ACS:Law And US Copyright Group Working Together?

EU Legal Review Says ACTA Negotiators Broke The Law In Not Revealing Text To EU Parliament

from the so-sorry,-it's-secret dept

Thu, Jun 3rd 2010 1:54am — Mike Masnick

Remember back when the EU Parliament voted 663 to 13 against what was going on with ACTA negotiations? The EU negotiators, who worked for the EU Commission, not the EU Parliament, seemed to brush off Parliament's concerns. However, some in the Parliament asked their legal services to determine if the EU Commission was allowed to keep ACTA secret. While ACTA has now been released, the review still happened. Hephaestus points us to the news that the analysis found that negotiators were not allowed to keep the document secret (pdf) from Parliament, and that if it had continued to the Parliament could have taken legal action. The key points:

Confidentiality cannot be used as a justification for not complying with the obligation to keep Parliament fully informed. Where a degree of confidentiality is justified to ensure the proper conduct of negotiations, the Council and Commission may request that agreed measure on the confidentiality of the documents be applied.
The obligation to inform Parliament cannot be modified or limited by any agreement among the institutions or by an arrangement with third parties which does not involve Parliament. Where documents originate from a third party, the Union negotiator may be justified in agreeing not to disclose such information without the consent of the third party concerned. In such circumstances, Parliament should nonetheless be provided with sufficient information.
In the case of a persistent refusal to provide it with sufficient information, Parliament could initiate proceedings for illegal failure to act.

While this might all seem moot now that the document has been released, it is worth noting that the EU's chief negotiator has said that the release was a one time deal, and they won't be releasing future drafts...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, eu, secrecy, transparency

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

NAMELESS ONE, 3 Jun 2010 @ 3:46am

THE GREAT COPYRIGHT SCAM - ENJOY
see they are all criminals that are doing this and they want to spread there disease to Canada with there scam with copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
filtercake, 3 Jun 2010 @ 4:01am

f#ckyeah
given that pretty much everybody in europe is bitching and moaning about the eu parliament, they're doing a pretty good job here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:09am
  
  Re: f#ckyeah
  given that pretty much everybody in europe is bitching and moaning about the eu parliament, they're doing a pretty good job here...
  
  Actually I don't see much moaning about the parliament - most of the moaning in the UK is about the Commission - although the really anti-EU types (eg UKIP) don't like the idea of the parliament they still sit in it - and usually do a pretty good job on all the other issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - filtercake, 3 Jun 2010 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re: f#ckyeah
    agreed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 3 Jun 2010 @ 4:11am

They wanted to join the clique
Confidentiality cannot be used as a justification for not complying with the obligation to keep Parliament fully informed. Where a degree of confidentiality is justified to ensure the proper conduct of negotiations, the Council and Commission may request that agreed measure on the confidentiality of the documents be applied.

This is somewhat troubling to me. It essentially states: 'yes you could have kept it secret from the public, but not from us'. It almost reads as a plea for joining the clique; which if that were to happen would make the situation even more dangerous since those politicians don't really care to understand the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sinrtb, 3 Jun 2010 @ 4:36am
  
  Re: They wanted to join the clique
  You might read it like that, and i am not clear on the finer points of European Governments. I always assumed Parliment was similar to senators in the US. In the US we elect (in theory) senators to represent us, they then are privy to many things we are not. Though it would seem they are just wanting to be in the clique, what they are doing is providing oversight. Could you imagine what our military and diplomatic relations would be like if every black project had to be discussed with all the citizenry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:07am
    
    Re: Re: They wanted to join the clique
    On the military oversight: yes think about that very hard. (hint: Iraq). Also, many 'black' projects are called like that because they should not see the daylight because they are amoral and very often injustifiable. I personally believe, secrecy is not a good idea. Oversight might be, but then it should be proper oversight and be in accordance with what the population wants, not with what the industry wants.
    
    Now, back to the ACTA crap: this is about a trade agreement; it is not something you can keep private in the end and it certainly is not something you should keep private. The fact that the EU states 'yes maybe a "degree of confidentiality" might be necessary' is bad. Who do they need to keep it secret from ? Their own population. If not that ? The Antartic population maybe ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: They wanted to join the clique
      The fact that the EU states 'yes maybe a "degree of confidentiality" might be necessary' is bad.
      
      I think that was a cautious legal opinion - that on some issues confidentiality might be needed - not necessarily on this issue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mr. Oizo, 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They wanted to join the clique
        That sentence is in response to ACTA and claiming that it could be related to something else, not ACTA, is placing the sentence out of context. The context in this case: the ACTA secret negotiations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They wanted to join the clique
        No - if you read the preamble it is clear that the "ACTA context" is now moot since the public disclosure. The whole opinion now refers to confidential documents in general. Unfortunately I can't quickly copy the relevant part of the pdf for you (it appears to be a scanned document) but you will find the critical words in the final two paragraphs of page 1.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 3 Jun 2010 @ 5:54am

I stand corrected; also something I didn't notice before is that this indeed merely specifies the 'proper procedures' to be followed before secrecy is allowed. They might have gotten a negative response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 6:42am
  
  Re:
  I didn't notice before is that this indeed merely specifies the 'proper procedures' to be followed before secrecy is allowed.
  Yes - that is certainly a big one - since how can the parliament agree to not knowing something without knowing it first - it's the old "Yes Minister" "Need to know" scam in a different form.
  
  http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas2a.htm
  
  "Sir Humphrey: "Now go in there and inform me of their conversation."
  Bernard Woolley: "I'm not sure I can do that, Sir Humphrey. It might be confidential."
  Sir Humphrey: "Bernard, the matter at issue is the defence of the realm and the stability of the government."
  Bernard Woolley: "But you only need to know things on a need to know basis."
  Sir Humphrey: "I need to know everything! How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?"
  Bernard Woolley: "So that means you need to know things even when you don't need to know. You need to know them not because you need to know them, but because you need to know whether or not you need to know. And if you don't need to know you still need to know, so that you know there is no need to know"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 8:12am

Once again
Smoke and Mirrors!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2010 @ 11:09am

There is a general truism in law that when an executive of an organization asks a lawyer within the very same organization to prepare a legal opinion the first question asked is "What do you want it so say?"

It is the rare lawyer in circumstances such as this who actually renders an independent and unbiased opinion. This is why, at least here in the US, courts tend to discount most such opinions.

The truly sad thing in that the hallmark of a good lawyer is the ability to provide "bad news" to a client in a way that makes the client pleased to have received such news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 3 Jun 2010 @ 11:37am

While this might all seem moot now that the document has been released, it is worth noting that the EU's chief negotiator has said that the release was a one time deal, and they won't be releasing future drafts...

Nothing will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Mad Hatter (profile), 3 Jun 2010 @ 12:11pm

I think you've missed a salient point
The release occurred after the EU Parliament asked for a legal ruling. The ACTA negotiators probably read up on the legal rights of parliament and decided that releasing it before they were ordered to was the best option, and they no doubt will argue when parliament next wants an update that they've already released it, and that nothing substantive has changed so that parliament doesn't need an update.

Simple but effective unless parliament is willing to fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]