Christian Engström, Pirat

12 juli 2010

ACTA negotiators inform the Parliament in secret

Filed under: ACTA,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 17:23

The room where the Commission held the closed briefing

The ACTA negotiators from the Commission came to the European Parliament today, to inform the Parliament about what happened in the last round of negotiations in Luzern.

However, the meeting where the information was to be given was declared ”in camera”, i.e.: closed to the public.

At the meeting, I asked if this meant that there were restrictions on how the information given could be used and spread. At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given.

I then left the meeting, since I am not prepared to accept information given under such conditions in this particular case.

There is no sensible reason why the ACTA negotiations should be carried out in secret, or why Members of the European Parliament should not be allowed to discuss information about ACTA with their constituents.

The ACTA agreement is about introducing stricter legislation to enforce intellectual property rights such as copyright and patents. I find the lack of transparency surrounding these negotiations completely unacceptable.

In a democracy, new laws should be made by the elected representatives after an open public debate. They should not be negotiated behind closed doors by unelected officials at the Commission, in an attempt to keep the citizens out of the process until it is too late.

According Article 218(10) of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission has a duty to keep the European Parliament ”immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure”.

To give oral information in a closed meeting, with no documents at all handed out, hardly qualifies as keeping the Parliament ”fully informed”.

It is obvious that the Commission has no intention of living up to its obligations under the Treaty when it comes to informing the Parliament.

That is disgraceful.

…………

Andra som skriver om hemlighetsmakeriet: ACTA-bloggen

Tags: , , ,

69 kommentarer

  1. Boooooooooooooooooooo!

    Helt rätt beslut!

    Kommentar av Markus "LAKE" Berglund — 12 juli 2010 @ 17:56

  2. Det kanske är rätt i princip att protestera genom att inte vara med, men är det verkligen ett bra beslut? Du får trots allt gå på läckt info istället för aningen mer officiell information.

    Kommentar av serenity — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:01

  3. Bicycle Cowboy: Om ACTA

    Kommentar av Mrhama — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:02

  4. Efter utspelet om att driva TPB från riksdagen undrar jag om det inte finns någon åtalsimmunitet även för MEPs? Finns det verkligen ingen möjlighet för er att läcka dokumenten själva?

    Kommentar av Nicholas Miles — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:13

  5. Christian, you made the right choice, the ACTA-negotiations are an unfair, and undemocratic process. I am afraid that the EU-project is slowly becoming a real threat to democracy in Europe.

    Kommentar av Jens — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:24

  6. Hell, ACTA is a threat to democracy everywhere. But that’s small potatoes compared to the damage it could do to the global economy and technological progress for decades to come.

    Kommentar av Matt — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:35

  7. You should not have asked for permission ;-)

    Kommentar av Tommy — 12 juli 2010 @ 18:56

  8. Please use wikileaks. People have to know.

    Kommentar av orbital — 12 juli 2010 @ 19:14

  9. Du skulle informerat dem att du inte kunde ställa upp på sådana krav, men att du inte hade för avsikt att lämna salen. Hade blivit mycket mer effekt ifall de hade fått tillkalla vakter och avhysa dig!

    /A

    Kommentar av Anders — 12 juli 2010 @ 19:58

  10. What would have been the result if you clearly and openly had told them that you reserved yourself the right to fully inform your voters and the public, with the same arguments?

    The commission can as I see it not restrict you in any way, allowing or disallowing you anything. The only thing they can do is to stop you from attending the meeting. How would the other MEPs have reacted? It is a little bit as if you voluntarily left the meeting.

    What would have happened?
    Would they have kicked you out?

    Kommentar av Hans J — 12 juli 2010 @ 20:24

  11. Well done, but on the other hand, Tommy raises a good question. What would be the sanctions if you would have published? What can they do to a chosen representative of us the people, who informs us about what politics is doing to our human and digital rights?

