I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 9 years (although it seems there was no report in 2017 because of the Macedonian political crisis). Here is the latest. For the full text visit the ec.europa.eu site [link to file in PDF].

5.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The EU has harmonised rules for the legal protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), as well as rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights. Rules for the legal protection of IPRs cover, for instance, patents and trademarks, designs, biotechnological inventions and pharmaceuticals. Rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights cover, for instance, books, films, computer programmes and broadcasting.

The country is moderately prepared in this area. Some progress, although limited, was made in improving the legal framework on copyright and on protected designation of quality.

In the coming year, the country should in particular continue to:

• step up efforts to investigate and prosecute infringements of intellectual property;
• strengthen the collective management system;
• improve coordination among the law enforcement institutions, establishing an information platform for exchange of data and raise public awareness on the importance of protecting
  intellectual property rights according to EU best practices.

As regards copyright and related rights, following the licence revocation in 2016, the collective management of related rights exists only for music rights. The fees for the rights that are owed by the phonogram producers are no longer collected. The unit responsible in the Ministry of Culture remains understaffed. Both national and international cooperation remains very limited.

In the area of industrial rights, the State Office for Industrial Property continued the strategic cooperation with the European Patent Office, the World Intellectual Property Office and the European Union Intellectual Property Office. The 2016-2018 strategy on industrial property was adopted following delays but without an update of the relevant action plan, which risks undermining its credibility. Information campaigns were launched on the threats that counterfeit goods can cause to public health. However, their organisation lacked ownership and relied heavily on donor-funding. The State Office for Industrial Property declined to set up the information platform for the exchange of IPR-related data among law enforcement institutions. There are still challenges as regards providing good quality services to the public.

Infringements of intellectual property rights are frequent, but the absence of reliable statistics on their handling by the law enforcement institutions prevents a credible enforcement record from being established. Measures taken by the Coordination Body for Intellectual Property are rare and mostly target infringement of trademarks. This body lacks political support and its funding remains insufficient to fulfil its mandate, raise public awareness or educate the right-holders about the importance of intellectual property rights.

In the Recommendations of the Senior Experts' Group on systemic Rule of Law issues relating to the communications interception (commonly known as the Priebe report), the first issue discussed is the surveillance of communications.

The report found that:

"Acting on the basis of Articles 175 and 176 of the Law on Electronic Communication, each of the three national telecommunications providers equips the UBK with the necessary technical apparatus, enabling it to mirror directly their entire operational centres. As a consequence, from a practical point of view, the UBK can intercept communications directly, autonomously and unimpeded, regardless of whether a court order has or has not been issued in accordance with the Law on Interception of Communications.". (Emphasis mine.)

Then it recommended that:

"The UBK should have no direct access to the technical equipment allowing mirroring of the communication signal. The proprietary switches should be moved to the premises of the telecommunication providers. The providers should activate and divert signals to the competent law enforcement agencies (Police, Customs Administration and Financial Police) or the security agencies (the Security and Counterintelligence Service (UBK), the Intelligence Agency, and the Ministry of Defence's military security and intelligence service) only upon receipt of the relevant court order, and only for the purposes of lawful interceptions. Under no circumstances should the UBK have the practical capability to capture communications directly." (Emphasis mine.)

Nevertheless, amendments to the Law on electronic communications are not included* in proposed Government program by Zoran Zaev published on 10.03.2017. (*The document is unsearchable, so this claim is based on reading the parts that refer to human rights.)

This outcome in the proposed Government program is in contradiction to the statements made by Mr. Zaev that the "Priebe" reforms will be a priority for the new administration. For example:

• 02.02.2017: Meeting between Zaev and [OSCE's ambassador]: Priebe reforms are our priority (link in Macedonian);
• 27.12.2016: Meeting between Zaev and [Sweden's ambassador] Staffansson: The new government must work on Priebe reforms (link in Macedonian);
• 26.12.2016: Meeting between Zaev and [Spain's ambassador] Carranza: Reforms in line with Priebe and European Commission reports in order to open the democratic process (link in Macedonian);
• 09.12.2016: Zaev promises radical implementation of Priebe's recommendations(link in Macedonian).

