Brev och svar om immaterialrätter i det ekonomiska avtalet med Kanada

Ulf Pettersson — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:30:19 +0000

Language Swedish

I November förra året undertecknade Amelia ett gemensamt brev till EU-Kommissionen angående det immaterialrättskapitel som Kommissionen har lagt in i det ekonomiska avtal som förhandlas fram med Kanada. Avtalet förkortas CETA - "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement" - ung. "Det omfattande avtalet i ekonomi- och handelsfrågor". Liksom med många liknande avtal är det fel att kalla dem för dem handelsavtal eftersom de omfattar så mycket mer; i det här fallet bland annat immaterialrätter, investeringsregler, allehanda avregleringar samt för första gången ett hållbarhetsavsnitt om miljö- och arbetsrätt. Kommissionen befinner sig just nu i slutfasen av förhandlingarna.

CETA har kritiserats av civilsamhället på flera områden. Bland annat inför avtalet särskilda rättigheter för internationella investerare där dessa kan stämma en part om denna inför lagar som går emot investerarens intressen. Vidare har Kommissionen smugit in ett immaterialrättskapitel där EU bland annat vill tvinga Kanada att införa mer restriktiva patentregler. Sådana regler kommer att minska konkurrensen på läkemedelsmarknaden och försvåra tillgång på medicin genom att hindra tillverkning av generikamedicin. Att immaterialrätt ens tas med i ett avtalet är mycket märkligt då Kanada redan har mycket omfattande immaterialrättslagar. Och EU-Kommissionen har tidigare lovat att kommande avtal inte skall försvåra tillverkning av generikamedicin.

Därför undertecknade Amelia tillsammans med en rad andra EU-parlamentariker brevet till EUs handelskommissionär Karel De Gucht där de kräver att texten om immaterialrätt och läkemedel tas bort. De skrev:

November 4, 2012

Dear Commissioner De Gucht:

We are writing to raise our concern with regards to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) currently being negotiated between the European Union and Canada. Specifically, we are concerned about the leaked intellectual property provisions put forward by DG Trade that would delay the entry of generic medicines as well as negatively impact jobs and the generic industry both in Europe and in Canada as well as patients’ access to safe and affordable medicines.

The leaked provisions are inconsistent with the European Parliament resolution of 8 June 2011 on EU-Canada trade relations that clearly states that “the chapter on intellectual property should not negatively affect the production of generic medicines and must respect the TRIPs exceptions for public health.

In addition, the Pharmaceutical Fiche released by DG Trade in December 2011 states that “…the EU should also seek to find the correct balance in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, in order that it does not impose TRIPS+ requirements on countries where this may have an adverse affect on either public health or the ability of the EU to import its own generic medicines.” Unfortunately, the leaked IPR proposal for CETA contradicts those objectives identified by DG Trade to be pursued in trade negotiations as CETA would have a negative impact on public health in Canada as noted in an internal study conducted by Industry Canada and Health Canada and may also hinder the ability of EU consumers to maintain the current supply of generic drugs from Canada.

Finally, it is important to note that although Canada’s intellectual property system is similar to the one in the United States, and the EU and the US have agreed that “[b]oth the EU and the United States are committed to a high level of intellectual property protection, including enforcement, and cooperate extensively through the Transatlantic IPR Working Group. Both sides agree that it would not be feasible in negotiations to seek to reconcile across the board differences in the IPR obligations that each typically includes in its comprehensive tradeagreements. Before the launch of any negotiations, both sides would furtherconsult on possible approaches to deal with IPR matters in a mutually satisfactory manner”, DG Trade is expecting Canada to add to its intellectual property framework additional layers of protection. DG Trade should be consistent and recognize in CETA that both Canada and the EU have equally strong but different intellectual property systems.

Due to these considerations, we ask that DG Trade withdraw the intellectual property text related to pharmaceuticals that has been proposed for CETA.

