Controversy over the divisive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is set to stretch out longer now that the European Commission has decided to refer Acta to the European Court of Justice.
The Commission had never shown any desire to open Acta to scrutiny before
The ECJ has been asked to analyse the agreement’s compatibility with EU law and ensure that it will not adversely affect any existing rights and freedoms.
A European Parliament vote on the controversial agreement was originally expected in June.
The ECJ referral is likely to push that date back by some months.
The announcement, made by Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, represents a significant step back for the Commission, which has pushed for Acta’s ratification across member states.
It comes amid pan-European protests against the agreement that drew tens of thousands of people to streets in European capitals. A Maltese anti-Acta protest saw about 400 people march through Valletta.
The debate on the trade agreement has, on the one hand, proponents insisting that it will change nothing for the average EU citizen and detractors arguing that it will open the door to an erosion of online privacy.
Disagreement has not been helped by conflicting legal opinions on the agreement’s legal implications. While the Commission says that the agreement will not affect EU law, legal scholars beg to differ. The ECJ referral should resolve this legal dispute once and for all.
The referral provoked mixed reactions among European Parliamentarians. A spokesman for European Greens welcomed the decision, auguring that it would be “a nail in the coffin of this far-reaching and unnecessary agreement”.
The Greens feel that, regardless of the ECJ’s juridical evaluation, Acta remained “politically wrongheaded”. The Greens would continue to push for its rejection by the European Parliament, the spokesman said.
But Jill Schaake, an MEP from the Dutch liberal D66 party, is worried that the referral is a ploy to win time and keep a lid on dissent.
“The Commission had never shown any desire to open Acta to scrutiny before. Why the sudden change of heart, just before the European Parliament could reject it?”
She is not the only one to harbour such suspicions. An article on The Financial Times earlier this month quoted a diplomatic source suggesting that delaying an EP vote could give time “for the venom to clear” and allow governments to “quietly push for parliamentary ratification”.
With governments in Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic all saying they have had a change of heart about Acta, an EP vote on the treaty at this stage is unlikely to muster the majority needed to pass.
The Maltese government, one of 22 EU states to sign the agreement last month, said that it would not withdraw from the ratification process. It has instead referred the agreement to Parliament’s European and Foreign Affairs Committee for further analysis.
Meanwhile, the Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry has come out in favour of Acta, saying that its analysis of the agreement had concluded that it “safeguards the interests of legitimate business and the creation of sustainable jobs”.