-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] (ACTA) Certainly, the professors should know better Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:14:39 +0100 (CET) From: Ante <ante@ffii.org> To: a2k discuss list <a2k@lists.keionline.org> http://acta.ffii.org/wordpress/?p=390 Certainly, the professors should know better January 25, 2011 By Ante Already on 24 or 25 November 2010, the Commission and Council Presidency initialled ACTA. This became clear at the Ad hoc meeting ? Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a DG Trade meeting to inform and consult civil society about ACTA. Mr Pedro Velasco Martins, Deputy Head of Unit, Public Procurement and Intellectual Property Directorate-General for Trade, represented the Commission. Mr Velasco Martins stated that ACTA will not change the current EU legislation, EU law provides higher enforcement levels than ACTA. The current EU legislation, the acquis, is scrupulously respected. He regarded fundamental rights as a non issue. The Signatories of the Opinion of European Academics on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement disagree: ?Contrary to the European Commission?s repeated statements and the European Parliament?s resolution of 24 November 2010, certain ACTA provisions are not entirely compatible with EU law and will directly or indirectly require additional action on the EU level.? Confronted with the Opinion, Mr Velasco Martins said they will study it later. At first sight, it didn?t look convincing to him. He ridiculed the issues raised in the document with remarks like: Certainly, the professors should know better. The game the Commission plays became clear when Mr Velasco Martins said: ?ACTA may be approved even if it goes beyond the acquis.? The Commission will just deny ACTA goes beyond the acquis, the current legislation, and hopes to get it adopted. And then, ACTA will bind the EU. The Commission is very happy with the criminal measures. Note that, according to our analysis, ACTA?s criminal measures criminalise ordinary companies and individuals. The EU can only harmonise criminal measures if approximation of criminal laws and regulations of its Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy. The same is true for harmonisation by way of trade agreement. Vrijschrift asked for proof the criminal measures are essential. Mr Velasco Martins seemed not to understand it makes a difference whether ACTA?s criminal measures bind the member states or the member states and the EU. This made his earlier statement that ACTA will not bind the EU less convincing. He didn?t know the construction used for the TRIPS agreement (criminal measures only signed by the member states), nor the European Court ruling regarding TRIPS. David Hammerstein mentioned that the US does not regard ACTA as a treaty, that ACTA will bind the EU, not the US. Mr Velasco Martins said that under the Geneva Convention (that is what I wrote down) ACTA is a treaty and the US is bound by it. He probably meant the Vienna Convention (and possibly also said that). Note that the US did not ratify the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties. Hammerstein?s remarks still stand. Mr Velasco Martins did not agree that it is a strategical mistake to accept more obligations than other parties. ACTA was negotiated as a mixed agreement. Now the negotiations are concluded, the competence will be settled soon. It may have to be ratified as a mixed agreement, meaning the member states have to ratify as well, giving the national parliament power over ACTA. Mr Velasco Martins also said China could have entered the negotiations at the preparatory stage. More questions were asked, see also the Tweets about the meeting. vriendelijke groet, cordialmente, Ante _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k@lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org