Yours sincerely, The Members of the European Parliament,

Amelia Andersdotter, Catherine Grèze, Yannick Jadot, Ska Keller, David Martin, Antonyia Parvanova, Michèle Rivasi, Carl Schlyter, Helmut Scholz, Henri Weber

Nu har Karel De Gucht svarat [.pdf]. De Gucht är mycket avfärdande och prioriterar läkemedelsindustrins vinster framför konkurrens och tillgång till medicin.

Han skriver att Europas hälsovårdssystem är "världens mest rättvisa och effektiva" och samexisterar med ett system av "stark" immaterialrätt vilket "varken är skadligt för patienter eller till nackdel för läkemedelsindustrin". Den kanadensiska immaterialrätten menar han "ligger efter" och är därför "i behov av förbättringar". Att patentperioden i Kanada i praktiken är kortare är till nackdel för europeisk läkemedelsindustri när den säljer till Kanada. Generellt strävar Kommissionen efter en "ambitiös IPR-standard" i sina förhandlingar, men utvecklingsnivån måste även tas hänsyn till, vilket kan motivera "en mer flexibel ansats med utvecklade länder".

To use the post ACTA momentum

Mattias Bjärnemalm — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:12:40 +0000

Language Swedish

With the fall of ACTA this spring those of us who want an open online environment have an opportunity to move forward our positions towards those that want to overly regulate the flow of communication online. One way of doing that is by constantly reminding people of what exactly was wrong with ACTA and why no similar legislation should be allowed to infest other trade agreements currently being negotiated by the commission.We should not let ACTA be seen as a single case of success, but rather as the turning point on how Europe conduct trade agreements with other parties.

Three Polish MEPs (ZALEWSKI, HANDZLIK & WAŁĘSA) moved in that direction after the ACTA vote by putting the following question to the commission:

Last week, Parliament rejected the ACTA agreement by a huge majority, thus sending out a very clear ‘no go’ signal regarding any such regulatory legislation.

In the short time that has passed since, we have already been alarmed by the prospect that several significant and heavily criticised parts of the ACTA agreement (i.e. general obligations on enforcement, damages, criminal sanctions, intermediary liability rules and border measures) are expected to ‘live on’ by being incorporated into CETA (the Canada/EU trade agreement) and, possibly, into other international agreements which the Commission plans to conclude in the near future.

Since we are absolutely convinced that the Commission fully respects the position of Parliament and would not indulge in any type of legislative exercise that would undermine the voice of the citizens, as transmitted to and expressed by Parliament, can the Commission comment on this issue and allay the worrying doubts indicated above?

Now the answer has come back and from the wording it is clear that our victory regarding ACTA has made it more difficult for those who want to infest international trade agreements with overly harsh chapters on IPR. That will, of course, not stop them from trying.

The commissions reply to the question above is as follows:

1. As with all of the EU's bilateral trade agreements, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) will contain a chapter on intellectual property (IPR). This is important because the EU and Canada are knowledge-based economies requiring an effective regime to protect their intellectual assets. For this reason, the EU is proposing rules to address several important issues that have been identified in Canada's IPR regime, namely in the area of copyright, patents, geographical indications and enforcement. However, the IPR chapter of CETA will not require the EU to modify its existing legislation, and great care is being taken to ensure that it is compatible with the EU acquis.

2. The CETA negotiations have not been concluded. Recent media reports relied upon a version of the negotiating text which is 6 months old to claim that the Commission is introducing ACTA through the back-door . That text stems from a time when ACTA had just been signed by the EU and 22 Member States and before the European Parliament denied its consent. As both the EU and Canada were in the process of ratifying ACTA at that time, it is not surprising that some provisions of that version used formulations also found in ACTA. Negotiations have now moved on and the February text no longer accurately represents the state of play.

3. The Commission fully respects the vote of the European Parliament. It develops its negotiating positions to ensure that they are coherent with EU policy. The IPR chapter of CETA is currently being reviewed in light of the position expressed by the European Parliament on ACTA and the Commission will continue to fully and rapidly inform the EP's INTA committee about progress in the negotiations.

Amelia Andersdotter - CETA

Brev och svar om immaterialrätter i det ekonomiska avtalet med Kanada

To use the post ACTA momentum