    Kommentar av Catharina — 12 juli 2010 @ 20:46

  12. I guess this was a split second decision. You should find out exactly under which conditions the Commission may keep this information confidential and the circumstances under the European Parliament and which you as an MEP are obliged to remain silent. Furthermore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that you support the mere conduit principle. So you should be able to argue that even if you know for a fact that that principle is jeopardy or not

    And in any case, unlike the rest of us, you have the right to be in the room. That’s important to remember.

    Furthermore, I think the particulars of the meeting is a bit strange. Was it your committee that was invited, or just a group of MEPs or a general call to all MEPs? The Commission is required to inform the European Parliament as a body and not individual MEPs that may or may not get a seat in a conference room. Official documents (classified or not) should be preferred. Oral information should be given in sessions (closed or not) and entered in to the official journal (classified or not).

    ACTA is of course important but equally important is to maintain the European Parliament as an open institution and to set the conditions on the relations to the Commission. Preferably, the Commissioners should inform the European Parliament in a manner of its choosing – not the other way around.

    I suggest you find four friend MEPs and submit the following Written declaration. I’ve heard they are popular these days.

    ”Written declaration pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure

    on principles for information regarding the status of the negotiations on international treaties etc.

    The European Parliament
    having regard to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure

    A. whereas Article 10 of the TEU states that citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament, that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union, and that decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen
    B. whereas Article 11 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European union, everyone has the right of receive information
    C. whereas Article 218 section 10 of the TFEU states that the European parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure

    1. expects to be informed on ongoing negotiations in writing no later than a week after the conclusion of each negotiation session.
    2. expects that the Commission makes such reports available to the public.
    3. reserves the right to make available to the public any communication from the Commission.
    4. may receive oral information only in a sitting of parliament, with the understanding that any information given in a sitting will be recorded in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
    5. does not consider any other forms of communications as a fulfillment by the Commissions of its duties with regards to Article 218:10 of the TFEU.”

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 12 juli 2010 @ 21:45

  13. Disclosing secret information outside the context in which is what given to you marks you down as an unreliable person. An unreliable person is not someone you wish to talk with, deal with or meet more than you have to, and, as sad as it may sound, the human factor of wanting face-to-face interaction or heartfelt conversations exists even in the top decision making layers in society (same mechanism, I guess, that makes us more comfortable with the thought of someone breaking up with us f2f rather than over the phone).

    It would be interesting to hear Christian Engström give some evaluation of whether or not the latest round of negotiations point towards there being now being new laws made. The latest question from Ska Keller to the Commission dated before this last hearing (http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/a2k_lists.keionline.org/2010-July/000062.html) shows the Commission vehemently denying any new laws being made. Legal analyses of the documents released earlier this spring also don’t point towards new laws as such (at least for Europe).

    Kommentar av Amelia Andersdotter — 12 juli 2010 @ 21:47

  14. Due to this move, Christian maintains a strong argument for his position that information provided with strings attached is effectively the same as no information at all. The Commission is bound by Article 218(10) of the Lisbon Treaty to keep the Parliament ”fully informed”, which is a good thing, but if the Commission manages to get away with providing that information only to selected individuals who will not be able to discuss it with anyone else, then the expression ”fully informed” has lost all meaning. It’s as if the Commission would deliver a sealed envelope to the EP secretariat and claim ”See, the information is now in the hands of the Parliament” even if nobody is allowed to open the envelope and read its contents.

    Leaks may happen anyway, but there have been leaks concerning ACTA already, and they haven’t changed much, partly because the information hasn’t been officially confirmed. Besides, it would be poor use of Christian’s MEP role to have him act as the leak – he would lose the abovementioned argument that he hasn’t been ”informed”, and he wouldn’t be able to inform his constituents (us) without giving the Commission the chance to discredit him for making unsubstantiated claims.

    The most important thing about ACTA isn’t what’s actually being discussed between the negotiators, but the very procedure for disseminating that information to the public. These negotiations may well end up dictating criminal legislation in EU member states, whether we like it or not. Getting a sneak preview of that legislation is worth much less to us than a clear demonstration that criminal legislation must not be drawn up behind closed doors. An improper procedure may later invalidate said legislation in some national or EU court; a sneak preview of the proposals being leaked to the public will not.

