Last week the European Parliament
(EP) rejected
ACTA in its plenary session in Strasbourg. What might seemed very unlikely
only a few months ago, in the final vote a total of 478 MEPs were against the
agreement, with 39 voting in favor and 165 representatives abstaining from a
vote. There is a broad agreement that this result constitutes an important
victory for all campaigners who raised a variety of objections to ACTA
throughout the last years.
Despite such a clear voice of the
EP in this matter, it seems for the European Commission the battle is not over
yet. In its statements voiced during the plenary session the Commission
repeated that it will continue to wait for the opinion of the Court of Justice
of the EU (CJEU) on the compatibility of ACTA with European laws. Depending on
the outcome of the opinion, the Commission indicated that it might consider
resubmitting ACTA to a vote in the EP. Given the EPs’ clear rejection of the
agreement, such a move would be quite remarkable given that the chances are
close to zero and, in addition, given that a democratically elected body has
already exercised its power over it.
Against this background, it is
safe to say that in its current form, ACTA will not enter into force in the EU.
From the international perspective, it remains to be seen in how far the other
signatories will be willing to move ahead despite the developments in the EU and
an increasingly unfavorable political environment for this agreement. Internally,
the EP’s vote could raise a couple of issues.
First, the EP has gained more
political weight in matters involving the enforcement of IPRs. The vote on ACTA
is also an indication of how sensitive issues around IPRs might get in the
future. During the EP’s current term, the Commission is expected to revise the IPR
Enforcement Directive which could once again lead to a highly delicate
debate between the EU institutions and civil society. Furthermore, this vote
also circumscribes the Commission’s room for maneuver in the negotiations of
future trade agreements. Not only will the Commission be more careful but it
might also have to involve the EP more closely to gain more legitimacy for its
actions from the very beginning.
Second, the EP’s vote constitutes
an opportunity to refocus the debate on IPR and
IPR enforcement. From the very beginning of trade negotiations ACTA was only
concerned about IPR enforcement – it essentially claimed to standardize IPR
enforcement laws and practices on the international level. The problem with
this approach is that it can lead to imbalances in certain jurisdictions as
regards their IPR regime as a whole. Having strong enforcement rules and a flexible IPR regime allowing for
sufficient flexibility through various limitations and exceptions to exclusive
rights constitutes a mix that leaves space for innovation and experimentation.
Such a regime is of particular importance for the digital economy which relies
on these flexibilities to a large extent. Accordingly, the problem lies with
jurisdictions that have a more static IPR regime that is far less friendly to
innovation and technological advancement. In this context, the EP’s vote
provides the chance to discuss both sides of the equation.
