The European Parliament called for transparency on new global trade rules, but declined to grant access to documents on a controversial agreement that were in its own possession.
The disputed ACTA documents
Members of the European Parliament had repeatedly asked for access to documents on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a set of new trade rules the EU negotiated with the USA, Japan and eight other nations. Once the negotiations had ended, the EU needed the Parliament's consent to sign the agreement, and a plenary vote was expected in the autumn. According to the Commission, INTA, the committee on international trade in the Parliament, held all the relevant documents needed to understand the content of ACTA, but the committee was not willing to share them with others.
One controversial aspect of ACTA concerned regulation of the Internet. Critics suggested it would give internet providers reinforced competence to block out customers and would introduce new measures at border controls, including powers for customs to check the content of hard disks, CDs, memory sticks and other digital hardware in a search for counterfeit files. A further source of complaints was the potential effect on the production and sale of generic medicines in developing countries.
A request for the background papers
Joe McNamee, working for the organisation European Digital Rights (EDRi), was frustrated at not having access to the background documents. "Multiple parts of the agreement are completely opaque and according to the Vienna convention (rules on international agreements) preparing papers should be used for clarification," he said, giving an example: "The agreement talks of cooperation between Internet providers and law enforcement agencies. What is that? In previous, leaked, versions there was a footnote here about providers disconnecting users after repeated misuse of the Internet. Is that solved now?" EDRi accordingly requested access to the preparatory documents from the trade committee.
The committee did not act on the request. "There is no decision yet," the committee's secretariat said, close to two months after the request had been made. EU regulations on access to documents state that a request should, as a general rule, be answered within 15 working days. McNamee noted that the Parliament claimed to favour transparency in legislation in general and had criticised the secret ACTA negotiations. "It would be totally inconsistent if the EP after three calls for transparency in the legal process would refuse to give access to documents," he said.
An administrator at INTA wrote that the committee could not distribute documents that were not of its own origin. Whether this was in line with the Parliament's internal rules on classified documents, or something the committee had decided by itself, was unclear. A formal request for the same documents as EDRi was subsequently filed with the Parliament's register, referring to Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents. The wider question of how the EU handled such requests is set out in the guidance on how to use European freedom of information.
The Commission's position
The Commission rejected these worries and others, arguing that the purpose of ACTA was to enforce existing laws on intellectual property — patents, copyrights and so on — not to create a new legal landscape. An extensive compilation of questions from parliamentarians and the Commission's answers was published by the Commission's trade directorate, together with comments on the critical opinion of European academics on ACTA. Similar disputes over EU access rules are traced in the account of sharpened conflicts over new access rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is ACTA?
ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, was a set of new trade rules negotiated by the EU with the USA, Japan and eight other nations. It was intended to enforce existing intellectual-property laws such as patents and copyrights.
Why were the documents withheld?
The INTA committee held the relevant documents but was not willing to share them, and an administrator stated that the committee could not distribute documents that were not of its own origin. No decision on the access request had been taken almost two months after it was made.
What deadline applied to the request?
EU regulations on access to documents state that a request should, as a general rule, be answered within 15 working days.