    The issue of what sanctions Christian may personally be subjected to for leaking is beside the point. I’m more concerned about the sanctions every EU citizen may be subjected to for ignoring laws forced upon us under a veil of secrecy which the legislators call ”democratic”.

    Kommentar av Anders Andersson — 12 juli 2010 @ 21:49

  15. Så en not på svenska.

    ”Det skall ock stå envar fritt att [...] meddela uppgifter och underrättelser i vad ämne som helst för offentliggörande i tryckt skrift” 1 kap. 1 § Tryckfrihetsförordningen

    Frågan är om inte just detta är den mest vidunderliga formuleringen i våra grundlagar. Vårt grundlagsfästa meddelarskydd som ger även europaparlamentariker rätten att berätta om hemliga saker som man anser behöver offentligt ljus, t.ex. hemlig information från kommissionen rörande vissa korrupta avtalsförhandlingar. Få länder har denna rätt grundlagsfäst, men det har alltså vi svenskar.

    Möjligen bryter du ett förtroende (men f-n vet vems) om du berättar vad som sägs vid sådana här konspirativa möten för en journalist, men du bryter inte någon lag – tvärtom utnyttjar du en för svenskar grundlagsskyddad rättighet. Och din rätt till anonymitet är som bekant också garanterad i samma grundlag.

    Så min uppmaning till dig är att gå på dessa möten – om det blir några fler – och värna sedan den svenska grundlagen så mycket som behövs.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 12 juli 2010 @ 22:06

  16. ACTA is being treated as if it’s a matter of ”international security”… of course, there is NO excuse for this behavior other than striking a secret deal for the industry’s benefit.

    Kommentar av Avery — 13 juli 2010 @ 1:41

  17. [...] lähinnä pilkkaa demokratiaa. Piraattimeppi Christian Engströmin maanantaina julkaistu blogikirjoitus osoitti jälleen kuinka huonolla tolalla asiat ovat ACTA:n suhteen. Komission ACTA-neuvottelijat [...]

    Pingback av ACTA -salailu jatkuu? - Ajatuksia kulttuurista, demokratiasta ja vapaudesta — 13 juli 2010 @ 8:56

  18. @Anders Andersson
    Very well put!

    Kommentar av Tor — 13 juli 2010 @ 9:43

  19. Could the fact that the Commission does not obey to the Lisbon Treaty make the result of the ACTA negotiations illegal? I mean, how could they impose ACTA and convert its contents into laws if it was build on an illegal process? The simple fact that negotiators (and the Commission) violate the Lisbon Treaty is totally unacceptable already. How can we force them to obey it? Or are we in a dictatorship, where the Commission would not have to follow the laws?

    Kommentar av Jack — 13 juli 2010 @ 10:29

  20. By the way, here is the document from the Legal Service of the European Parliament that explains how the obligation to inform the Parliament has not been respected : http://people.ffii.org/~ante/acta/EP_Legal_Service_on_release_of_ACTA_documents_to_the_EP.pdf

    Kommentar av Jack — 13 juli 2010 @ 10:58

  21. @Jack (#19)

    No, the ACTA negotiations are conducted by the Commission with a mandate from the Council.

    The Parliament has the possibility to reject the final text. What it means to be ”fully informed” is something that is to be settled right now. The ACTA negotiations happens to be the first field test of this new clause.

    The Parliament can sue the Commission in court or, more efficient, sack the Commission with a no confidence vote.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 13 juli 2010 @ 11:53

  22. @Johan Tjäder

    A ”vote of no confidence” seems long overdue. Granted every leeway, the current commission has shown itself in direct violation to the parliament since it’s inception.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 13 juli 2010 @ 12:10

  23. Christian:

    These ACTA guys, as contributors to a (albeit invalid, non-democratic) proposed act with proposed international reach, are supposed to be masters of understanding clauses. If they have any competence within their self-proclaimed role of proposed authority, they understand that keeping the Parliament ”fully informed” does not equal keeping the Parliament ”partly informed through a non-Parliament-approved, constrained, off-the-Parliament-record session”.

