Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
12 July 2012
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Paweł Zalewski (PPE) , Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE) and Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)

 Subject: ACTA clauses in post-ACTA agreements

Last week, Parliament rejected the ACTA agreement by a huge majority, thus sending out a very clear ‘no go’ signal regarding any such regulatory legislation.

In the short time that has passed since, we have already been alarmed by the prospect that several significant and heavily criticised parts of the ACTA agreement (i.e. general obligations on enforcement, damages, criminal sanctions, intermediary liability rules and border measures) are expected to ‘live on’ by being incorporated into CETA (the Canada/EU trade agreement) and, possibly, into other international agreements which the Commission plans to conclude in the near future.

Since we are absolutely convinced that the Commission fully respects the position of Parliament and would not indulge in any type of legislative exercise that would undermine the voice of the citizens, as transmitted to and expressed by Parliament, can the Commission comment on this issue and allay the worrying doubts indicated above?

 OJ C 269 E, 18/09/2013
Last updated: 30 July 2012Legal notice