The controversial Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement has moved closer to being rejected by the European Parliament in the wake of declarations by the Liberal Group.

According to former Belgian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberals in the EP, Guy Verhofstadt, his group – the third largest in the EP – will be voting against the agreement because of serious concerns that the agreement “does not strike the right balance between protecting intellectual property rights and fundamental rights and freedoms”.

“Civil society has been extremely vocal in recent months in raising their legitimate concerns on the Acta agreement which we share. There are too many provisions lacking clarity and certainty as to the way they would be implemented in practice,” he told a press conference in Brussels.

Added to the declarations against the agreement already made by the Socialist and the Green groups, the Liberals’ declaration effectively means that if MEPs stick to their party’s positions, as expected, there will be a majority against the agreement in the Brussels Chamber. The EPP, the largest political group in the EP, yesterday also declared its official stand on the agreement.

Without completely rejecting it – as the other political groups have done – the Christian Democrats made it clear that they would not be able to support the text without changes that ensure that internet and privacy rules were fully safeguarded.

While recognising that the agreement was a step in the right direction in the fight against counterfeit products, the group’s shadow rapporteur, Christofer Fjellnet, said that “more legal clarity regarding certain provisions in the agreement in respect of its online chapters is needed”.

He said that, instead of rejecting it, the EPP prefers to fix the agreement.

“We therefore call on the European Commission and member states to ensure legal clarity regarding certain provisions of Acta before the EPP Group can support the agreement. These include avoiding internet service providers from automatically policing the web, to define large scale IPR (intellectual property rights) infringements and to add legal clarity as to when member states could impose criminal enforcement measures on internet users.”