ACTA before the European Parliament

Parliament previously asked the Commission to make ACTA documents public and enhance MEPs’ role in negotiating the contents. Now that the final version of ACTA has been agreed, Parliament cannot alter it, but only approve or block it. Four scenarios are possible:

1. Parliament gives its consent. The Council would then take a decision to conclude the agreement. In this case all member states would still have to ratify for the agreement to come into force.

2. Parliament declines to give its consent. This would mean the entire EU staying out of the agreement.

3. Parliament does not reply. Legally, there is no deadline for a response. 

4. Parliament decides to refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In this case, the vote on Parliament's consent would be postponed until the Court has delivered its opinion.  

The European Commission announced on 22 February that it intended to refer ACTA to the ECJ, in order "to assess whether ACTA is incompatible - in any way - with the EU's fundamental rights and freedoms".

The Commission's statement was welcomed by Parliament's rapporteur David Martin (S&D, UK), who will steer the dossier through Parliament. He described the possible ECJ ruling as a "good guarantee for the impact on fundamental rights".

The stated aim of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is to combat Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) infringements, namely counterfeiting and piracy, by enhancing international cooperation and enforcement.

ACTA is intended to accelerate IPR enforcement, and make it more effective, so as to counter growth in counterfeiting and piracy. In 2005, the OECD estimated that  international trade in counterfeit/pirated products amounts to USD 200 billion, excluding digital products.

ACTA was negotiated between the EU and its Member States, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland. Once the agreement has entered in force, any member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) may apply to join.

ACTA lays down an international legal framework for enforcing existing IPRs, targeting counterfeit goods and copyright infringements on the Internet. It lays down obligatory and voluntary enforcement measures to be adopted by countries that have joined the agreement. In this regard it can be compared to an EU directive — it has to be "transposed" into national/EU legislation. As far as the EU is concerned, ACTA is a mixed agreement — it contains different sets of provisions, which fall partly under EU exclusive competence and partly under shared EU/member state competence.

ACTA was signed on 1 October 2011 by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States. They were joined on 26 January 2012 in Tokyo by representatives of 22 EU member states (Cyprus, Estonia, Slovakia, Germany and the Netherlands were “expected to do so on the completion of their respective domestic procedures”) and representatives of the EU as such. However, the signatures need to be followed by ratification for ACTA to enter into force.

Ratification by six parties to the negotiations is sufficient for the agreement to come into force. The EU is considered to be a single negotiating party.

As of 14 February 2012, none of the 27 EU member states had ratified the agreement.

The International Trade Committee is to recommend whether Parliament as a whole should give its consent to ACTA or reject it.

Four other committees will deliver their opinions on ACTA: the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (rapporteur Amelia Andersdotter Greens, SE), the Legal Affairs Committee  (rapporteur Marielle Gallo EPP, FR), the  Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (rapporteur Dimitrios Droutsas S&D, EL) and the Development Committee (rapporteur Jan Zahradil, ECR, CZ).

On 25 April 2012 David Martin, the MEP responsible for steering ACTA dossier through Parliament, presented his recommendation for the European Parliament to reject ACTA. He referred to concerns of unintended consequences of the ACTA, text specifically on individual criminalisation, the definition of “commercial scale”, the role of internet service providers and possible interruptions in the supply of generic medicines.

"The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens' rights in the future under ACTA. Your rapporteur therefore recommends that the European Parliament declines to give consent to ACTA", he said.