Activities of Zuzana ROITHOVÁ related to 2011/0167(NLE)
Plenary speeches (1)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America with the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Amendments (21)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
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;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
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;1 ______________ 1 See, for example, EP resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations, P7_TA(2010)0058; The lack of a transparent process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), declaration of the European Parliament of 9 September 2010 on the lack of a transparent process and potentially objectionable content of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), P7_TA(2010)0317.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
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 treaties1, European law2 and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards this fair balance; ______________ 1 In this regard, see Article 7(1) of the TRIPS Agreement and the preambles to the WCT and the WPPT. 2 See recitals 3, 9 and 31 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. In this regard, see point d) of the Opinion of European Academics on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. http://www.iri.uni- hannover.de/tl_files/pdf/ACTA_opinion_200111_2.pdf (in English); See C-275/06, Promusicae, 200, ECR I- 271 (points 62–68), case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (point 44), case C-360/10, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV (points 42–44) and case C-461/10, Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB v. Perfect Communication Sweden AB. In this regard, see point d) of the Opinion of European Academics on Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. http://www.iri.uni- hannover.de/tl_files/pdf/ACTA_opinion_200111_2.pdf (in English); See C-275/06, Promusicae, 200, ECR I- 271 (points 62–68), case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (SABAM) (point 44), case C-360/10, Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v. Netlog NV (points 42–44) and case C-461/10, Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB v. Perfect Communication Sweden AB.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. In this respect stresses that intellectual property rights are themselves among the fundamental rights protected under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and under international agreements1; ______________ See, for example, Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3b (new)
Paragraph 3b (new)
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; ______________ 1 See Article 8(2) of the TRIPS Agreement.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3c (new)
Paragraph 3c (new)
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; ______________ 1 GROSHEIDE, W. Intellectual Property and Human Rights: A Paradox. 1st edition, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. p328. ISBN 978- 1848444478. p21.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3d (new)
Paragraph 3d (new)
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3e (new)
Paragraph 3e (new)
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 agreements2; ______________ 1 See case C-135/10 SCF v. Del Corso, Decision points 43 - 44. 1 See case C-135/10 SCF v. Del Corso, Decision points 51 - 55.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
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;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
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;
Amendment 16 #
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;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
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;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 j (new)
Paragraph 3 j (new)
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;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
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;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls therefore on the Commission and on Member States to provide solutions for the concerns identified in this opinion, so as to address ambiguities in ACTA and ensure that the strict observance of fundamental rights and freedoms is clearly guaranteed;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
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;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
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;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
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;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
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; ______________ 1 European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on consumer confidence in the digital environment (2006/2048(INI)), points 25-28.
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 e (new)
Paragraph 15 e (new)
15e. In the light of the above considerations, does not recommend that consent be granted to ACTA in its current form.