The UK Government, specifically the Home Office, issued the following recommendations for the plenary vote on amendments to IPRED2 in a briefing sent to UK MEPs on 20th April 2007.
(FFII hosted copy of original Word doc file here)
ANNEX A - UPDATED BRIEFING FOR UK MEMBERS OF THE EP (MEPs)
(comments on amendments to Rapporteur Nicola Zingaretti Report with amendments to be voted on in Plenary 25 April 2007)
Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
[COM (2006) 168/Council Doc No: 2005/0127 (COD)/ JURI/6/29654]
UK GOVERNMENT VIEWS ON SELECTED AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO NICOLA ZINGARETTI REPORT
General
In accordance with the United Kingdom’s view that EC competence does not extend to the proposals and that the case for the need for the Directive has not been sufficiently made out, we would support amendments 43 and 44 by Umberto Guidoni and others on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.
Articles 1, 2 and 3
As regards the scope of the intellectual property rights covered by the draft instrument the UK would also support amendments 45 and 46 by Eva Lichtenberger and David Hammerstein Mintz on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group and amendment 63 by Umberto Guidoni and others on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group to the extent that they restrict the scope of the instrument to copyright and trademark infringements.
The UK would also support amendment 30 by Sharon Bowles on behalf of the ALDE Group to the extent that this amendment would remove the definitions of “commercial scale and “intentional infringements” for the reason set out in the Justification for the amendment.
Articles 4 and 5 and 6
In addition the United Kingdom would support the amendments 54, 55 and 57 by Eva Lichtenberger and David Hammerstein Mintz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, amendment 60 by Umberto Guidoni and others and amendment 65 by Jens Holm both on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group because these amendments seek to remove the detail on sanctions, which the UK believes is both outside the scope of Community competence and a potential breach of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Article 7
The United Kingdom also supports amendment 62 by Umberto Guidoni and others on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group which deletes Article 7 because mandatory extension of the make up of Joint Investigation Teams to representatives of right holders would increase the potential for adverse consequences arising from possible conflicts of interest between criminal justice needs and the interests of the rights holders.
The United Kingdom would not support any of the amendments to the report not referred to above.