ACTA: European Parliament postpones ECJ motion
-             Author: Monica Horten
 -             Published: 09 May 2011
 
Have the copyright lobbyists won this round, or is it just a full agenda?
The Conference of Presidents, which decides the agenda of the European Parliament, including which motions will be voted in any given session, has failed to include a key motion on ACTA in any of the May plenary sessions.
The motion asks for a referral to the European Court of Justice, in order to get a legal opinion on the compatibility of ACTA with the EU Treaties. It was put forward by the Green group, and is understood to have the support of the Socialists and the Left group.
Instead, it seems the motion will be moved back to June 7th, and it is unclear
what this means or what the reason was.
There seems to be some contention about whether the European Parliament can take vote on an ECJ referral before the ACTA agreement has been formally received. However, the Parliament must make the referral before it votes on consent to ACTA, which may give it a limited window of opportunity.
Given the divergence of opinions on whether or not ACTA is compatible, the ECJ opinion would seem to be a sensible, if not essential, move.
The deferral does beg the question as to whether there is a legitimate procedural reason, or how much the Parliament is being influenced by the recent lobbying of the copyright industries, including the Motion Picture Association ( representing the Hollywood studios) and the IFPI (recorded music industry). They would like to see the EU sign and give consent to ACTA as soom as possible.
A somewhat technical (in the legal sense) explanation of the position regarding the request for an ECJ referral on ACTA .
The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2011) ACTA: European Parliament postpones ECJ motion http://www.iptegrity.com 9 May 2011
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed.
-             Article Views: 10946
 
IPtegrity politics
- UK climb-down over Apple back-door was foreseeable
 - Copyright wars 3.0: the AI challenge
 - Why would the UK take on Apple?
 - What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
 - 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
 
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?
 