    Nobody can dispute the above failing. Do these guys not respond to social means and adhere to established treaties? If not, why doesn’t the Parliament adopt a written declaration to kill ACTA in it’s current form of delivery?

    Kommentar av Jakob — 13 juli 2010 @ 13:15

  24. ”I then left the meeting, since I am not prepared to accept information given under such conditions in this particular case.”

    Walk over. Some negotiations must be carried out in secret. On the other hand, if the Swedish Pirate Party can’t handle secrecy, walk over is the best alternative in the long run.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 13 juli 2010 @ 13:18

  25. Christian isn’t a negotiator, and in his role as an MEP he has no reason to even appear to receive information he will not be able to discuss with his voters, those he represent, as he cannot act on that information without losing the confidence of said voters.

    Christian is doing exactly what I, as a Pirate voter, would expect from him. If you didn’t even vote Pirate, you have no business telling him to do otherwise. This is what representative democracy is all about. Don’t talk Christian into accepting privileged information, and I won’t tell your dog to fetch my newspaper for me.

    And my advice to Johan Tjäder (#15) is to not overexpose the inherent conflict between the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act and European legal tradition concerning privileged information, unless you want to build a case for effectively amending the former (say, by making Swedish MEPs subject to the same rule of silence as goes for the members of the Swedish Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs [Utrikesnämnden]). ”You can never trust a Swede with a secret”, is that really the message you want to send to Europe and the world?

    ”Hey, please let me in on your secret! I promise I won’t tell anybody else about it (and in the case I break my promise and do so anyway, you will be unable to sue me for it, because I’m protected by the Swedish constitution). Now, why that weird clam-like expression on your face..?”

    Kommentar av Anders Andersson — 13 juli 2010 @ 15:59

  26. @nejtillpirater: saklig igen. Det här var inga förhandlingar (negotiations) utan ett informationsmöte.

    Kommentar av Christer — 13 juli 2010 @ 16:21

  27. @nejtillpirater

    ”Some negotiations must be carried out in secret.”

    I suggest you go back to post #12 and read the law as it is stated. Pay close attention to the fact that the commission isn’t allowed to discuss things in secret – and that parliament ”reserves the right to make available to the public any communication from the Commission.”.

    I suppose your love of the law only applies when it isn’t directed against one of your spurious arguments?

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 13 juli 2010 @ 17:42

  28. Bad tactics Christian. You should not have asked, a man i power do not ask permission (realize, you do have power now), that is a sure way of degrading your self. What you should have done was to declare upfront that you will go public with whatever info you find useful, that way they would have found them self in a position to either allow it or look bad. They would have lost their integrity either way. You forced them to take a stance, but if you had not done that it would have been easier for them not to react at all. I bet that many of them also feels that the secrecy is wrong and would gladly have looked the other way if you just had given them the chance to do so by not handing them the initiative by asking. The way you did it now everyone lost, you did not get any information by self inflicted lockout instead of them locking you out, something they would have been reluctant to do, and they can keep their secrets and blame it on your own actions and thus still looking bad, but not quite as bad as if they had locked you out.

    Kommentar av steelneck — 13 juli 2010 @ 20:04

  29. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting RapidShare, MegaUpload, HotFile Free Full Version Warez Download with Crack, Serial, Keygen - Downloads and News — 13 juli 2010 @ 21:28

  30. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av P2PTalk » Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting — 13 juli 2010 @ 21:32

  31. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | Tech Industry News — 13 juli 2010 @ 21:56

  32. I was sort of in the same situation in January, where the ngotiators in mexico organized a ”public” meeting that initially required NDA but then they Trust in our good will to maintain in secret the information (minimal to none) given in the reunion. I was tweeting the meeting and they said i had to stop informing the public or leave. So i leave.. a security guy guard me to the door by the way.

    You can read here more if you are interested. http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/activist-ejected-fro.html

    It’s outrageous what is going on. Is there a way to ban it? Sue them Stop them for real?

    Thanks for stand up and act.

    Kommentar av Geraldine — 13 juli 2010 @ 22:53

  33. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | We R Pirates — 13 juli 2010 @ 23:00

  34. Hoppla. Texten i inlägg 12 är inte lag ännu, utan mitt förslag till skriftlig deklaration från parlamentet. Kan man få en majoritet att skriva på för ökad datalagring så bör man väl kunna få dem att skriva på för öppet demokratiskt beslutsfattande.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 13 juli 2010 @ 23:06

  35. [...] are reports that the EU negotiators have gone to discuss the matter with the EU Parliament, but would only do so in secret, forbidding those in attendance from telling anyone what was discussed. In other words, for all the [...]

    Pingback av Not Very Transparent: EU ACTA Negotiators Present To EU Parliament In Secret | Technology News and Information for Geeks — 14 juli 2010 @ 0:02

  36. [...] are reports that the EU negotiators have gone to discuss the matter with the EU Parliament, but would only do so in secret, forbidding those in attendance from telling anyone what was discussed. In other words, for all the [...]

    Pingback av Not Very Transparent: EU ACTA Negotiators Present To EU Parliament In Secret | Tech Geek — 14 juli 2010 @ 0:04

  37. [...] Christian Engström, Pirate MEP: ACTA negotiators inform the Parliament in secret [...]

    Pingback av free and thinking» Blogg-arkiv » Myglet runt ACTA-förhandlingarna fortsätter IDG.se - Störst på IT, dagliga IT-nyheter, tester, gratis forum, guider, skolor och nyhetsbrev mm — 14 juli 2010 @ 7:26

  38. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | InstantIdiocy — 14 juli 2010 @ 7:28

  39. Det hade kanske varit roligare och bättre att stanna kvar på mötet, men istället deklarera på förhand att du kommer att läcka informationen. På det sättet lägger du en större boll i deras händer på vad de kommer att säga på mötet.

    Kommentar av MaxH — 14 juli 2010 @ 11:21

  40. ”I then left the meeting, since I am not prepared to accept information given under such conditions in this particular case.”

    You sir, have just given us a bright example of how a politician with integrity acts. Thank you Christian, for standing up for the peoples of Europe !

    Kommentar av Erik Ernst — 14 juli 2010 @ 12:18

  41. An MEP with high salary paid by the citizens should attend meetings to be informed and to be able to act on the information. It´s surprising that walk over is appreciated. Reluctance to receive information about the ACTA negotiations will not favor the Swedish Pirate Party.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 14 juli 2010 @ 13:30

  42. [...] senast gäller det Acta (igen) mera. Kampen fortsätter mellan dom som vill att EU:s medborgare (och politiker) skall [...]

    Pingback av Acta och fildelning « ConnyT funderar — 14 juli 2010 @ 15:25

  43. I am proud to have you as ”my” representative in the European Parliament, Christian.

    In this particular case, you did the second best thing. The best thing would probably have been to stay in the room and proudly declare that you will not be handed information of this kind with a gag-order attached; and then to either have them fold or toss you out.

    I would love to see the publicity if you were to try to implement Johan Tjäder’s suggestions about having the Parliament sign a written declaration. Transparency is of paramount democratic importance!

    Kommentar av Morgan Andréason — 14 juli 2010 @ 16:27

  44. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | Systema — 14 juli 2010 @ 19:07

  45. You did the right thing. The only MEP with guts. Thank you.

    Kommentar av Mikke Svensson — 14 juli 2010 @ 19:14

  46. Why don’t you take this violation of the Treaty of Lisbon to the European Court of Justice?

    Kommentar av kirsche40 — 15 juli 2010 @ 9:33

  47. nejtillpirater [=notopirates] wrote:

    ”An MEP with high salary paid by the citizens should attend meetings to be informed and to be able to act on the information. It´s surprising that walk over is appreciated. Reluctance to receive information about the ACTA negotiations will not favor the Swedish Pirate Party.”

    Exactly, he should attend meetings in order to be able to act on the information given. In this case he was not allowed to act on the information given and hence left the meeting. I’m amazed how some people defend secret law-making (and that’s what this is) just because it suits their agenda. What happened to the democratic idea of open debate? Or do you think that this small number of politicians and civil servants are so much wiser than the rest of us that they don’t need our input?

    Einstein once said ”make things as simple as possible, but not simpler”. I say, make democracy as efficient as possible, but not more efficient because that’s the path to dictatorship. Let’s note erode our democratic values.

    Kommentar av Tor — 15 juli 2010 @ 11:14

  48. You did the right thing. Hopefully other MEPs will follow your example in the future and maybe we can get an end to this kind of secrecy. If many MEPs start boycotting the negotiations then they will be forced to change.

    As Amelia said, I think it would be a mistake to get a reputation as ”unreliable”. Some of the other suggestions here are interesting but what you did was great as well.

    Kommentar av Mårten — 15 juli 2010 @ 15:07

  49. [...] are reports that the EU negotiators have gone to discuss the matter with the EU Parliament, but would only do so in secret, forbidding those in attendance from telling anyone what was discussed. In other words, for all the [...]

    Pingback av Not Very Transparent: EU ACTA Negotiators Present To EU Parliament In Secret | TechFreqNews3.0=- — 15 juli 2010 @ 19:09

  50. Where is the news coverage of this in the media? This is absolutely outrageous and what makes it even worse is the lack of interest from the Swedish press who is constitutionally protected in order to defend civil liberties and the democratic values.

    Shame on you Jan Helin (Aftonbladet), Thomas Mattson (Expressen), Lena K Samuelsson (SvD) and Gunilla Herlitz (DN). You are a disgrace!

    Kommentar av Thomas Tvivlaren — 16 juli 2010 @ 13:21

  51. The comment from you (Christian) and Amelia makes me very happy I voted for the PP in the EU elections. If our (tinw) opponents can claim that the PP leak information and is not serious, no dialogue will be possible, and with only 1 (2) MEPs, dialogue is the main job of the PP in the EP.

    The only other option, as several has said, would be to have them tell you to leave, just for the heck of it: ‘My policy as an MEP is to share information given to me with my voters and the general public, is it the opinion of the commision that I cannot partake in this meeting?’ – that would have forced the commision to encourage you to leave, which might be a strong point when (in the EP) bringing up the question of commission non-information. (‘They didn’t allow me at the information meeting.’)

    However, what you did was great, an honest, straightforward signal that you do not ‘play’ their game of closed information in this instance.
    It was also a good way to make a stand for voter information and EU (EP) transparency to the general public, which is necessary for greater reasons in the long run, regardless of the commisions opinions in the matter.

    Kommentar av Rag. — 16 juli 2010 @ 16:19

  52. [...] negoziati si è svolto a porte chiuse, escludendo la partecipazione del pubblico.  Una mossa che non è piaciuta al membro del partito pirata svedese Christian Engström che prima dell’avvio della [...]

    Pingback av Il testo dell’ACTA torna ad essere segreto | Diritto&Internet — 16 juli 2010 @ 19:19

  53. [...] abandonar la reunión, ya que la información que se daba en la misma era de carácter confidencial. Aquí la crónica de la penosa reunión. En la reunión pública Karl DeGutch fue citado a comparecer por la Comisión de Libertades [...]

    Pingback av #ACTA: Fuera de control 2/2 | Crítica Pura — 17 juli 2010 @ 1:03

  54. [...] ACTA negotiators inform the Parliament in secret « Christian … [...]

    Pingback av is there a way to not associate eye patches with pirates? | Dr. Ebony Browne's Blog | Eye Glasses | Eye Doctor | Norcross — 17 juli 2010 @ 20:20

  55. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | TechFreqNews3.0=- — 18 juli 2010 @ 1:18

  56. [...] Engström, a Swedish Pirate Party MEP, has blogged about walking out of an ACTA meeting (concerning a controversial piece of legislation on [...]

    Pingback av bloggingportal.eu Blog & Support » Blog Archive » The Week in Bloggingportal: My Euroblog is Better Than Yours! — 18 juli 2010 @ 9:36

  57. [...] Engström, a Swedish Pirate Party MEP, has blogged about walking out of an ACTA meeting (concerning a controversial piece of legislation on [...]

    Pingback av Euroblog Round-Up: My Euroblog is Better Than Yours! | Eurogoblin.eu — 18 juli 2010 @ 12:22

  58. [...] wurde nicht veröffentlicht. Nachdem selbst Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments verboten wurde, ihre Informationen über ACTA mit der Öffentlichkeit zu teilen, wie der Abgeordnete Christian [...]

    Pingback av Offener Brief an die EU-Kommission und an die Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland | alios pad — 21 juli 2010 @ 11:04

  59. [...] [1]http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/acta-negotiators-inform-the-parliament-in-secret/ [2] http://www.laquadrature.net/en/new-acta-leak-2010-07-13-consolidated-text-luzern-round [...]

    Pingback av Piratenpartei Münster » Offener Brief der Piratenpartei Deutschland — 21 juli 2010 @ 12:03

  60. [...] öppet demokratiskt samtal kan kännas långt borta i den virvlande EU-apparaten. Christian Engström kände sig häromdagen tvungen att lämna ett möte rörande ACTA, förhandlingar som fått kritik för att de förts bakom stängda dörrar. Christian [...]

    Pingback av Almedalen och rollspelen « Kapten TOQigs piratskepp — 21 juli 2010 @ 18:06

  61. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting « BloodStudios.com - Indexing RSS Feeds — 21 juli 2010 @ 23:39

  62. Is this not a violation of our fundamental rights?
    Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantee the right of access to documents.

    ”Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.”

    Kommentar av Niall — 24 juli 2010 @ 1:56

  63. ”According Article 218(10) of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission has a duty to keep the European Parliament ”immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure”.

    To give oral information in a closed meeting, with no documents at all handed out, hardly qualifies as keeping the Parliament ”fully informed”.”

    Do you plan to challenge this Commission’s behavior in some legal procedure, e.g. at court? It’s apparent that the Commission breaks the law here, leaving aside the fact that the Commission certainly defends all possible interests, except those of the EU citizens, unless those citizens are owners of large corporations.

    Kommentar av Jarda — 26 juli 2010 @ 8:30

  64. [...] talk about ACTA on 16 August 2010. That is because the negotiation has been hidden not only from public scrutiny but even from the duly elected representatives of the [...]

    Pingback av ex Africa semper aliquid novi » Blog Archive » Collateral Damage: The Impact of ACTA and the Enforcement Agenda on the World’s Poorest People — 4 augusti 2010 @ 20:45

  65. [...] The debriefings by the EC to the EU remain confidential and secret, and are the reason Engström removed himself from those debriefings — it is disgracefully undemocratic for such laws and agreements to be [...]

    Pingback av So Much For Transparency | Rodney Serkowski — 2 september 2010 @ 16:52

  66. [...] “At first the Commission seemed unwilling to answer this question with a straight yes or no, but after I had repeated the question a number of times, they finally came out and said that I would not be allowed to spread the information given,” Engstrom explains. [...]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Forced To Leave ACTA Meeting | TorrentFreak — 8 februari 2011 @ 13:06

  67. [...] rounds 14 notes and internal working papers But there's a problem with those documents, as the Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström highlighted in a blog post back in 2010: MEPs weren't allowed to pass on any information they obtained. The [...]

    Pingback av Shining Light On ACTA’s Lack Of Transparency « waweru.net — 18 februari 2012 @ 8:44


RSS-flöde för kommentarer till det här inlägget.

Rubric-temat. Blogga med WordPress.com.

Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 1 938 andra följare

%d bloggers like this: