Svenska regeringen ansvarigt för den människorättsvidriga straffrättsliga delen av ACTA

(A translation in english is available below the swedish version)

Vi kontaktade för en tid sedan justitiedepartementet apropå att den svenska regeringen var representerade på den kritiserade lobbygruppens Kangaroo Groups ACTA-evenemang. Det framkom att det var självaste EU-Kommissionen som bett en svensk regeringstjänsteman att närvara.

Vi har nu fått svar från justitiedepartementet, där det även framkommer att det är den svenska regeringen som, under det svenska ordförandeskapet, företrätt EU i acta-förhandlingarna. Stefan Johansson, ämnesråd på justitiedepartementet, var dels ordförande då EU:s medlemsländers ståndpunkter koordinerades, och företrädde vidare EU i förhandlingarna om den straffrättsliga regleringen i ACTA-avtalet (Avsnitt 4, Criminal Enforcement, art. 23 – 26). Övriga delar av ACTA-avtalet förhandlades av EU-Kommissionen, men den straffrättsliga delen sköttes alltså av det roterande ordförandeskapet, d.v.s. Sverige.

I Ian Browns och Douwe Korffs nyligen publicerade ACTA-studie, som berör just hur ACTA-avtalet överensstämmer med Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna och EU:s stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna, kritiserade just detta avsnitt och art. 23 för att bryta mot såväl Europakonventionen som Rättighetsstadgan, och hotar yttrandefriheten och rätten till information.

Utklipp från studiens slutsatser:

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION:

1.  Re Application of ACTA to trivial or small-scale, not-for-profit technical infringements of IP rights, and to the dissemination of IP-protected information without the agreement of the right holder where this is justified on higher public interest grounds:

•  Article 23 ACTA requires State parties to lower the criminal threshold for IPR infringements, and to widen the scope of the criminal offences, without a de minimis exception;
•  Without such an exception and/or similar exceptions on the lines of the U.S. “fair use” and “fair comment” rules, IPR enforcement will disproportionately restrict the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas;
•  Since a de minimis exception can be seen as a limitation on procedural matters rather than on the substance of IP rights, this is not remedied by the fact that ACTA allows States to retain substantive exceptions to IP law;
•  In our opinion, an explicit de minimis rule and an explicit public interest defence are the minimum that are required to bring Article 23 in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).

Att den svenska regeringen uppenbarligen godkänt detta avsnitt, och dessutom representerat en av de klart största aktörerna under förhandlingarna, och således varit med och formulerat texten, är minst sagt häpnadsväckande.

Mailet (vår fetmarkering)
_________

Hej Rikard,

Tack för ditt e-mail angående min medverkan vid lunchdebatten ”FACTS ABOUT ACTA”.

Det var kommissionen som frågade mig om jag hade möjlighet att medverka vid denna debatt för att berätta om – och svara på eventuella frågor angående – det kapitel i ACTA som innehåller straffrättsliga bestämmelser. Att just jag fick denna fråga beror såvitt jag förstår på att jag har vissa erfarenheter som är relevanta i sammanhanget. Under det svenska ordförandeskapet i EU var jag ordförande vid de möten där medlemsstaternas ståndpunkter koordinerades. Under ordförandeskapet var det dessutom jag som företrädde EU:s medlemsstater i förhandlingarna om den straffrättsliga regleringen i ACTA. Den delen av ACTA förhandlades alltså inte av kommissionen för EU:s räkning, utan av det roterande ordförandeskapet för medlemsstaternas räkning. Mitt deltagande vid lunchdebatten förankrades inom Justitiedepartementet, men jag tror inte att det gjordes några särskilda överväganden när det gäller vem som var arrangör av det aktuella mötet. Vi noterade dock att ett antal svenska parlamentariker är medlemmar i Kangaroo Group.

När det gäller innehållet i ACTA så är regeringens bedömning att den slutliga lydelsen av ACTA i allt väsentligt motsvarar vad som redan gäller i Sverige. Ett eventuellt tillträde till avtalet skulle endast kräva en mindre justering i varumärkeslagen, för att ge polis och åklagare vissa möjligheter att ingripa mot varumärkesintrång utan angivelse från målsäganden. Vi är dock medvetna att det har presenterats några rapporter, bl.a. den som du hänvisar till, där innehållet i ACTA beskrivs på annat sätt.

Med vänlig hälsning

Stefan Johansson
Ämnesråd

The Swedish government is responsible for the criticized Criminal Enforcement chapter in ACTA

Some time ago we contacted the Swedish Government and the Department of Justice asking why a Swedish government official was speaking at the Kangaroo Groups lunch debate “Facts about ACTA”. The Kangaroo Group is a lobby group combined of representatives from the combined European weapons industry, pharmaceutical industry, and other corporations not foremost known for their ambitions regarding human rights… It was recently discovered that it was the European Commission who requested the presence of the Swedish government official at the Kangaroo debate.

The Department of Justice recently replied to our inquiry. In the reply, the Department of Justice and

Stefan Johansson (Deputy Director, Division for Intellectual Property and Transport Law)

informs us that the Swedish government and the Swedish government official, that is Stefan Johansson himself, has been negotiating ACTA on behalf of the European Union. Apart from chairing a number of meetings where the member states coordinated their positions on ACTA, Johansson was also the head official representing the EU in the ACTA-negotiations regarding the chapter concerning criminal enforcement (chapter 4, art. 23 – 26). This part of the treaty was, unlike the rest of the treaty, not negotiated by the EU Commission, but instead negotiated by the Council and the rotating presidency, that is, Sweden.

In the recently published study on ACTA and fundamental rights conducted by Ian Brown and Douwe Korff, the very same chapter in ACTA is heavily criticized. According to the study, art. 23 of ACTA is not in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) nor the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), and represents a threat against both freedom of speech and the right to information.

Extract from the study;

THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION:

1.  Re Application of ACTA to trivial or small-scale, not-for-profit technical infringements of IP rights, and to the dissemination of IP-protected information without the agreement of the right holder where this is justified on higher public interest grounds:

•  Article 23 ACTA requires State parties to lower the criminal threshold for IPR infringements, and to widen the scope of the criminal offences, without a de minimis exception;
•  Without such an exception and/or similar exceptions on the lines of the U.S. “fair use” and “fair comment” rules, IPR enforcement will disproportionately restrict the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas;
•  Since a de minimis exception can be seen as a limitation on procedural matters rather than on the substance of IP rights, this is not remedied by the fact that ACTA allows States to retain substantive exceptions to IP law;
•  In our opinion, an explicit de minimis rule and an explicit public interest defence are the minimum that are required to bring Article 23 in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).

The fact that the Swedish government has approved this chapter, as well as represented one of the major negotiating parties and thus contributed in drafting the text, is shocking, to say the least.

The email;

Hi Rikard,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding my participation in the lunch debate ”Facts About ACTA”.

It was the Commission who asked me if I had the opportunity to participate in this debate to talk about – and answer any questions about – the chapter of the ACTA that contain criminal provisions. In my understanding, they asked me since I have some experiences that seem relevant. During the Swedish EU presidency, I was chairman at the meetings where members’ positions were coordinated. During the Presidency, it was I who represented the EU Member States in the negotiation of the criminal sanctions in ACTA. That part of the ACTA negotiation was not conducted by the Commission, but by the rotating presidency on their (EU:s) behalf. My participation in the lunch debate was coordinated with the Department of Justice, but I do not think there were any special considerations made with regard to who was the organizer of the meeting. We noted however that a number of Swedish MEPs are members of the Kangaroo Group.

Regarding the contents of ACTA, the Government considers the final text of ACTA to essentially be in line with current Swedish legislation. A potential Swedish entry to the ACTA-agreement would only require a minor adjustment in the Trademarks Act, to give police and prosecutors some opportunities to take action against trademark infringement without prior indication by the plaintiff or right holder.

We are aware that certain studies has been conducted, including the one you’re referring to, where the contents of ACTA is described in a way that differs from ours.

Yours sincerely,
Stefan Johansson
Senior Adviser