The proposed program promises to open a debate for a broader support to amend the Law on interception of communications. Although amending this law is needed and in line with "Priebe", amending it, according to established practice, requires 2/3 majority vote in Parliament. Given the current distribution of parties and MPs a 2/3 vote seems impossible, so it looks reasonable for the Zaev administration to seek broader support, without a straighforward promise that the Law on interception of communications will be amended.

However, to amend the Law on electronic communications such majority is not needed. For example the amendments from June 2010 were passed with 65 MPs voding of which 55 voted yes, 1 abstained, and 9 voted against. The Macedonian parliament has 120 MPs. So, unless I'm terribly misreading the poorly published document, the amendments to end UBK's capability to capture communications directly are not part of the proposed government program.

More on the topic (though not all of it is in English):
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/859
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/854
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/848
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/846
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/844
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/841
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/839
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/836
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/830

I am following the story about the warrant-less wiretapping in Macedonia carried out by the secret police since it was revealed by the opposition leader in February 2015. In the early days of this political, social, and moral crisis, I noted that the opposition party SDSM, specifically its president Zoran Zaev, frist implicated the telecommunications operators in Macedonia as collaborators in the warrant-less wiretapping, only to backtrack on that statement few weeks later.

In his early statements (12.02.2015) Zoran Zaev claimed that the wiretapping could not have happened without the knowledge of the operators, but just two weeks later (27.02.2015) Zaev said that the operators have no responsibility whatsoever at a press-conference for bombshell #5. -- from The silence of the telecom operators, June 4 2015.

The telecommunications operators also maintained that they worked and still work within the law.

All of these claims were proved wrong today, November 18 2016, when at the Special prosecutor press conference (link in Macedonian) it was revealed that:

„Тhe unlawful wiretapping of several thousands people that lived in the Republic of Macedonia in the period from 2008 to 2015 violated the privacy of their personal and family life, and the secrecy of communications"

The equipment that is installed in the operators' networks and is used for surveillance of communication in a way in which the secret police has 'direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted' access is allowed by law only in a part of the period from 2008 to 2015. This period includes 1. the months from June 2010 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, until December 2010 when the Constitutional Court canceled the articles regarding the equipment and access, and 2. the period since February 2014 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, that has the same canceled provisions (on which, this time, the Constitutional Court is silent for more than a year).

In fact, in the eight-year period from 2008 to 2015, direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was allowed by law in only 2.5 years. This means that the operators allowed conventional access (i.e. in a way that the secret police does not access their network autonomously at their will) knowing that there is no court order for such an access to peoples' communications, or that the equipment for direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was working during the entire period, even when there was no law allowing that. In the latter case it would mean that such access was made available to the secret police 2 years before the law allowing it was even discussed in Parliament.

Today's SPO press conference casts a serious doubt on the claims that operators worked according to prescribed laws. The law requires that telecommunications operators must cooperate with the SPO. Morality requires that their executives at least tender their resignations.

More on the topic (though not all of it is in English):
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/854
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/848
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/846
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/844
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/841
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/839
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/836
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/830

I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 6 years. Here is the latest. For the full text visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The EU has harmonised rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights. This covers, for instance, computer programs, broadcasting and trademarks, designs, biotechnological inventions and pharmaceuticals.

The country is moderately prepared in this area. Some progress was made on customs enforcement. The commitment and capacities of the institutions responsible for enforcing and protecting intellectual property rights and the acquis vary, but remain insufficient. A satisfactory track record on investigation, prosecution and judicial handling of piracy and counterfeiting is lacking. Public awareness campaigns are not yet well developed. In the coming year, the country should in particular:
→ step up efforts to investigate and prosecute infringements of intellectual property.

