The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure has just released the response it got from the EU INTA committee to the request to disclose the legal opinion the Committee recently received on ACTA. In what would be a shocking response, if it was not so common in the history of ACTA, the Committee released a 16 page legal opinion with everything blotted out except for the legal conclusion that the EU is not required to publicly release any preparatory materials from the ACTA negotiation (ie the previous drafts).
The Committee received, but did not disclose, legal analysis on the following issues:
1. The legal basis for adopting ACTA.
[deleted]
2. The conformity of ACTA with the EU Acquis with regard to (a) border measures, (b) the criteria for damages in ACTA in relation to the criterion of “appropriateness of the damage to the actual prejudice suffered” as envisaged in Directive 2004/48/EC. and (c) criminal measures.
[deleted]
3. The conformity of ACTA with the existing international obligations of the EU and its member states: How does the Legal Service evaluate the relationship between ACTA and the TRIPS Agreement?
[deleted]
Why didn’t the parliament release these key findings, particularly given its previous resolutions that it “Deplores the fact that not all the negotiation texts discussed between 10 March 2010 and the release of the final text on 15 November 2010 were made public” and also “Deplores the fact that these negotiations have not been conducted and the agreement has not been concluded in the framework of the existing multilateral fora (e.g. WTO and WIPO)”?
It is the U.S.’s fault again:
“Important trading partners of the EU, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and Switzerland are contracting parties to the ACTA agreement. Disclosure of the parts of the legal opinion under consideration dealing with questions 1, 2 and 3 would seriously interfere with the complex ratification procedures of the ACTA agreement and the EU’s relations with the other contracting parties, as it might prejudice the ratification procedures by these countries.”
In other words, the whole agreement may crumble if the world sees the answers to these questions. Based on this response, and the previous analysis by EU academics, one can surmise the opinion says something like:
1. ACTA lacks a sufficient legal basis,
2. ACTA violates the acquis with regard to (a) border measures, (b) the criteria for damages in ACTA in relation to the criterion of “appropriateness of the damage to the actual prejudice suffered” as envisaged in Directive 2004/48/EC. and (c) criminal measures.
3. ACTA lacks conformity with the existing international obligations of the EU and its member states.
But we won’t know for sure until it leaks.
FFII has just released the response it got from the EU INTA committee to the request to disclose the legal opinion the Committee recently received on ACTA.
In what has been par for the course on ACTA, the Committee released a 16 page legal opinion with everything blotted out except for the legal conclusion that the EU is not required to publicly release any preparatory materials from the ACTA negotiation.
The Committee received, but did not disclose, legal analysis on the following issues:
1. The legal basis for adopting ACTA.
[deleted]
2. The conformity of ACTA with the EU Acquis with regard to (a) border measures, (b) the criteria for damages in ACTA in relation to the criterion of “appropriateness of the damage to the actual prejudice suffered” as envisaged in Directive 2004/48/EC. and (c) criminal measures.
[deleted]
3. The conformity of ACTA with the existing international obligations of the EU and its member states: How does the Legal Service evaluate the relationship between ACTA and the TRIPS Agreement?
[deleted]
Why didn’t the parliament release these key findings, particularly given its previous resolutions that it “Deplores the fact that not all the negotiation texts discussed between 10 March 2010 and the release of the final text on 15 November 2010 were made public” and alseo “Deplores the fact that these negotiations have not been conducted and the agreement has not been concluded in the framework of the existing multilateral fora (e.g. WTO and WIPO)”?
It is the U.S.’s fault again:
“Important trading partners of the EU, such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and Switzerland are contracting parties to the ACTA agreement. Disclosure of the parts of the legal opinion under consideration dealing with questions 1, 2 and 3 would seriously interfere with the complex ratification procedures of the ACTA agreement and the EU’s relations with the other contracting parties, as it might prejudice the ratification procedures by these countries.”
In other words, the whole agreement may crumble if the world sees the answers to these questions. Based on this, and the previous analysis by EU academics, One can surmise the opinion must likely says that:
1. ACTA lacks a sufficient legal basis,
2. ACTA violates the acquis with regard to (a) border measures, (b) the criteria for damages in ACTA in relation to the criterion of “appropriateness of the damage to the actual prejudice suffered” as envisaged in Directive 2004/48/EC. and (c) criminal measures.
3. ACTA lacks conformity with the existing international obligations of the EU and its member states.
In any case, I assume we will know soon since every member of parliament and every member state of the EU can probably request the document.
