It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place - H.L. Mencken
|
|
|
European Court of Justice will rule on ACTA
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) is set to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule on the legality of the draconian Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), as opposition to the treaty continues to mount.
Commissioner Karel De Gucth said that he and 22 other commissioners want to clarify whether ACTA is compatible with fundamental European rights.
"We are planning to ask Europe's highest court to assess whether ACTA is incompatible, in any way, with the EU's fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and information or data protection and the right to property in case of intellectual property," he said.
ACTA has been the subject of intense scrutiny and protests for several weeks after 22 European nations signed the agreement, with several now backing out of the deal, admitting they had not fully understood the implications of the treaty.
De Gucth said that while the EC has already given its backing to the treaty and authorised member states to sign the document, it is important it be given legal scrutiny.
"The EC has a responsibility to provide our parliamentary representatives and the public at large with the most detailed and accurate information available," he said.
"So, a referral will allow for Europe's top court to independently clarify the legality of this agreement."
Justice commissioner Viviane Reding also gave her backing to the referral of ACTA to the ECJ.
"Copyright protection can never be a justification for eliminating freedom of expression or freedom of information. That is why for me, blocking the internet is never an option," she said.
However, despite referring the document to the ECJ, De Gucth defended ACTA, claiming it would not lead to website blocking or changes in how services can operate, regardless of what the text states.
"ACTA will change nothing about how we use the internet and social websites today - since it does not introduce any new rules. ACTA only helps to enforce what is already law today," he claimed.
"ACTA will not censor websites or shut them down; ACTA will not hinder freedom of the internet or freedom of speech. Let's cut through this fog of uncertainty and put ACTA in the spotlight of our highest independent judicial authority: the European Court of Justice."
The document is set to be discussed in the European Parliament for the first time on 1 March, with MEPs still able to veto the treaty.
Update
Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group speculated that the announcement is a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the European Commission is planning to approve ACTA.
"The European Commission has a vested interest in seeing ACTA pass. They get to choose the question asked of the Court. They show every sign of making sure they get the answers they want to try to give ACTA a fig leaf of legitimacy. And this is also clearly an attempt by the Commission to pause the ratification process in the hope that protests lose their heat," he said.
"If the Commission expects these protests about clumsy and dangerous internet policies to fade away, they are very much mistaken. Citizens across Europe have found their voice." µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
Karel De Gucht is currently under investigation in his own country Belgium for tax evation. He's also spending a lot of money to prevent the tax collector from having insight into his bank accounts. This corporate whore who wants to hide his corrupt money has probably been bought by the authors of ACTA!
Also when Belgian bank Fortis went bankrupt, he as a minister used his inside knowledge to sell his wifes' shares (she's a jugde) before the shares completely went worthless. He's in inside trader! Yet this corrupt corporate whore has never seen the inside of a police cell let alone a jail cell.
Like building an atom-bomb and then say it is needed to prevent war.
I'm sure Iran thinks the same way.
Of course, with the Commission (mostly pro-ACTA) behind this reference it seems to only be considering issues of fundamental rights, rather than whether or not ACTA is in breach of EU law, or if the Commission went beyond their power in negotiating it. There's far more to ACTA than just fundamental rights issues.
All this reference does is add a further delay to the transparent and democratic examination of the agreement (being done by the European Parliament), and, unless the court comes out strongly against ACTA, will likely be used as cover for any politician seeking to support ACTA (and thus appease their lobbyists) despite the outcry of the tens of thousands of people who have openly protested against it across Europe, or the hundreds of thousands who have signed petitions against it.
Having said that, a clear judicial analysis of the text of the agreement should be useful in demonstrating that the agreement does go beyond existing EU law, if the court is allowed to consider that.