On copyright and neighbouring rights, the Ministry of Culture adopted a rulebook on record-keeping of authors’ rights and holders of related rights. The Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information Society and Administration jointly established a system for electronic recording of broadcast music works. The government has not yet approved the tariff schemes of collective rights management societies and the capacity of the Ministry of Culture to deal with copyright and neighbouring rights is still insufficient.

On industrial property rights, the State Office for Industrial Property cooperated with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and with the European Patent Office on several projects, but the trademark databases of the first two should be better integrated. The State Office does not have enough staff to provide good quality services or training to the public and the business community, nor to cooperate internationally.

Some progress was made on enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Coordination Body for Intellectual Property has had a positive impact but the level of commitment differs between law enforcement institutions and sharing responsibility between 11 different law enforcement bodies hinders more efficient investigation and legal actions. The State Market Inspectorate lacks basic equipment, IT and training to ensure effective enforcement. The Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services issued 10 orders to broadcasters to prevent further violations of copyright and neighbouring rights. Some 30 misdemeanour cases were lodged with the courts, but the absence of a credible enforcement record hinders information on the follow-up action taken. The three public laboratories are still not legally authorised to detect and analyse counterfeit medicines, so their evidence is not accepted in court. Public awareness of the threats posed by counterfeit goods to health and safety remains limited.

Since February 2015 the opposition led by Zoran Zaev publishes the so called bombshells which reveal "the truth about Macedonia". They claim that the recordings contain alleged scandals, corruption, and abuses made by the leading people in the Government and the ruling political parties. They also claim that these recordings are not just some or few recordings that are made by accident, but that they are a small part of the millions of files of surveillance of communications of over 20000 citizens in Macedonia. While the main narrative stays the same, a part of the story changed over time: the part about the role of the telecom operators in this affair. In his early statements (12.02.2015) Zoran Zaev claimed that the wiretapping could not have happened without the knowledge of the operators, but just two weeks later (27.02.2015) Zaev said that the operators have no responsibility whatsoever at a press-conference for bombshell #5.

Since these statements raised suspicion about what exactly happened regarding the alleged mass surveillance of 20000 people, in February I started researching the laws. The analysis of that time led me to the following revelations:

1. Article 115 paragraph 2 of the Law for electronic communications allowed for usage of mass surveillance technology in June 2010;
2. This legal arrangement was made null and void (luckily) just 6 months later when the Constitutional court made its decision in December 2010;
3. The same legal provisions were reintroduced to the law in February 2014 when the new Law for electronic communications entered into force.

According to many sources (the opposition, journalists, political analysts) large part of the recordings were made between 2011-2014. Therefore the logical question, when the claim that 20000 people were under surveillance is undisputed,what happened with the (shortly legal) technology from 2010 in the period from 2010 to 2014?

Logically, at least for me, was to ask this question to the operators (T-Mobile, Makedonski Telekom, VIP and One) and to the regulator (AEK) in the following form:

1. Which actions did the operator take to comply with the decision of the Constitutional court of Republic of Macedonia U. No. 139/2010-0-1 from 15.12.2010?

2. Which actions did the Agency for electronic communications take in order to determine whether the telecom operators complied with the decision of the Constitutional court of Republic of Macedonia U. No. 139/2010-0-1 from 15.12.2010?

Furthermore, since the number of cases for which the courts have allowed special investigative measures, which include surveillance of communications, is a publicly available information, it was logical to ask the operators how many requests have they received individually, especially regarding the retained data of their users. This is a completely statistical information: if we know that in 2013 there were 226 approved requests for surveillance of communication, then the information how many requests were received by each operator will tell us only what was the involvement of each operator.

All of these FOI requests were denied, mostly by claiming that any answer will be a breach of "classified information". Only AEK did not respond at all. For all of the FOI requests I submitted a complaint to the Commission for protection of the right to free access of information of public interest, and now I wait for their response. I hope the Commission will find that to answer the question about complying to a court order and anonymous statistics cannot be hidden from the public.

Until we have their answer, visit this galery for the answers from the operators (in Macedonian).

Published on OKNO 5.6.2015: http://okno.mk/node/47618