Activities of Dimitrios DROUTSAS related to 2011/0167(NLE)
Plenary speeches (1)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the USA (debate)
Amendments (9)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that both the content of previous versions of the agreement as well as the current text together with the level of transparency connected with the negotiations of the agreement have been questioned repeatedly by Parliament; underlines that in line with Article 218(10) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Parliament must be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure; takes the view that adequate transparency has not been achieved throughout the negotiations on ACTA; recognises that efforts to inform Parliament have been undertaken by the Commission1, but regrets that the requirement of transparency has been construed very narrowly and only as a result of pressure by Parliament and civil society; ______________ 1 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair- trade/acta/transparency/
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Reiterates that limitations on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must comply with the provisions of the ECHR and with Article 52 of the Charter which prescribe that such limitations be provided for by law, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines that there is still significant legal uncertainty in the manner in which some key provisions of ACTA have been drafted (e.g. Article 11 (Information related to Infringements), Article 23 (criminal offences), Article 27 (scope of the enforcement measures in the digital environment), especially Article 27(3) (cooperation mechanisms),and Article 27(4)); warns against the potential to deliver 'fragmented approaches within the EU' with risks of inadequate compliance with the right to protection of personal data; points out that these risks are especially present as regards Article 27(3) and 27(4) in light of the lack of precision of those texts but also having in mind the practices currently taking place in some Member States (e.g. large scale monitoring of Internet by private parties) whose conformity with the Charter is questionable;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Moreover, points out, that while several ACTA provisions (e.g. Article 27 (3) and (4)) are of non-mandatory nature and thus do not establish ‘any legal obligation of the Parties which would be contrary to fundamental rights’, the lack of specificity of the provisions, of sufficient limitations and safeguards casts a doubt on the necessary level of legal certainty required from ACTA (e.g. safeguards against misuse of personal data or to protect the right of defence); emphasises that these deficiencies should not be acceptable in an agreement where the Union is a contracting party; recalls that other international agreements with fundamental rights implications have secured a higher level of precision and safeguards1 ______________ 1 See for example Council of Europe - Convention on Cybercrime CETS No. 185, Budapest 23 November 2001.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
New Title (after paragraph 14)
New Title (after paragraph 14)
The duty to uphold fundamental rights
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Finds it disappointing that additional and substantial efforts to further consult all the stakeholders and incorporate their views were not undertaken in the run-up to the negotiations on ACTA; deplores that the high standards of transparency and good governance the Union is striving to set have not been met as regards ACTA; believes, therefore, that ACTA comes at a very premature stage in particular with regard to areas where the Union has not yet had the chance to have thorough public deliberation;
Amendment 33 #
15. Considers that when fundamental rights are at stake ambiguity must be avoided and at the least reduced to a minimum; moreover, and without assigning any wrongful intentions ("procès d'intention") to the ACTA implementation measures, takes the view that in the current state of affairs precaution should be exercised as regards ACTA in lightis of the view that ACTA has not avoided such ambiguity, but, ofn the serious and remaining question-marks surrounding the balance reached within the agreement between IPRs and other core fundamental rights and its level of legal certaincontrary, has entailed additional and various layers of ambiguity.;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Is of the view that ACTA fails to secure adequate safeguards and an appropriate balance between IPRs and other core fundamental rights, as well as failing to secure the necessary legal certainty for key provisions of ACTA;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. In light of all of the above and without prejudice to the CJEU's assessment on the matter, but taking into consideration Parliament's role in the protection and promotion of fundamental rights, concludes that ACTA is incompatible with the rights enshrined in the Charter and calls on the Committee on International Trade, as the committee responsible, to recommend that Parliament declines to consent to the conclusion of ACTA.