Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-515-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.21.2-515-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start with some procedural remarks. A number of Members, amongst them Mr Albrecht and Mr Scholz, have said that I did not properly inform the European Parliament and that I have contributed to secrecy. I have no problem with the Parliament having a completely different opinion to the one I have. That is what Parliament is for: to reflect all opinions in society. What I do not accept is this criticism, because from the moment that I took responsibility for this file, I have done everything possible to make the results of the negotiations public. And, by the way, I managed to convince our negotiating partners to do this. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, or claiming that I should have followed another procedure. I will respond to that. But claims that I have tried to uphold secrecy in this simply cannot be taken seriously.
‘Thus, on the basis of Rule 90(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, we request that the plenary vote be held on the following text:
Signed for the Greens/EFA Group: Rebecca Harms and Jan Philipp Albrecht’.
I must say that this is slightly different from what I heard this afternoon from Mr Albrecht. He has changed his opinion in the meantime, not me.
I am also told that in fact, I want to use the European Court of Justice to postpone the whole discussion on this. I think this is an utterly light argument because in any case, we are going to have this discussion on all the topics that are discussed in ACTA. I think it would be very useful that we have the opinion of the European Court of Justice. I will come back to that later.
Let me now try to answer the substantive questions that have been put to me.
Mr Lange, you claim that we do not have the substantive law ready. This is true and it is also the main reason why I think we should go to the European Court of Justice so that they help us in formatting this whole discussion.
What I fear is that if you now vote it down – which obviously is on your minds – that we will no longer have that substantive discussion during this mandate. I think it would be a complete mistake not to have that discussion. By sending the whole file to the European Court of Justice, we create time for ourselves – a kind of time-out – so that we can discuss the substantive items that indeed have to be tackled sooner or later.
I also have a question for Ms de Sarnez and several other MEPs. Why are India, Brazil and China not included in this negotiation, this agreement? It is quite simply because they do not want to be. They do not agree with it. Emerging countries are not in favour of protecting intellectual property. They are very reticent on this subject. The argument that nothing will be resolved if these countries are not involved is not valid then. For the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) actually seeks to strengthen our legislation, not only at our borders, but also at the borders of the other countries associated with this agreement. That is what it is about. If counterfeit products come, for example, from China, we must stop them not only at our borders, but also at the other borders of important markets for them. We will thereby stop counterfeiting from continuing. The idea that these countries must be involved in this agreement is not at all correct. Furthermore, if China does not agree on this subject, honourable Members, it is not because it is protecting fundamental rights, but because of other reasons.
You say that only industrialised countries are involved. On this point, I could repeat my response but I think that there is another element that is not clear in all of these discussions and that is the debate on medicines. I have received thousands of e-mails on this subject too. Fortunately, all of these e-mails were identical; otherwise I would have had to read them all. Let us look at the bilateral agreements that we are negotiating, for example, with India. I have been asked several questions about this subject too. We have been very attentive in order to ensure that these agreements do not shut the door to generic medicines, quite the opposite. Furthermore, Ms de Sarnez – but I see that she has left the Chamber – there is a difference between generic products and counterfeit products. This is also a serious problem and a risk for public health. Some medicines are labelled as ‘generic’ but, in reality, these are counterfeit products, which sometimes even have the opposite effects to those listed on the packaging.
With regard to Ms Bélier’s comment about ‘rejecting the world proposed to us by ACTA’, I can understand this argument coming from some groups, even though it surprises me. However, I do not understand why this is the argument of Parliament as a whole. That is rather strange.
Secondly, it has been said – amongst others by Mr Rinaldi – that I have not listened to Parliament. There, Niccolò, I have to tell you that the last time the European Parliament pronounced on ACTA, in November 2010, a majority – albeit a slight one – voted for a resolution supporting ACTA. So listening to Parliament means listening to the majority of Parliament, it does not mean listening to an individual Member of Parliament, or to an individual group in Parliament, but to the majority. The last time that Parliament pronounced on ACTA, in November 2010, Parliament voted in favour of ACTA.
Let me now come to who will, in fact, be the next speaker, David Martin, and what he has been saying in his previous speech.
David mentions the problem that this Treaty could be misinterpreted in the future; that it is not clear enough. Basically, I agree with that – not technically, but politically. Technically, it is not correct what you are saying – I am not saying you are not putting it correctly, but your analysis is not necessarily the correct one.
For example, in relation to ‘commercial scale’, when you look at the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, it is very clear what ‘commercial scale’ is. But, of course, a citizen is not expected to look at the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice; that I agree with. However, this is a very clear concept.
Secondly, you say there is the issue of sanctions. Again, I agree, but you should also agree with me that the issue with criminal sanctions in a treaty is not something that has been negotiated by the European Commission; this has been negotiated by the Member States and is their sole responsibility.
Once the text was ready, those Member States unanimously agreed to the text. Therefore, you cannot blame me for what the Member States have put into ACTA. This is out of our scope; I would say, unfortunately.
Thirdly, the role of Internet service providers ties in with what I want to say as a final point: the issue that they should start checking everything. Again, the European Court of Justice has been very clear on this.
Very recently, in the Sabam v Netlog case, the European Court of Justice ruled that it is not possible to impose on intermediaries such as social networks a general obligation to monitor user data. That means that the European Court of Justice is looking into these matters; it is giving answers to these questions. That is why I am so surprised that you no longer want to have this opinion of the Court of Justice.
I understand as rapporteur you have to reflect the opinion of Parliament and the opinion of the committee, but as far as I know, you started by putting those questions to me. The idea was that you would put those questions to the Commission and that we would try to give answers, and it was at that very moment in time that I said: OK, let us also ask the European Court of Justice what they think about this.
But afterwards, you changed your minds; OK – that is up to you. That is your democratic responsibility. I think it is also the responsibility of the European Commission to be straightforward in this. We need a discussion on intellectual property; we need a discussion on how to enforce intellectual property. I think also we need the guidance of the European Court of Justice on this.
That is why we will continue with this demand for an opinion from the Court of Justice and come back to you – obviously not only to the European Parliament, but also to our negotiating partners, if it were proved that there are serious problems in this agreement.
There is a question by Mr Tarabella.
Mr Tarabella wants to know why I did not ask for the Court of Justice’s opinion earlier. We must look closely, Mr Tarabella, at the wording of the article on the ratification procedure in the Treaty, which says:
‘A Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties. Where the opinion of the Court is adverse, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended or the Treaties are revised’.
This says very clearly that we may ask for or request the opinion of the Court of Justice once the text of the treaty envisaged has been finalised, that is, once the negotiations have been concluded. That is the very idea behind this special procedure before the Court of Justice. That is what I have done.
Furthermore, I am not the only one who has asked for an opinion from the Court of Justice, which was eventually requested and then withdrawn. If I may, Mr President, because I still need some time to answer all of these questions, I would like to read you a letter:
‘The draft Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would have legal implications in several fields of legislative competence of the European Parliament, including new ones, such as criminal law.
‘In order to have legal certainty, and to avoid that questions of the compatibility with the treaties arise during the ratification process, or after ratification of the agreement, we would like to request that the European Parliament seeks an opinion of the European Court of Justice concerning ACTA."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Pursuant to Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament submits the following request for an Opinion of the Court: Is the envisaged Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) compatible with the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples