties, in particular the Charter;

9. Recalls that the Commission has decided to refer ACTA to the CJEU on the question of whether ACTA is compatible with Union Treaties, in particular the Charter; urges that the Parliament's final decision be taken only after the judgement of the CJEU is known;

Comments: This amendment would suspend the final vote on ACTA pending the EU court of Justice opinion on ACTA. Waiting for an ECJ referral would narrow down the debate to legal issues. Through these initiatives, the Parliament would be perceived as escaping its political responsibility.

Amendment 22 --[modifier]

Amendement 22
Paragraph 9a (new)
Simon Busuttil (Malta / EPP), Frank Engel (Luxembourg / EPP), Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (Sweden / EPP), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (Spain / EPP), Csaba Sógor (Romania / EPP), Axel Voss (Germany / EPP), Manfred Weber (Germany / EPP)
--

9a. Notes that concern has especially been raised on those provisions that leave room for flexibility in their implementation, on the basis that these provisions might be implemented in the Union in a manner that could be illegal or contrary to fundamental rights; considers that this is an unsubstantiated assumption which is contrary to the general principles of law and to the letter of ACTA itself as it explicitly requires that the optional or flexible provisions therein be implemented in compliance with fundamental rights and applicable domestic provisions; reiterates however that this does not justify ambiguities contained in ACTA;

Comments: Am 22 takes a view contradicted by many scholars, NGOs and public institutions (see the list of critics of ACTA). many mistakes a caveat for balance. The "delta" is negative: the provisions of this agreement are biased as such as they could only be implemented at the expense of fundamental rights values but not in their defense. ACTA options and flexibilities suggest implementation of an ACTA+, esp. as they are tied to international trade dialogue. The language above "require...be implemented" shows it is a loaded gun. Fundamental rights concerns raised also relate to ACTA implementers in third nations.

Amendment 23 --[modifier]

Amendement 23
Paragraph 9b (new)
Simon Busuttil (Malta / EPP), Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (Sweden / EPP), Csaba Sógor (Romania / EPP), Axel Voss (Germany / EPP), Manfred Weber (Germany / EPP)
--

9b. Notes that despite the ambiguities that remain in ACTA, there is no evidence whatsoever, not even in the European Data Protection Supervisor's opinion on ACTA, that it goes contrary to Union law or that it violates fundamental rights and freedoms in any manner;

Comments: This amendments is based on a biased reading of the EDPS opinion, to say the least. The EDPS clearly points to the dangers of ACTA for fundamental rights. Same statement as DeGucht's.

Amendment 24 ++[modifier]

Amendement 24
Paragraph 12
Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece / SD)
++

12. Underlines that there is still significant legal uncertainty in the manner in which some key provisions of ACTA have been drafted (e.g. Article 11 (Information related to Infringements), Article 23 (criminal offences), Article 27 (scope of the enforcement measures in the digital environment), especially Article 27(3) (cooperation mechanisms),and Article 27(4)); warns against the potential to deliver 'fragmented approaches within the EU' with risks of inadequate compliance with the right to protection of personal data;

12. Underlines that there is still significant legal uncertainty in the manner in which some key provisions of ACTA have been drafted (e.g. Article 11 (Information related to Infringements), Article 23 (criminal offences), Article 27 (scope of the enforcement measures in the digital environment), especially Article 27(3) (cooperation mechanisms),and Article 27(4)); warns against the potential to deliver 'fragmented approaches within the EU' with risks of inadequate compliance with the right to protection of personal data; points out that these risks are especially present as regards Article 27(3) and 27(4) in light of the lack of precision of those texts but also having in mind the practices currently taking place in some Member States (e.g. large scale monitoring of Internet by private parties) whose conformity with the Charter is questionable;

Comments: Useful reminder that ongoing practices carried on by online service providers already represent a threat to the protection of fundamental rights, and that ACTA would only comfort and generalise such practices.

Amendment 36 ++[modifier]

Amendement 36
Paragraph 15
Josef Weidenholzer (Austria / SD)
++

15. Considers that when fundamental rights are at stake ambiguity must be avoided and at the least reduced to a minimum; moreover, and without assigning any wrongful intentions ("procès d'intention") to the ACTA implementation measures, takes the view that in the current state of affairs precaution should be exercised as regards ACTA in light of the serious and remaining question-marks surrounding the balance reached within the agreement between IPRs and other core fundamental rights and its level of legal certainty.

15. Considers that when fundamental rights are at stake ambiguity must be avoided and at the least reduced to a minimum; underlines in this context the importance of differentiating between non-commercial filesharing (data exchange between private persons) and piracy; moreover, and without assigning any wrongful intentions ("procès d'intention") to the ACTA implementation measures, takes the view that in the current state of affairs precaution should be exercised as regards ACTA in light of the serious and remaining question-marks surrounding the balance reached within the agreement between IPRs and other core fundamental rights and its level of legal certainty.

Comments: Even if the redaction could be improved, 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 42 ++[modifier]

Amendement 42
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Dimitrios Droutsas (Greece / SD)
++

15a. In light of all of the above and without prejudice to the CJEU's assessment on the matter, but taking into consideration Parliament's role in the protection and promotion of fundamental rights, concludes that ACTA is incompatible with the rights enshrined in the Charter and calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.

Comments: Crucial amendment to draw clear conclusions in view of the INTA report and the final vote of the Parliament on ACTA. Make it a 15b, after 15a from AM38?