LIBE ACTA report amendments : Différence entre versions

De La Quadrature du Net
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche
Ligne 662 : Ligne 662 :
 
|width="50%"|
 
|width="50%"|
 
14a. Emphasises that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not police the Internet and therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure legal clarity on the role of ISPs under ACTA;
 
14a. Emphasises that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not police the Internet and therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure legal clarity on the role of ISPs under ACTA;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
== Amendments 41 – 50 ==
 +
=== Amendment 41 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 41
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 c (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Sonia Alfano, Stanimir Ilchev, Sophia in 't Veld, Gianni Vattimo, Renate Weber
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15c. Invites the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 42 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 42
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 a (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Dimitrios Droutsas
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
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.
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 43 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 43
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 a (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Cornelia Ernst
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15a. Takes the view therefore that the conclusion of ACTA would be detrimental to European values and incompatible with the European model; calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 44 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 44
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 a (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Jacek Protasiewicz
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15a. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs therefore calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 45 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 45
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 a (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Carl Schlyter
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15a. Calls on the Committee of International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent, pursuant to Article 218(6) TFEU, to the conclusion of ACTA;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 46 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 46
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 a (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Zuzana Roithová
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15a. Considers that the current ACTA text contains articles that pose certain risks of possibly breaching the fundamental rights that European citizens have enjoyed thus far;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 47 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 47
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 b (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Zuzana Roithová
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15b. Emphasises that the states where the greatest infringements of intellectual property rights occur, such as China, Pakistan, Russia and Brazil, were not invited to sign ACTA, and it is unlikely that those states will sign up to ACTA in the near future, and this raises important questions about the efficacy of the measures proposed by ACTA;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 48 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 48
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 c (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Zuzana Roithová
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15c. Is convinced that counterfeiting and piracy, when carried out with criminal intent and on a commercial scale, are significant phenomena in an information society and that it is necessary to develop a comprehensive EU strategy to tackle them. Such an EU strategy should not focus solely on combating the effects of counterfeiting and piracy, but should also focus on their causes; it must fully respect fundamental rights in Europe and be effective, acceptable and easily understood by society as a whole;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 49 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 49
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 d (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Zuzana Roithová
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15d. Recalls that, following a request from the European Parliament1, the European Commission, in its Digital Agenda for Europe strategy, made a commitment to adopting a Code of EU online rights in 2012; considers that the Code of EU online rights should unambiguously define European citizens’ users’ rights and set out what they may or may not do in the digital environment, thereby establishing a basis for a comprehensive EU strategy to tackle counterfeiting and piracy;
 +
|-
 +
 +
| colspan="2" |
 +
Comments:
 +
|}
 +
 +
=== Amendment 50 O===
 +
{| border="1" style="border-spacing:0;" cellpadding="3"
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="2" style="background-color: LightGrey;" |
 +
Amendement 50
 +
<br/>
 +
Paragraph 15 e (new)
 +
<br/>
 +
Zuzana Roithová
 +
<br/>
 +
O
 +
|-
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
 +
|width="50%"|
 +
15e. In the light of the above considerations, does not recommend that consent be granted to ACTA in its current form.
 
|-
 
|-
  

Version du 25 mai 2012 à 15:17

Amendments 1 – 10

Amendment 1 O

Amendement 1
Paragraph 1
Cornelia Ernst
O

1. 1. Acknowledges that intellectual property rights (IPRs) are important tools for the Union in the ‘knowledge economy’ and that adequate enforcement of IPRs is key; recalls that infringements of IPRs harm growth, competitiveness and innovation; points out that ACTA does not create new IPRs, but is an enforcement treaty aimed at tackling effectively IPR infringements;

1. deleted

Comments:

Amendment 2 O

Amendement 2
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Simon Busuttil, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Frank Engel, Zuzana Roithová, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Csaba Sógor, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber
O

1a. Reiterates that Europe needs an international agreement to step up the fight against counterfeit products as these products are causing billions of Euros of damage every year to European companies, thereby also putting European jobs at risk; notes that in addition, counterfeit products often do not fulfil European safety requirements, posing significant health hazards to consumers;

