ACTA: does the European Commission know fair process?
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 19 October 2011
Questions from the European Parliament are exposing the weaknesses in the Commisson's ACTA negotiations.
In the Internet section, ACTA uses the term 'fair process', which has baffled many analysts as it does not have any legal standing under EU law. In response to a question from the MEP Christian Engstr?m regarding the definition of 'fair process', the European Commission has come back with a response that - in my opinion - prises open the deficiencies in its position. The question posed was
Article 27.2 of the ACTA final text refers to the 'fundamental principle' of 'fair process'.
Could the Commission explain:
1. What it understands by 'fair process'?
2. How it came to this view? In particular, can the Commission provide references to the specific international legal texts or ACTA preparatory documents on which it bases its understanding of this 'fundamental principle'?
The answer is officially in the name of the Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht:
The Commission's understanding of 'fair process', as referred in Article 27.2 is that it is used in the same sense as in Article 41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement(1), which establishes that procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable. ACTA being, to a considerable extent, based on the TRIPS Agreement, this was the basis for introducing in the area of Internet enforcement a principle which is already common to all the ACTA members (all also members of TRIPS) when implementing general enforcement procedures.
TRIPs does indeed use the term 'fair and equitable', but it is used in a clear context concerning how the other party ( the alleged infringer) should be treated. In the analogue context in which TRIPs was negotiated, the underlying assumption was that the there would be a court process. This TRIPs requirement has been transposed by the European Union into the IPR Enforcement directive.
In ACTA, the term 'fair process' is used in a quite different context. It is one of a list of 'fundamental principles' appended to provisions which call for some form of new liability to be imposed on ISPs. In the case of Article 27.2 this is via a footnote and in 27.3 this is via a call to 'promote co-operative efforts' for enforcing copyright.
There is a fundamental right to due process, which is guaranteed under EU law - and a reminder exists in Article 1.3a of the Telecoms Package. But 'fair process' is not the same, and the drafters should have known this.
There is no connection in the ACTA draft with the rights of the 'other party'. ACTA seems to wipe out the provisions to protect the rights of the other party.
In the digital environment, the 'other party' could be an ISP or a website owner or an Internet user. And as readers of Iptegrity will know, the issue in the digital environment is the possible lack of a judicial process. Thus, the rights we are talking about here are the rights of ISPs, website owners and Internet users to defend themselves against any allegation of infringement or any injunction to block content.
Yes, commissioner De Gucht, ACTA is indeed 'based on' TRIPs. However, it makes a number of small but significant changes, which, when applied to the digital environment, will create a massive difference in their effect.
To find out more about copyright enforcement on the Internet and the right to due process, see my book
The Copyright Enforcement Enigma: Internet Politics and the 'Telecoms Package'
Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) ACTA: does the European Commission know fair process? http://www.iptegrity.com 19 October 2011.
- Article Views: 9374
IPtegrity politics
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?