Comments:

Amendment 3 O

Amendement 3
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Simon Busuttil, Frank Engel, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Zuzana Roithová, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Csaba Sógor, Axel Voss, Georgios Papanikolaou, Manfred Weber
O


1b. Notes that ACTA must fully respect Union law, especially the Charter and the data protection acquis; reiterates that it is important that ACTA is not open to any interpretation that could lead Member States to infringe the Charter when implementing provisions of ACTA and therefore calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure legal clarity in the provisions of ACTA;

Comments:

Amendment 4 O

Amendement 4
Paragraph 2
Zuzana Roithová
O

2. Recalls that both the content of previous versions of the agreement as well as the current text together with the level of transparency connected with the negotiations of the agreement have been questioned repeatedly by Parliament;

2. Recalls that the content of previous versions of the agreement together with the level of transparency connected with the negotiations have been questioned repeatedly by Parliament;

Comments:

Amendment 5 O

Amendement 5
Paragraph 2
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

2. Recalls that both the content of previous versions of the agreement as well as the current text together with the level of transparency connected with the negotiations of the agreement have been questioned repeatedly by Parliament;

2. Recalls that both the content of previous versions of the agreement as well as the current text together with the level of transparency connected with the negotiations of the agreement have been questioned repeatedly by Parliament; underlines that in line with Article 218(10) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Parliament must be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure; takes the view that adequate transparency has not been achieved throughout the negotiations on ACTA; recognises that efforts to inform Parliament have been undertaken by the Commission1, but regrets that the requirement of transparency has been construed very narrowly and only as a result of pressure by Parliament and civil society;

Comments:

Amendment 6 O

Amendement 6
Paragraph 3
Sonia Alfano, Stanimir Ilchev, Sophia in 't Veld, Sarah Ludford, Gianni Vattimo, Renate Weber, Alexander Alvaro
O

3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, the right to due process and recalls the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance,

3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data and confidentiality of communications, the right to due process -notably the presumption of innocence and effective judicial proteciton - and recalls the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance;

Comments:

Amendment 7 O

Amendement 7
Paragraph 3
Zuzana Roithová
O

3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, the right to due process and recalls the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance;

3. Underlines, at the same time, that it is crucial to strike the appropriate balance between enforcement of IPRs and fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, the right to due process and recalls international treaties, European law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance;

Comments:

Amendment 8 O

Amendement 8
Paragraph 3a (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3a. Notes the safeguards contained in ACTA on privacy, due process and proportionality and the fact that implementation of ACTA in the Union must be subject to and constrained by the requirements of Union and national law on the protection of fundamental rights;

Comments:

Amendment 9 O

Amendement 10
Paragraph 3a (new)
Alexander Alvaro, Sarah Ludford
O

3a. Notes the safeguards contained in ACTA on privacy, due process and proportionality and the fact that implementation of ACTA in the Union must be subject to and constrained by the requirements of Union and national law on the protection of fundamental rights;

Comments:

Amendment 10 O

Amendement 10
Paragraph 3b (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3b. Recalls that a number of internal and external limits on intellectual property rights, such as the prevention of unilateral abuse1, contribute to establishing an appropriate balance between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the fundamental rights and interests of the public;

Comments:

Amendments 11 – 20

Amendment 11 O

Amendement 11
Paragraph 3c (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3c. Points out that fundamental rights are, by nature, based on a number of assumptions1: they are universal, based on rights relating to the personality and on non‑material interests; they are non‑transferable and do not cease; they emanate from the person, are innate and are governed by public law; in this regard, a number of objects protected by intellectual property rights only exhibit some of these characteristics, thus it is necessary to distinguish the use of effective tools to protect such rights, e.g., in the case of life‑saving medicines on the one hand or industrial patents to protect designs on the other, from other interests deriving from other fundamental rights such as, for example, protecting human health;

Comments:

Amendment 12 O

Amendement 12
Paragraph 3d (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3d. Recalls that ACTA, if adopted, would be equivalent to an international agreement signed by the EU, would be binding upon the European institutions and the Member States and would be an integral part of the EU legal order having direct effect;

Comments:

Amendment 13 O

Amendement 13
Paragraph 3e (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3e. Points out that, according to European Court of Justice case law, individuals may only rely directly upon the provisions of international agreements signed by the EU when such provisions are, in terms of their content, unconditional and sufficiently precise (i.e., clear and precise obligations have been laid down which are not subject, in their implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure); furthermore, the nature and broad logic of the provisions should not preclude their being so relied upon; nevertheless also points out that, where European law features concepts identical to those contained in relevant international agreements, the European provisions must be interpreted, as far as possible, in the light of international law, i.e., taking account of the context in which those concepts are found and the purpose of the relevant provisions of international agreements;

Comments:

Amendment 14 O

Amendement 14
Paragraph 3f (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3f. Considers that Section 5 'Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Environment' is in particular need of greater clarity and coherence, as inaccuracies and incompleteness may result in divergent national rules, and such a fragmented system would act as an obstacle to the internal market, which, in the case of the internet environment, would preclude the wider cross‑border use of the object protected by intellectual property rights;

Comments:

Amendment 15 O

Amendement 15
Paragraph 3g (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3g. Considers that ACTA does not contain explicit guarantees concerning the protection of sensitive personal information, the right of defence (particularly the right to be heard) or the presumption of innocence;

Comments:

Amendment 16 O

Amendement 16
Paragraph 3h (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3h. Recalls that according to Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: ‘no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed’; points out in this regard that the scope of several provisions set out in Section 4: Criminal Enforcement is ill‑defined;

Comments:

Amendment 17 O

Amendement 17
Paragraph 3i (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3i. Considers that ACTA does not provide guarantees on preserving the right to respect for private life and communications arising from Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Comments:

Amendment 18 O

Amendement 18
Paragraph 3j (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

3j. Wonders whether the concepts set out in ACTA, such as the basic principles or the concept of ‘fair process’, are compatible with the concepts set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as fundamental rights or the right to a fair trial arising from Article 47;

Comments:

Amendment 19 O

Amendement 19
Paragraph 7a (new)
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

7a. Reiterates that limitations on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must comply with the provisions of the ECHR and with Article 52 of the Charter which prescribe that such limitations be provided for by law, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued;

Comments:

Amendment 20 O

Amendement 20
Paragraph 9
Alexander Alvaro, Sarah Ludford, Louis Michel
O

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, and believes that the Parliament's final position on ACTA should only be taken after the CJEU has given its judgement on this matter;

Comments:

Amendments 21 – 30

Amendment 21 O

Amendement 21
Paragraph 9
Anthea McIntyre
O

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:

Amendment 22 O

Amendement 22
Paragraph 9a (new)
Simon Busuttil, Frank Engel, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Csaba Sógor, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber
O

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:

Amendment 23 O

Amendement 23
Paragraph 9b (new)
Simon Busuttil, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Csaba Sógor, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber </RepeatBlock-By> <DocAmend>Draft opinion
O

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:

Amendment 24 O

Amendement 24
Paragraph 12
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

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:

Amendment 25 O

Amendement 25
Paragraph 12
Cornelia Ernst
O

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 on 'criminal offences'; scope of the enforcement measures in the digital environment (Article 27); Article 27(3) on cooperation mechanisms; 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 on 'criminal offences'; scope of the enforcement measures in the digital environment (Article 27); Article 27(3) on cooperation mechanisms; Article 27(4)); warns against the potential to deliver 'fragmented approaches within the EU' with risks of inadequate compliance with fundamental rights, particularly the right to protection of personal data, the right to due process and the right to conduct business;

Comments:

Amendment 26 O

Amendement 26
Paragraph 12
Josef Weidenholzer
O

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 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;

Comments:

Amendment 27 O

Amendement 27
Paragraph 13
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

13. Moreover, points out, that while several ACTA provisions (e.g. Article 27 (3) and (4)) are of non-mandatory nature and thus do not establish ‘any legal obligation of the Parties which would be contrary to fundamental rights’, the lack of specificity of the provisions, of sufficient limitations and safeguards casts a doubt on the necessary level of legal certainty required from ACTA (e.g. safeguards against misuse of personal data or to protect the right of defence);

13. Moreover, points out, that while several ACTA provisions (e.g. Article 27 (3) and (4)) are of non-mandatory nature and thus do not establish ‘any legal obligation of the Parties which would be contrary to fundamental rights’, the lack of specificity of the provisions, of sufficient limitations and safeguards casts a doubt on the necessary level of legal certainty required from ACTA (e.g. safeguards against misuse of personal data or to protect the right of defence); emphasises that these deficiencies should not be acceptable in an agreement where the Union is a contracting party; recalls that other international agreements with fundamental rights implications have secured a higher level of precision and safeguards

Comments:

Amendment 28 O

Amendement 28
New Title (after paragraph 14)
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

The duty to uphold fundamental rights

Comments:

Amendment 29 O

Amendement 29
Paragraph 14a (new)
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

14a. Finds it disappointing that additional and substantial efforts to further consult all the stakeholders and incorporate their views were not undertaken in the run-up to the negotiations on ACTA; deplores that the high standards of transparency and good governance the Union is striving to set have not been met as regards ACTA; believes, therefore, that ACTA comes at a very premature stage in particular with regard to areas where the Union has not yet had the chance to have thorough public deliberation;

Comments:

Amendment 30 O

Amendement 30
Paragraph 14a (new)
Simon Busuttil, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Frank Engel, Georgios Papanikolaou, Zuzana Roithová, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Csaba Sógor, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber </RepeatBlock-By> <DocAmend>Draft opinion
O

14a. Emphasises that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not police the Internet and therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure legal clarity on the role of ISPs under ACTA;

Comments:

Amendments 41 – 50

Amendment 41 O

Amendement 41
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Sonia Alfano, Stanimir Ilchev, Sophia in 't Veld, Gianni Vattimo, Renate Weber
O

15c. Invites the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA;

Comments:

Amendment 42 O

Amendement 42
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Dimitrios Droutsas
O

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:

Amendment 43 O

Amendement 43
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Cornelia Ernst
O

15a. Takes the view therefore that the conclusion of ACTA would be detrimental to European values and incompatible with the European model; calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.

Comments:

Amendment 44 O

Amendement 44
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Jacek Protasiewicz
O

15a. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs therefore calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.

Comments:

Amendment 45 O

Amendement 45
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Carl Schlyter
O

15a. Calls on the Committee of International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent, pursuant to Article 218(6) TFEU, to the conclusion of ACTA;

Comments:

Amendment 46 O

Amendement 46
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

15a. Considers that the current ACTA text contains articles that pose certain risks of possibly breaching the fundamental rights that European citizens have enjoyed thus far;

Comments:

Amendment 47 O

Amendement 47
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

15b. Emphasises that the states where the greatest infringements of intellectual property rights occur, such as China, Pakistan, Russia and Brazil, were not invited to sign ACTA, and it is unlikely that those states will sign up to ACTA in the near future, and this raises important questions about the efficacy of the measures proposed by ACTA;

Comments:

Amendment 48 O

Amendement 48
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

15c. Is convinced that counterfeiting and piracy, when carried out with criminal intent and on a commercial scale, are significant phenomena in an information society and that it is necessary to develop a comprehensive EU strategy to tackle them. Such an EU strategy should not focus solely on combating the effects of counterfeiting and piracy, but should also focus on their causes; it must fully respect fundamental rights in Europe and be effective, acceptable and easily understood by society as a whole;

Comments:

Amendment 49 O

Amendement 49
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

15d. Recalls that, following a request from the European Parliament1, the European Commission, in its Digital Agenda for Europe strategy, made a commitment to adopting a Code of EU online rights in 2012; considers that the Code of EU online rights should unambiguously define European citizens’ users’ rights and set out what they may or may not do in the digital environment, thereby establishing a basis for a comprehensive EU strategy to tackle counterfeiting and piracy;

Comments:

Amendment 50 O

Amendement 50
Paragraph 15 e (new)
Zuzana Roithová
O

15e. In the light of the above considerations, does not recommend that consent be granted to ACTA in its current form.

Comments: