2006 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth sitting

Monday 2 October 2006 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.

1. Resumption of the 2006 Ordinary Session

THE PRESIDENT. – The 2006 Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, adjourned on Friday 23 June, at the end of the Twenty-third Sitting, is now resumed.

I warmly welcome in the Hemicycle the Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament, Mr Lupu.

2. Opening statement by the President

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I begin by welcoming you all to Strasbourg for the autumn part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly.

This week will conclude yet another period in which our Assembly has made real contributions on the most important issues. We are continuing to show how, with the right focus and determination, we are and can remain a significant and relevant political actor.

Our most high-profile success came with President Bush’s admission that the CIA had indeed been holding suspected terrorists in secret. This was a complete vindication of Mr Marty’s work and came despite the earlier contempt that had been shown towards our report, not only by the United States Government but by the governments of certain Council of Europe member states.

We also continue to be justified in giving priority to intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. In my recent speeches in Nizhny Novgorod and Astana, I urged both politicians and religious figures to provide joint leadership in addressing current international problems relating to migration, poverty, social exclusion, extremism and terrorism. I also proposed the creation of a special status within the Council of Europe for religions and confessional organisations, in order to encourage and facilitate intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.

The urgency and sensitivity of this dialogue were underlined by the recent controversy surrounding the Pope’s speech, in which he addressed the relationship between religion, science and reason. It is deplorable that a single quotation used by the Pope, taken out of context, could lead to violent protests around the world, which included the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. The personal dialogue that the Pope subsequently initiated with Muslim leaders, however, represented a positive and constructive development that I very much welcome.

In its June resolution, the Assembly declared that, in a democratic society, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression must permit open debate on matters relating to religion and beliefs. Our Assembly is proof that this is possible even in a multi-religious and multicultural context.

We bring together individuals from all the monotheistic world religions, including Muslims from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey and Azerbaijan – all of them democratic parliamentarians, whose stock-in-trade is open, reasoned debate. In the course of our work on intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey has spoken to the Assembly about the excellent Alliance of Civilisations initiative.

As a country, Turkey is proof that there is no incompatibility between a Muslim population and a secular, democratic political system that respects human rights and the rule of law. It is essential that the European Union keeps its promises to Turkey and does not introduce new conditions on accession. At the same time, I strongly encourage the Turkish authorities to continue with the process of reform, so as to ensure complete conformity to Council of Europe standards.

The progress that Turkey has made in recent years, and the fact that the EU has now finally opened accession negotiations, is largely due to Turkey’s partnership with the Council of Europe and its constructive attitude to Assembly monitoring.

(The speaker continued in English)

The cases of Romania and Bulgaria also show how Council of Europe standards are central to European integration. Last week, I welcomed the European Commission’s recommendation that Romania and Bulgaria accede to the Union next year. My only regret is that we had not been stricter in our monitoring of Romania and Bulgaria. This would undoubtedly have helped them better to resolve problems such as judicial reform and the fight against corruption, avoiding the need for the EU to impose conditions on accession.

Our monitoring procedure is not a source of shame or punishment but a process of encouragement, assistance and support. For our standards to be accepted by everyone, however, we must show that they apply equally to all, with no double standards or dividing lines. This is why it is so important that the Assembly periodically turn its attention to the situation throughout Europe, by preparing an annual report on the state of human rights and democracy. The annual report will be an invaluable contribution to the Assembly’s work, providing crucial pointers for future activities and giving added value and a higher profile to both the Assembly and the Council of Europe system as a whole.

I look forward to the first debate next April, bringing together leading Council of Europe figures such as the Secretary General, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the Venice Commission, as well as personalities from other organisations. Indeed, it is important that the Council of Europe as a whole retains and reinforces its leading role on issues within its core business. I therefore strongly urge the Committee of Ministers, as a matter of priority and before all momentum is lost, to produce concrete results on the Memorandum of Understanding and on giving renewed impetus to the concrete proposals of the Juncker report. For the Assembly’s part, I hope to conclude the formal co-operation agreement with the European Parliament at the joint meeting of our Presidential Committee and the Parliament’s Conference of Presidents, to take place on 9 November.

Ladies and gentlemen, every week events remind me of the importance of our Organisation and its values. I would like to mention two that occurred recently.

The deteriorating climate between Russia and Georgia is a matter of serious concern and must be solved by legal and diplomatic means. I believe that the Assembly can contribute to improving the situation through parliamentary diplomacy, and therefore intend to invite the heads of both delegations to meet in Strasbourg this week.

The other matter is the death penalty. I join in condemning the execution of three people in Indonesia. What is perhaps equally alarming is that, even within the Council of Europe, there are still public figures who play politics with the death penalty, a game in which the stakes are the lives of human beings.

Ladies and gentlemen, as the only pan-European democratic organisation, we have, since May, seen Russia in the chair of the Committee of Ministers, the first time in history that it has played such a role. The Russian chairmanship has been a success, showing the importance of engaging with Russia through a genuine strategic partnership, based on equality and our common European values. I would like to thank Foreign Minister Lavrov, Ambassador Orlov and, above all, the Russian delegation led by Mr Kosachev for their efforts and commitment, and I am especially pleased that the Assembly could also make such an important contribution.

One of the highlights of the Russian presidency will be next month’s meeting of the Forum for the Future of Democracy, co-organised by the State Duma and the Assembly. I would like to draw your attention to that important conference. I hope that future meetings of the forum will follow this example. It is transparently obvious that the parliamentary organ of the Council of Europe must take the lead in a body devoted to democracy. I take this opportunity to ask you all to use your contacts and influence to encourage the leaders of your national parties and European political groupings to attend this important event.

Whatever the context, however, the Assembly will obtain a greater role and recognition only if we play to our strengths, focus on our core agenda and raise our political profile. By doing so, we can progressively reinforce the democratic credentials of the Council of Europe, thus enhancing its credibility and improving its effectiveness in promoting our common values.

I therefore wish you all an enjoyable and productive week. Thank you.

3. Voting cards and the register of attendance

THE PRESIDENT. – I remind all members, including any non-voting Substitutes and Observers, to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting.

I also remind all Representatives and duly designated Substitutes to ensure that they have placed their voting cards in the slot so as to ensure that the electronic system will work properly.

Finally, I remind you to switch off mobile phones during sittings of the Assembly and during committee meetings.

4. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT. – The first order of the day is the examination of credentials of new members submitted in accordance with Rule 6. The names are in Document 11027. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials contested?

The credentials are ratified. I welcome our new colleagues.

5. Election of Vice-Presidents

THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly. The chairpersons of the national delegations of Italy, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine have proposed candidates.

Italy has proposed Mr Andrea Rigoni. If there is no request for a vote, Mr Rigoni will be declared elected.

Since there has been no request for a vote, I declare Mr Rigoni elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly. I congratulate him.

“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” has proposed Mr Oliver Sambevski. If there is no request for a vote, Mr Sambevski will be declared elected.       Since there has been no request for a vote, I declare Mr Sambevski elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly. I congratulate him and wish him success as Vice-President.

Ukraine has proposed our old friend, Mr Serhiy Holovaty. It is good that he is back in our midst in the Assembly. If there is no request for a vote, Mr Holovaty will be declared elected.

Since there has been no request for a vote, I declare Mr Holovaty elected as a Vice-President of the Assembly.

I congratulate Mr Rigoni, Mr Sambevski and Mr Holovaty on their election. They will take precedence following the Vice-Presidents already elected, according to age.

6. Changes in the membership of committees (Doc. Commissions (2006) 6 and Addendum)

THE PRESIDENT. – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2006) 6 and Addendum.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

7. Requests for urgent procedure and current affairs debates

THE PRESIDENT. – Before we examine the draft order of business, the Assembly needs to consider the requests for debates under urgent procedure and for current affairs debates which have been made in due form as provided for in Rules 50 and 52 of the Rules of Procedure.

First, we will consider the three requests for debates under urgent procedure, together with the proposed timings.

The first request for urgent procedure was submitted by the Political Affairs Committee and concerns “Recent developments in Lebanon in the context of the situation in the Middle East”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau approved this request and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the order of business for this part-session. If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposal, the Bureau proposes to hold the debate and vote as the first item on the morning of Thursday 5 October.

Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau that this debate should be placed on the order of business for this part-session?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted.

The request for urgent procedure is therefore approved.

The Assembly must now decide to which committee the subject should be referred. The Bureau proposes that this subject be referred to the Political Affairs Committee for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

The second request for urgent procedure was submitted by at least 20 members of the Assembly and concerns “The need for a European response to the mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau approved this request and therefore recommends to the Assembly that the matter be placed on the order of business for this part-session. If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposal, the Bureau proposes to hold the debate and vote as the second item on the morning of Thursday 5 October.

Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau that a debate on “The need for a European response to the mass arrival of irregular migrants on Europe’s southern shores” should be placed on the order of business for this part-session?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted.

The request for urgent procedure is therefore approved.

The Assembly must now decide to which committee the subject should be referred. The Bureau proposes that this subject be referred to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population for report.

Is this agreed?

The references are agreed to.

The third request for urgent procedure was submitted by the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and concerns the “Council of Europe budget for 2007: an alarming standstill”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau rejected this request. Instead, the Bureau proposes that the subject be discussed as a current affairs debate.

Is there an objection to the Bureau’s proposal not to hold an urgent procedure debate on this subject?

There is no objection.

The request for urgent procedure is therefore rejected.

Two proposals for current affairs debates were submitted to the Bureau. The first was for a debate on the “Council of Europe budget for 2007: an alarming standstill” and the second for a debate on “Tensions between Russia and Georgia”.

I remind members that the Bureau may put to the Assembly only one proposal for a current affairs debate in each part-session and that the Assembly may only vote on the proposal from the Bureau. At its meeting this morning the Bureau agreed to propose that a current affairs debate on the “Council of Europe budget for 2007: an alarming standstill” should be held. It has designated Mr Paul Wille to be the opening speaker.

If the Assembly agrees with the Bureau’s proposal, the Bureau proposes to hold the debate on the budget as the final item of business on Wednesday afternoon.

Is the Bureau’s proposal for this current affairs debate agreed to?

The proposal is agreed to.

8. Adoption of the order of business

THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the adoption of the order of business for the fourth part of the 2006 Ordinary Session.

The draft order of business which is submitted for the Assembly’s approval was brought up to date by the Bureau at its meetings on 6 September and this morning, and an updated draft order of business was issued earlier today.

Arrangements for speakers’ lists and tabling of amendments are set out in today’s notice paper.

Is the draft order of business agreed to?

I call Mr Wilshire.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – I propose that on Tuesday afternoon the report on Kosovo be deleted from the agenda or, alternatively, that the report be referred back to the committee. This is a serious report, and the circumstances under which it comes before the Assembly on its agenda are utterly and completely undemocratic. If I may, I wish to explain to you, Mr President, why I believe this to be so.

On 11 September, in Turkey, the Political Affairs Committee met. When I opened my documents that morning, I discovered this report with no notice at all. Under our Rules of Procedure, only five members are required to object and then the business cannot be taken. More than five members objected because we had not seen the report and the item was withdrawn.

The following day, the committee was asked to agree to a special meeting in Paris six days later. That was agreed and notices were sent the next day to those people who were not in Turkey informing them that there was to be a meeting in Paris five days later. That was the first time they saw the report – with less than seven days’ notice. At the meeting in Paris, just 11 people attended, and on the final vote, only six voted in favour of this serious report.

Mr President, we are champions of democracy. If we behave in this utterly undemocratic way, we should be ashamed of ourselves. It is not what is in the report but the lack of democracy from the champions of democracy that leads me to say that this should be withdrawn. We should be ashamed if we behave in this way.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Wilshire proposes that this item should be withdrawn and that the debate on Kosovo should be postponed until the next plenary session.

I remind you that, on a motion to alter the order of business, the only members who can be heard are the mover of the motion, one speaker against and a spokesman of the committee concerned.

I also remind you that under Article 25.8 of the Rules of Procedure, motions to alter a draft order of business require a simple majority. Once the order of business has been adopted, motions to alter it require a two thirds majority.

Mr Wilshire has already told us that he is in favour of withdrawing this item.

Does anyone wish to speak against the proposed alteration?

I call Mr Ates.

Mr ATES (Turkey). – First, I advise colleagues that, before they give an opinion on a subject such as this, they should read the Rules of Procedure. The report on Kosovo has been adopted, Mr President, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Some of our colleagues try to prevent any kind of discussion on this topic, and the Council of Europe and our committee cannot tolerate that. We must discuss everything openly and freely. If we can use tricks with our rules and procedures, it is not democracy – it is not free speech or fair discussion.

Mr President, as the chairman of the committee that met in Paris, I formally consulted the members of the committee on 12 September, even though the rules did not oblige me to do so. I also called for a vote, even though the rules did not require me to do so. At the meeting, the committee’s members unanimously supported the idea of convening a meeting on 18 September in order to allow a discussion of the report a week after the decision on the text. That was covered by Rule 46.5. The deadline for the subsequent distribution was fixed under Rule 33.2.

Mr President, the Rules of Procedure for an examination in these circumstances have been complied with. Therefore, I think that this Assembly has the right to discuss any issue and produce any kind of amendment that it wants. Taking that right from the Assembly is not right or democratic. We should keep this report on the agenda. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – The opinion of the committee affected by the change has been given by Mr Ates.
We will now proceed to vote on the motion for an alteration of the order of business.

The vote is open.

The proposed alteration in the order of business is agreed to.

That means that the debate on Kosovo will not be on our agenda, so I propose that on Tuesday afternoon we have the current affairs debate instead of the Kosovo debate.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed to.

I inform the Assembly that Mr Gyurcsány, the Prime Minister of Hungary, is not able to attend the Assembly on Wednesday morning. I therefore propose that the draft order of business circulated earlier today be amended so that the debate on the ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Member States of the Council of Europe concludes on Wednesday morning, instead of the votes taking place on Wednesday afternoon. Is that agreed?

It is agreed to.

I call Mr Legendre on a point of order.

Mr LEGENDRE (France) requested a debate on Wednesday afternoon on the cultural situation of the Kurds.

THE PRESIDENT. – A revised order of business for tomorrow will be available this afternoon.

A debate on a report on “The promotion of local self-government along Council of Europe borders”, from the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, will be held on Friday morning as the last item.

9. Time limit on speeches

THE PRESIDENT. – Because of the number of debates which will take place this week, I propose that speaking time in all debates except on Friday be limited to four minutes.

Is that agreed to?

It is agreed.

10. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT. – This afternoon our business is very full. We have the debate on the progress report, followed by an address from Mr Sanader with questions, then the debate on “The institutional balance at the Council of Europe”, followed by that on “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.

There are 12 speakers on the debate on the progress report. There are 13 speakers and nine amendments on the debate on “The institutional balance at the Council of Europe” and there are 13 speakers and one amendment on the debate on the “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.

We will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate on the progress report at about 4 p.m. in order to hear the address from Mr Sanader. Questions to Mr Sanader will have to conclude at around 5 p.m., to allow sufficient time for the ensuing debates. The list of speakers for the debate on “The institutional balance at the Council of Europe” will need to be interrupted at about 5.50 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes so that the debate on the “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” can start at about 6.20 p.m. The list of speakers for that debate will then need to be interrupted at about 7.20 p.m. in order to leave sufficient time for the replies on behalf of the committees and the votes.

Are these arrangements agreed to?

They are agreed.

11. Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT. – The next order of the day is the presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of the progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly, Document 11036. After Mr Çavuşoğlu has spoken we will then consider the observations on the parliamentary and presidential elections in Mexico contained in Document 11016 and addendum, on the parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” set out in Document 11015 and on the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Montenegro set out in Document 11037.

The list of speakers closed at 1 p.m. Twelve names are on the list. I remind you that we have already agreed that we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 4 p.m. to allow time for reply.

I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to present the progress report. You have eight minutes.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Dear President, dear colleagues, as you can see from this report, the members of our Bureau have been very busy since the last part-session. I will not comment on every item in the progress report, but will focus on those that I consider the most important.

The first item is the making public of the lists of members participating in Assembly votes. At the meeting of the Presidential Committee in Maastricht in July, one of the subjects discussed was how to enhance participation by Assembly members in plenary debates and how to make as many members as possible not only sign the register but also attend the debate and vote. At present, on average, only one third of those who sign the register actually vote.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities is preparing reports on both the participation and the voting issues. The names of those who signed the register are already published, but not those who attended the debate and voted. So, at its meeting on 6 September, the Bureau agreed to make public, via the Assembly website, the names of members of the Assembly who participate in votes – although not at this stage how they voted – as from this part-session. Mr President mentioned that to you this morning, and the list will be sent to the national parliaments as well. The Secretary General of the Assembly has also already informed you accordingly. This is very good step towards greater transparency concerning decisions taken by the Assembly.

The second item involves the relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union. At its meeting on 30 June, the Bureau took note of a new draft memorandum of understanding on relations between Council of Europe and the European Union transmitted by the Russian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The President proposed amendments to this draft memorandum in July. They were received by the Ministers’ Deputies as a positive contribution to the future discussions. Since then, the European Union member states have presented their own suggested draft version of a memorandum of understanding.

At the last meeting of the CM-Suivi3 on 28 September, where the President participated together with Mr Van den Brande, an open-ended drafting group was set up to work towards a consensus text. I am pleased to note that the amendments tabled by the President appear in a comparative table alongside the other texts submitted. That table will be the basis for the future work.

Furthermore, at its meeting on 30 June, the Bureau also endorsed a draft agreement of the memorandum on the strengthening of co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. The President transmitted this draft agreement to the President of the European Parliament for comment and joint approval, but we have not yet received any reaction from him. I hope that we will receive an answer in the near future.

The third item is the report on the state of human rights an democracy in Europe. On the instruction of the President, the Secretariat prepared a memorandum setting out a road map for drawing up a report on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. It contained the suggestion that the report should adopt an approach that should be both thematic and “country-by-country”. At its meeting on 6 September, the Bureau approved the proposals contained in the note prepared by the Secretariat and decided to hold a debate on this issue at the April part-session in 2007, following an assessment in January 2007 of the state of progress on the preparation of the report.

The Bureau also decided that, besides the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and the Monitoring Committee through its activity report, other committees should contribute to the debate, particularly the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.

I would like to congratulate the President on this very good initiative, which is altogether in line with the Council of Europe’s mission of defending human rights. Thank you very much for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr de Puig to present the observation of the parliamentary and presidential elections in Mexico on 2 July 2006, Document 11016 and addendum. You have three minutes.

Mr DE PUIG (Spain) said that the delegation to Mexico had deemed the election to be fair and democratic. The losing candidate had refused to accept the result, which had triggered a crisis. He hoped that the crisis would soon be resolved. The Council of Europe should affirm the validity of the election and any protests outside the terms of the constitution should not be supported.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to present the observation of the parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” on 5 July 2006, Document 11015. He has three minutes.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” took place on 5 July 2006. I shall use the word “Macedonia” in the rest of my speech for purposes of ease; no deeper political meaning should be sought in that.

The ad hoc committee of the Assembly observed the elections in the framework of the International Election Observation Mission, which also consisted of the long-term election observation mission deployed by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Unfortunately, the European Parliament and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly did not observe the elections, as they coincided with the plenary sessions.

In the opinion of the ad hoc committee, shared by the IEOM, the elections were largely in line with Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections. Regrettably, there were cases of violence and intimidation during the first half of the campaign and isolated instances of serious irregularities were noted on election day. Although those incidents tainted the elections, in the view of the ad hoc committee such isolated acts carried out by a few should not be allowed to overshadow the democratic conduct of elections in which the voters could decide democratically on the political direction of their country.

The elections were called for early in the legal period for regular elections through an agreement between the governing and opposition parties. They were important in the context of the stated aspirations of Macedonia for further integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures, and especially accession to the European Union.

Macedonia is politically still very much polarised along ethnic lines, and competition is mainly between ethnically based parties for the vote within their own ethnic communities. Unfortunately, no genuinely inter-ethnic party exists that has wide appeal among Macedonian, Albanian and other ethnic groups. That could pose an obstacle to further integration of the country.

The elections were governed by a new election code, which was adopted in March. Some shortcomings remain in the new election law. The ad hoc committee hopes that the newly elected parliament will remedy those few problems before the next elections.

On election day the vote took place in a calm and well-organised manner. The problems that were encountered seemed to relate mostly to inconsistent or incorrect implementation of the procedures for voting and vote-counting, caused by the lack of experience of the polling board members.

The parliamentary elections in Macedonia were in line with Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections. They should be seen as a step towards Macedonia’s further integration into the European family. They were not without problems, but we should not allow the behaviour of a few, which we condemn, to overshadow our assessment of the democratic process itself.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gardetto to present the observation of the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Montenegro, on 10 September 2006, Document 11037.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) said that the parliamentary elections followed the 2006 referendum on independence and the new constitution. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Venice Commission had played an important part in the electoral process and the elections had been consistent with OSCE guidelines.

Problems had resulted from the way the parliamentary seats were allocated. Half the seats were allocated in the order of names on the electoral list and the other half were allocated according to the will of the political parties. The situation had not improved in the past ten years and the authorities in the Republic of Montenegro were advised to take action to prevent a recurrence.

Another problem had resulted from changes to electoral law, which had taken place after the election had been called; international election practice discouraged that. The changes related to the content of political speeches and to the period in which opinion polls could be published. Those changes provoked concerns about the preservation of freedom of speech.

Those problems should not detract from the overall conclusion that the elections were very positive and democratic standards had been respected. The Republic of Montenegro was advised to undertake further work on electoral law with the Venice Commission.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Frunda, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – Yesterday evening, the Bureau of the EPP Group noted with anxiety the tensions between the Russian Federation and Georgia. We therefore proposed to the Bureau of the Assembly an urgent or current debate on the increased tensions between two Council of Europe member states. Unfortunately, the Bureau of the Assembly did not agree. We are to have two urgent debates, on recent developments in Lebanon and on the response to the mass arrival of irregular immigrants in states.

Of course, what happens in Lebanon has consequences for member states, even if they are not direct consequences, but Lebanon is not a member of the Council of Europe. Immigrants are a problem for Mediterranean and other countries, but a debate on that is not urgent. We have had such debates in past years, and will have them in years to come. The Russian Federation and Georgia, however, are member states. Both are being monitored, and tensions are increasing. It is rare for diplomats from one country to be arrested by another country. They are usually extradited, and, in parallel, the other country extradites the same number of diplomats.

I think that in the past few years the Assembly of the Council of Europe has lost its political weight. During the past two years we have tried to rebuild it – to establish an arrangement with the European Union to make our work better. But if we are to be credible to Europeans, we must avoid conflicts between member states. We must make our decisions not post factum, as we have done several times in relation to the former Yugoslavia and other member states, but ante factum. This would have been the best moment at which to discuss relations between the Russian Federation and Georgia.

I am very disappointed that this was rejected as a subject for debate in this part-session. The budget of the Council has been a problem for the past 15 or 20 years and we cannot solve it in the Assembly. It has to be discussed elsewhere and decisions made to ensure better functioning of our body. Debate in the Assembly will not solve our problem.

I welcome the initiative for discussions with the heads of the Russian and Georgian delegations, but I am convinced that that is not sufficient. We have to do much more. I know that I cannot change the draft agenda for this week, but I make a firm request to send the problem to the Monitoring Committee and, perhaps, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We have to decide this week what to do on Georgia and Russia and address urgently the conflict between them.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Nakashidzé.

Mrs NAKASHIDZÉ (Georgia). – I am grateful for the opportunity to address this distinguished audience. I say to Mr Frunda that I think that this matter is important because it concerns two member states of the Council of Europe. I wish to provide a little information and some details that may not be known. The long-running tensions between Georgia and Russia reached a peak since the Counter-Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Interiors of Georgia arrested some Russian officers. I point out to Mr Frunda that those arrested are not diplomats and do not have diplomatic immunity.

Those arrested were functioning in Georgian territory under cover of the Russian troops in the South Caucasus. The Minister of the Interior for Georgia presented tangible audio and video evidence connected with the case. We are confident that there is considerable and incontrovertible evidence confirming that the Russian servicemen were engaged in criminal anti-state activities in Georgian territory. The reaction of the Russians to that was not proportionate or adequate. Such issues are usually solved through diplomatic means. Regrettably, instead of studying the evidence and using the diplomatic channels, the Russian authorities launched an endless stream of threats and military rhetoric. The Russians recalled their ambassador and evacuated the families of diplomats and there were threats to cut off gas and electricity supplies.

Russia’s top military commander for the region stated that in response to the arrests he had halted the withdrawal of Russian troops from military bases in Georgia. The Russian Defence Minister, Mr Ivanov, branded Georgia a bandit state and demanded that NATO stop entertaining Georgia’s attempts to join the western military alliance. Some Russian legislators warned that Russia should use “any means” to get its soldiers back.

Such escalation of hysteria and the statements made by the Russian Government can be assessed as an open threat to use military force. Our conclusion is further reinforced by Russia’s plans to hold large-scale sea and land exercises in the immediate vicinity of the Georgian border in an effort to demonstrate its military force. President Putin accused Georgia of state terrorism and hostage-taking, and he warned Georgia that its close ties with the west would not be sufficient to prevent Moscow’s wrath.

I should like to underline that Georgia is strictly complying with the provisions of the agreement between Georgia and the Russian Federation on the terms and rules on temporary functioning and withdrawal of Russian military bases. According to that agreement, Russian servicemen should respect the sovereignty of Georgia and not interfere in its internal affairs. They are also subject to Georgian jurisdiction.

Realising the serious consequences of such tension for the region, being part of the civilised world and meeting the expectations of our friends, the Georgians decided to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Instead of handing the suspects over after the trial, Georgia is ready to hand them over to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe delegation arriving in Tbilisi today. This intention of goodwill, however, was met by the Russians with a new wave of inadequate rhetoric.

The Russian authorities have officially declared that they are breaking off all relations with Georgia, including communication by air and land, and co-operation in banking. The crisis is an attempt to exert pressure on Georgia. Our neighbour will spare no effort to prevent the successful and progressive development of Georgia and to create obstacles on its way to Euro-Atlantic integration. Our response will be through the legal process, the supremacy of law and a stable country that continues to live, develop and assert itself in the modern world.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Sobko.

      Mr SOBKO (Russian Federation) drew attention to the importance of the issues under discussion. He drew comparisons between political systems in Europe and in the United States of America. In the United States of America two types of democracy existed: one for American citizens and another for those outside the country. A carrot was offered to those who agreed with the policy of the United States, but there was a stick for those who did not.

      In 1998 a group of Cubans had been arrested in Florida and accused of conducting espionage against the United States of America. An American general had testified that the actions of the Cubans could not have affected American security, but they were still imprisoned. Although the appeal court had overturned the sentences, they remained imprisoned. In the former Yugoslavia similar examples could be found. Liberty in Europe was at risk, as it was in the United States of America. The Council of Europe needed to take steps to resolve that situation.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) said that “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” had experienced ethnic conflict in 2001. In June 2006 the situation had been precarious but elections had been held within international standards. Unemployment was now 37% and the fragmentation of the political spectrum was worrying. The political process had been personalised and was not satisfactory. The country was not developing fast enough and integration was a possible solution to that problem. There were three forms of integration: first, the integration of society, if it could be achieved in a multi-ethnic society; second, geographical integration – regionalism had been a problem in the Balkans but all European peoples had experienced problems with borders; and third, European integration. It was desirable that all Balkan countries should enter the European Union quickly but it was necessary for them to make progress first.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Durrieu. I now call Mr Islami.

Mr ISLAMI (Albania). – I was one of the 200 observers from 41 countries who monitored the vote and the count in Montenegro. As you will know, the general conclusion from the whole of the international observation mission is that the parliamentary elections in Montenegro on 10 September were held largely in line with Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe commitments and Council of Europe standards for democratic elections. However, the International Election Observation Mission, in a statement in Podgorica one day after the election, concluded that a number of challenges are re-appearing and remain to be addressed.

The general conclusion is that the campaign was for the most part calm, orderly and low-key, but the campaign climate deteriorated during the last few days. Opposition candidates complained of undue pressure on voters and candidates. The date of the election was the subject of complaints from the opposition. Allegations of vote-buying, of which one was substantiated, tainted the campaign environment. Diverse media covered the campaign thoroughly, but broadcasters, including public television, concentrated their coverage on the ruling parties.

We concluded that the legal framework provides an adequate basis for the conduct of elections but, contrary to international standards and practice, the election law was amended some days before the elections were called. Some of the amendments included limitations on freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, the mandate allocation is not fully transparent as it requires candidates to allocate only half the seats according to the order of candidates on the electoral list.

Election day was assessed positively in the main polling stations visited. Counting was assessed less positively, with about 10% characterised negatively, mainly due to procedural irregularities, indicating that further training of polling board members is needed.

I agreed with the statement by Jean-Charles Gardetto, head of the delegation of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, that “These elections confirmed Montenegro’s commitment to democracy and the principles of the Council of Europe, which Montenegro hopes to join in the very near future. However, stable election law is a key aspect of a democratic process. The recent changes to the law, after the elections were called, are therefore regrettable.”

Some observers reiterated the need to address remaining and, more importantly, re-emerging challenges to elections that overall were well administered. I congratulate our neighbouring colleagues from Montenegro on the very important step of the first fair and democratic election after independence, generally in line with European standards. I hope that the new parliament will have the legitimacy and capacity to adopt the new constitution and to open negotiations in the near future on the stabilisation and association agreement.

Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Islami.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers’ list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

I now give the floor to the rapporteur. You have four minutes for your reply.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – First, I thank all members who have contributed to our debate. I would like to add only one thing. I forgot to mention that the Bureau this morning issued a statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. That statement has been appended to the draft progress report.

Regarding the elections in Macedonia, I thank Mrs Durrieu, who was one of the members of the ad hoc committee and who touched on an important issue: integration within the country and the country’s integration with the European family, which is very important.

THE PRESIDENT. – That was very brief. I now give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr de Puig.

Mr DE PUIG (Spain) expressed his thanks to the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr de Puig. I call Mr Gardetto.

Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) thanked delegates for their contributions.

THE PRESIDENT. – We were expecting the Prime Minister of Croatia to speak at 4.15 p.m., but we have a bit more time. Unusually, therefore, I propose to continue the list of speakers. I give the floor to Mr Gross because Mr Randegger and Mr Pourgourides are not here.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said that preventative action should be taken in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Mistakes had beeen made before the war broke out. Society was now disintegrating and the previous left-wing government had been replaced by a right-wing party. The Monitoring Committee should return to that country. Society should become more integrated and not work along ethnic lines.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Gross.

The debate is closed.

The progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly is approved.

12. Address by Mr Ivo Sanader, Prime Minister of Croatia

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Mr Ivo Sanader, Prime Minister of Croatia. After his address, Mr Sanader will take questions.

I welcome you, Mr Sanader, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Minister for Culture to the Assembly. It is a great pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister, who is a personal and good friend.

I congratulate you and Croatia on the 10th anniversary of your membership of the Council of Europe, which we celebrate today. It is an honour to have you here. Croatia has accomplished a great deal in its efforts fully to integrate into Euro-Atlantic structures. The Assembly over which I preside has walked alongside your country on its road to becoming a true functioning democracy. By respecting the core values of the Council of Europe – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – your country has a great deal to offer other aspiring countries in the region, and we in the Council of Europe are convinced that you will offer them your experience and assistance in their reform efforts so that the whole region integrates.

The Dubrovnik conference on “Completing Europe’s southern dimension: the values that bind us” was a clear demonstration of your country’s commitment to ensuring that the whole Balkan region progresses towards Euro-Atlantic integration.

After enlargement, with the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria, the European Union, through its highest institutional representations, has openly expressed its doubts about Europe’s ability to integrate new member states. If the European Union does not stick to the promises that it has made about the western Balkans’ long-term prospects of membership, Europe and the European Union will lose their credibility. But if Europe does stick to its promises, countries in South-Eastern Europe need to respect their obligations to carry out wide-ranging and profound reforms to transform their societies into real democracies.

Mr Sanader, you need to muster the political will necessary in Croatia to honour the Sarajevo Declaration, to continue to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and to track down criminals, arrest them and bring them to justice. Co-operation with ICTY is not just a legal obligation; it is, as you have mentioned, above all a moral duty. Justice needs to be done. We in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have supported, and will continue to support, Croatia’s commitment to become a full member of the Euro-Atlantic community, because Croatia deserves it. The only long-term answer to the quest for stability in South-Eastern Europe lies in its full integration with the Euro-Atlantic structures. The Parliamentary Assembly is determined to work together with you to see that happen.

Prime Minister, it is a great pleasure to give you the floor.

Mr SANADER (Prime Minister of Croatia). – Distinguished President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr van der Linden, Secretary General, members of the Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to address the Assembly. I thank Mr van der Linden for his introductory words.

Today we mark the 10th anniversary of the Republic of Croatia’s membership of the Council of Europe – a key European institution that promotes and safeguards democracy, the rule of law, human rights and parliamentary co-operation at a European level. Those are noble principles which we all share in our common and successful European house.

I am particularly proud that on this important occasion, 10 years after Croatia’s accession to the Council of Europe, I am able to say that we are a member of this permanent family and share its principles. Some of you may recall that we started the journey with 21 commitments set out by this body in 1996. Now we are a candidate for the European Union. I am proud that my country achieved this much in the period of one short decade. I am sure that you all share my delight, as it is also beneficial for the Council of Europe and for Europe in a broader sense.

Croatia will continue to have a great interest in the activities of this Organisation and to provide a constructive contribution to its topical agenda, including the promotion of the Council of Europe’s specific areas of excellence, such as reform of the European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, strengthening co-operation with the European Union and other international organisations.

Let me briefly set out the main achievements that my country has accomplished since joining the Council of Europe and on its path towards EU integration. Croatia has shown commitment to carrying out all necessary reforms without bypassing any stage in the process, but rather completing each with substantiated results. Advances in internal reforms strengthened the overall capabilities of our country. This raised our international political and economic profile and made us more attractive to foreign investment.

However, the main goal of the reform endeavours is, and will continue to be, our desire to improve the social landscape of our country, the quality of life of our citizens and to create favourable circumstances and conditions for growth and investment. Accession-driven reforms thus almost become a catalyst for finalising the process of transition. Committed reform implementation contributes to our credibility as a true partner of the EU, whose partners are willing and capable of sharing and promoting the common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. By definition, countries that aspire to join the EU must not be an economic burden or a security threat. That must be the guiding principle when discussing our responsibility, but also when discussing the future of the EU’s enlargement.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we keep in mind our European history – our history was characterised by confrontations, by wars, by genocide, by bloodshed and by tragedies – and if we want to avoid such a future and to shape our European future in another way, there is no alternative to European unification. When confronted with the notion of new EU members, many people tend to think of the aspiring countries as they are now, not as they will be at the end of the process: more competent and capable in every sense – from the protection of human rights to having strong administrative capacities, as well as the ability to implement the most advanced environmental standards. Such a transformed country adds value to the EU and complements existing EU assets.

Croatia’s experience has proven that the very opening of accession negotiations with the EU is a particularly important stage in the accession process. It clearly indicates that a country has positively fulfilled the necessary criteria, proved its maturity and has definitely become a trusted partner. Prior to being given EU candidate status, Croatia had to provide tangible proof of its full co-operation with the ICTY, as you just mentioned, Mr President. Croatia did that, thus reaffirming its credibility. The accession negotiations, which are proceeding successfully, provide us with a timeframe and a set of standards by which to measure our progress.

Ladies and gentlemen, certain challenging issues are in the focus of our efforts to take forward the acquis truly to reach European standards. Among those, I should like to underline that the reform of the judiciary has so far been dealt with successfully, often with assistance from the EU and member countries but also from the Council of Europe. For instance, it involves the modernisation of the land registry system and reducing the backlog of court cases. The fight against corruption and organised crime is another priority. Therefore, the government adopted the action plan and the national programme to deal with this in an efficient and transparent manner in the coming years. Considerable efforts are also being made in the area of human rights and minority rights protection, which is closely related to the issue of the return of refugees.

In Croatia, we also started a comprehensive reform of all levels of education, aimed at modernisation and compatibility with the EU standards and the Bologna process, as well as with the direction set out in the Lisbon Agenda. The upgrading of energy and transport infrastructures has been done in part through successful regional co-operation and EU financing. Reform of the defence system and security services is well under way in accordance with NATO and EU standards and the highest democratic principles. Those are just a few examples to illustrate our ongoing undertakings.

Croatia has made notable achievements in the economy that ensure stable industrial and GDP growth of 4.4%, a low inflation rate, export growth, a rise in foreign direct investment and other positive macro-economic indicators – for instance, a reduction in the budget deficit from 6.2%, as we took over responsibility for the country in late 2003, to 2.9% this year. This all indicates that we are approaching the fulfilment of the EU Maastricht criteria at a steady pace. We still have to complete the privatisation process, scale down unemployment, improve exports and keep our business sector to be able to participate fully in the European common market.

Extensive investment from EU countries shows that Croatia’s investment climate has been increasingly evaluated as positive, augmented by political stability, an adequate legal framework, the transparency of its implementation and a greatly improving administrative infrastructure.

The European integration process has also put into focus other important aspects of the development of European societies, such as regional co-operation, co-operation in the fight against new security threats, the development of civil society and many other areas. Croatia has so far proven its capability to influence other countries in the region through its positive example of high achievements, as well as through its active engagement in regional co-operation, and therefore to solve the remaining political issues.

Co-operation in the South-Eastern European region is efficient when it is open, balanced and responsive to the needs and interests of the region itself and based on European principles in a way that is conceived to emulate the co-operation within the EU itself. In this regard, the remaining open issues in South-Eastern Europe must be settled in a manner that increases our stability and secures the continuation of democratic and economic processes. That is a challenge not only for the countries of the region, but for the international community as well, as it requires its focus and contribution.

A synergy of bilateral and regional co-operation will guarantee the continuation of democratic reform processes in South-Eastern Europe, thus ensuring durable stability in the region. A truly authentic network of new relations in South-Eastern Europe exists today. To a considerable extent, it is based on pillars related to EU integration, the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe and the stabilisation and association process. But other regional supportive associations are also involved in such success. For instance, the CECP, which is currently under the chairmanship-in-office of Croatia, is an indigenous process that enables us to realise our common goals, thus strengthening co-operation and good neighbourly relations, with the aim of consolidating democracy, stability, security and economic prosperity in the region, combined with the ambition of European integration.

We should not forget other regional co-operation initiatives, such as the central European initiative, the Adriatic-Ionian initiative or the quadrilateral, which is also currently chaired by Croatia. The countries of the region also successfully co-operate in security and defence policy areas as well as in the fight against organised crime. The fact that Croatia has established open visa regimes with all western Balkan countries in our neighbourhood shows not only that the political climate has changed and that the level of mutual trust has been raised, but that we have improved our administrative and security capabilities based on an adequate legal framework and its efficient implementation.

We also note positive developments in the area of economic and business co-operation. A free trade regime exists throughout the region through a network of bilateral agreements, but we are now successfully working on modifications to the Central European Free Trade Agreement – CEFTA – which will soon become operational. The wider South-Eastern European region already has an integrated power system and the focus is now on the development of road and rail infrastructures in line with the European corridors.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me now briefly outline the present situation in the region in relation to the Europe-Atlantic integration process and touch on the issues that still remain open but can be tackled and solved only within such a framework.

First, I would like to congratulate Romania and Bulgaria on their forthcoming accession to the EU. They have proved that hard work, commitment, responsibility and credibility pay off. They are ready to ensure their peoples’ future progress, as well as contributing to the strengthening of the region and of the EU and playing a constructive role in global affairs.

Macedonia has deservedly earned EU candidate status, having held several elections in a democratic manner and without major upsets in its political stability. Albania is moving strongly forwards in the right direction, as its stabilisation and association agreement is in the process of ratification. This further underlines the necessity to continue with reforms and to further Albania’s input on issues such as regional stability and co-operation.

Bosnia and Herzegovina are conducting accession and stability agreement negotiations, although progress has temporarily been slowed down not only by the general complexity of internal relations but by the recent pre-election dynamics. The focus must be on the future constitution, and the co-ordinated assistance of the international community, in order to secure regional stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That will be vital. The equal status of all three constituent peoples – Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs – should be guaranteed.

The necessary processes involving Serbia and the Serbian people should also be strengthened and supported, but all those processes must be guided and assisted by the international community. They also need to be supported by other countries in the region. As neighbours, we have a vested interest in shaping the long-term stability and security architecture of our region. The process will also need the support of the Council of Europe and of the EU.

Croatia is following with great interest and appreciation the active role that the Council of Europe is playing in some of the countries in the region. We support whole-heartedly the existing assistance programmes, and we encourage the Council of Europe to continue providing its expertise to help those parts of the region in which it is most needed. I firmly believe that, through joint efforts, we will be able to avert any lapses to the past, to keep the present energy of change and advancement and to secure a deserved place for our part of Europe within the broader European family of nations and values. Croatia can contribute constructively to these efforts through its own example and through its own commitment to co-operation based on democracy and the European vision.

In the European Union, as well as in other European institutions including NATO and the Council of Europe, one principle in particular needs our attention. It is that each country should be treated according to its own merits. With regard to our co-operation within the South-Eastern European region, let me reassure you once again that Croatia will be proactive and engaged in its negotiations with the European Union. The negotiation process is well under way, and we believe that we can finish it within the next two and a half years.

Let me assure you that we are conducting a two-track policy: one is towards the EU and NATO, with a view to accession as soon as possible by meeting all the relevant criteria and implementing the acquis in Croatia; the other involves helping our neighbours on their way into the European Union and NATO. No European country should be left behind in the European institutions. That means that they should become full members not only of the Council of Europe but of the European Union.

On behalf of my delegation and of my fellow Croatians here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe today, I am very happy that we are celebrating our 10th anniversary. I remember when, 10 years ago, René van der Linden was a rapporteur for Croatia to the Council of Europe. We have worked together very successfully, and I would like to express my gratitude to him today. Now he is the President, but then he was the rapporteur working on Croatia’s case. I thank him very much for the work that he did at that time as well as the work that he is doing today.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we believe in Europe’s future. We in Croatia know what it means to go through difficult times. All of you will remember the shelling of Dubrovnik, the destruction of Vukovar, and what happened in Srebrenica. All of you will remember what happened in Kosovo. There is no alternative to co-operation except a new confrontation.

In Croatia, we all know how difficult our past has been and how difficult the history of all European countries has been. Let us work together to ensure that this outstanding, important and great institution, the Council of Europe, becomes even more important for all Europeans. We believe that its present role is not being fully implemented and that it deserves an even more important role. Having said that, we are not comparing the Council of Europe with European Union. As you know, we are aiming for membership, and I have spoken about that in regard to the European Union. However, I believe that the Council of Europe plays an important role and that it should be even more important than it is today. Thank you very much for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister, for your most interesting address. You showed your commitment to Euro-Atlantic co-operation and described your role in regional co-operation, especially in regard to the Council of Europe. We are doing our utmost to give added value to the European Union. I am sure that the Council of Europe has to play that role in order to avoid the creation of new dividing lines in Europe. We have to stick to the core values, and we are doing that in an excellent way.

I call Mr Evans from the European Democratic Group to ask his question. Written questions are also possible.

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – Mr Prime Minister, I am grateful to you for your contribution, and I congratulate you on the advances that you have made at political, social and economic levels. You said that no European country should be left behind within the European Union structures. As the President said in his introduction, there are concerns about Bulgaria and Romania coming in, and you mentioned a number of other European countries that have applied to become full members of the European Union. Do you have a message for those countries that are fearful of further enlargement?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Sanader would you like to respond to that question?

Mr SANADER. – Yes, I do have a message. Let me stress something that I did not mention in my speech. In negotiating the accession of Croatia, we have become aware of the fact that the EU faces certain problems, including the constitutional treaty. There was also a huge debate last year on the financial perspective, and we should analyse the reasons behind that. There is also enlargement fatigue and the question of absorption capacity. People ask what “absorption capacity” means, because the EU is not going to absorb us, it is going to integrate us.

Realistically speaking, there are problems within the EU. I am going to quote René van der Linden, the President, who said in our joint press conference an hour ago that the EU is asking huge reforms of the upcoming member states – Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and others – and for them the ability to implement them.

We believe – and I strongly advocate this – that the European Union for its part should complete its reforms by the end of 2008, and we hope that that will happen. If it does, I see no problems for Croatia and future members once all criteria have been fulfilled and all chapters negotiated, which is what Croatia is currently doing. In Croatia’s case, the processes complement each other. We believe that the EU could and should finish all its debates on the constitution by the end of 2008, as has been foreseen, and we believe that we can finish our negotiations with the Commission and member states by that time as well.

I want to say something about opinion polls in Croatia. There is a Euro-barometer that shows the attitude of European citizens to new member states. The latest polls show that in all member states, including two new ones, the attitude towards Croatia is very good. There is no enlargement fatigue in relation to Croatia. I am grateful to all citizens in the member states who perceive Croatia in a positive way.

I think that all of us, especially parliamentarians and more especially the Executive, should think about why the referendum on the constitutional treaty failed in France and the Netherlands. Two “no” referenda are a big problem for all of us: not just for France, the Netherlands and the European Union, but for Croatia. However, we can learn from that and communicate to our citizens what it is all about.

Croatia is soon to celebrate the 15th anniversary of its independence. On 15 January 1992, the EU recognised Croatia, and in three months we will celebrate the 15th anniversary of its international recognition. Young people who were born at the end of the 1980s do not remember Yugoslavia; to them, Croatia is the fact – the reality. They do not understand when we speak of Yugoslav Communism, Titoism and Tito’s dictatorship. To them that is history – the 19th century. What we must communicate to them are the values. We must explain why Croatia should be included, why we want to become a member of the European Union and why it is important for the EU to continue its enlargement. A united Europe has no alternative. I believe that a communication strategy is very important.

I am optimistic for Croatia, and for some of our neighbours in South-Eastern Europe. I repeat that if all goes well, as the EU has foreseen – if all the open issues relating to the constitutional treaty are dealt with by the end of 2008, and we conclude our negotiations at roughly the same time: a couple of months will not play a major role – I do not envisage any problems for Croatia.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to put a supplementary question, Mr Evans?

Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – Let me simply say that I want to see Croatia become a member of the European Union as soon as possible. Good luck.

THE PRESIDENT. – I now give the floor to Mr Proroković.

Mr PROROKOVIĆ (Serbia). – Prime Minister, you mentioned regional relations and regional stability in your speech. I should like to hear your view on western Balkan stability and the development of good neighbourly relations and policy in the context of determination of the future status of Kosovo.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to respond to that question, Mr Sanader?

Mr SANADER. – Let me first state our position – not just the position of my government, but the position throughout the political scene in the Croatian Parliament. We wish Serbia and all neighbouring countries also to become members of the European Union and NATO as soon as they meet all the criteria.

Croatia is a candidate country. We are negotiating with the European Union. Let me reiterate that there will be no soloist policy on Croatia’s part in relation to Serbia and Kosovo. We want to assist the European Union and the international community with our knowledge. As Serbia’s neighbour, we can contribute because we know the history, we know the mentality, we know the language, and we know all the specific issues and aspects of that part of Europe. Of course I have my personal opinion, but I will not give it today. I will give it to our European partners, and to those who are very much in charge of the issue. We know how important it is to Serbia and Kosovo. What we want is more dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I understand that there is no supplementary question, so I call Mr Fassino.

Mr FASSINO (Italy) thanked the President. He asked for Mr Sanader’s views on the Bosnian elections and whether he supported the activities of the international tribunal

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Would you like to respond to the question, Mr Sanader?

Mr SANADER (Croatia) said that the Dayton Agreement had been a tremendous success, not just for Bosnia and Herzegovina but for the whole international community. History would show that Dayton had served its purpose and put a halt to war. Eleven years on, its operation needed to be examined. It might require revision, but all three population groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina would need to accept any reforms. The Council of Europe and the United States of America had been very active under the Dayton Agreement, but the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina needed emancipation; in particular the impact of Kosovo should be examined. Elections had taken place in Bosnia and Herzegovina yesterday, the results of which were still awaited. In recent times the attention of the international community had focused on Iraq and the Middle East, but Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be forgotten. Croatia would co-operate with the international community in examining whether the Dayton Agreement was still appropriate.

As for the international tribunal, the commitment did not depend on the decisions of individual countries. In Croatia, the commitment to co-operate was established in legislation. Those indicted by the tribunal should be called to account regardless. That applied to every country.

THE PRESIDENT. – Would you like to put a supplementary question? That is not the case.

That brings us to the end of questions. I thank you warmly, Mr Sanader. We will see each other later at the presentation of your gift to the Council of Europe on the 10th anniversary of your country’s membership.

13. The institutional balance at the Council of Europe

THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on “The institutional balance at the Council of Europe,” presented by Mr Schieder on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, Document 11017, with the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 11038.

The list of speakers closed at 1 p.m. Thirteen names are on the list and nine amendments have been tabled. I remind members that we have agreed that we will need to interrupt the list of speakers in this debate at about 5.50 p.m.

I call Mr Schieder, rapporteur. You have eight minutes.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria) (Rapporteur) thanked his predecessor, the committee members, Chairman, Committee Secretary and staff who had worked so hard to complete the report.

Following the war, work between countries had focused on reconciliation and peace in Europe. The rights of the Council of Europe had been subordinate to the importance of peace. Since 1949 the world had changed and the strongest political institutions now related well to their societies. New parliamentary yardsticks had emerged in Europe, and it was necessary for institutions such as the Council of Europe to become more parliamentary in nature.

In order to prevent the Council of Europe from institutional backwardness it was necessary to update its statutes. The report made a number of recommendations to that effect. All involved, especially the Committee of Ministers, needed to work together to change matters. The committee sought not applause or recognition, but the successful implementation of its proposals.

In his first report to the Council of Europe, in 1971, he had highlighted the importance of the rights and rules of procedure: 35 years later, in presenting his last report, he was again discussing the subject. The procedures determining the conditions of work in the Assembly should be changed. Members should have more contact with the electorate and should introduce parliamentary principles into the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – May I take the opportunity to thank, from the bottom of my heart, a former President of the Assembly, for the service he has given to the Parliamentary Assembly? There are few examples where members of national parliaments are in a position to work so effectively on two fronts at once, and I think that I speak on behalf of everyone. No one else will have served so loyally for 35 years. That is why I am taking some of the speaking time to express these thoughts, to wish you all the best, Mr Schieder, and to hope that you enjoy good health. However, your work is not over yet; you have further work to do on this report. Thank you, Peter, very much.

I now give the floor to Mr Ateş, who will present the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee. Mr Németh cannot attend.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I thank Mr Schieder, whose responsibilities will not finish when he has finished working on this report. For years you have contributed to this Assembly a great deal and I know that your heart will be with us and that your knowledge will help the Council of Europe in future. It is only a formality to say that you will not be here as an MP, but I know that your whole heart will be with us supporting the Council of Europe.

The Political Affairs Committee welcomes the report prepared by the Committee on Rules of Procedures and Immunities and shares the approach adopted by its rapporteur, Mr Schieder. With the main conclusions and suggestions of the draft recommendation in mind, the Political Affairs Committee has suggested amendments that we will discuss later. With those amendments, this excellent report will be even better. That is all I have to say at the moment. I thank the rapporteur and the committee again for their excellent work.

(Mr Gardetto, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Ateş.

The general debate is now open. I now call Mr Van den Brande, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – First and foremost, on behalf of the EPP group, I congratulate Peter Schieder. The marriage has lasted more than 35 years. That is longer than the statistics lead us to expect. On behalf of my group, I openly and clearly pay tribute to Peter Schieder not only as a previous President of the Assembly but for the work he has done and for his commitment to our Parliamentary Assembly in the Council of Europe. That is not to say that we are not critical. We always have to be critical, but we can agree with the report and what is set out in the draft recommendation.

It is not possible at present to raise each point; it is not a bible for the future. But in any case I want to focus on four or five points. The first relates to strengthening the several pillars of our institution. We are discussing this report and draft recommendation at the same time when we must reflect on how to deal, in the European democratic sphere, with values, democracy and human rights. It is important to ensure, before referring to and reflecting on the European Union and other institutions, that we ourselves are able to do the job as well as possible. This report and the draft recommendation offer an answer to other institutions—not only the EU but the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others. It describes what co-operation should exist between the different pillars of our Council of Europe.

Let us be clear: in the outside world, sometimes, there are concerns about the way that we deal with the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, local and regional bodies and the European Court of Human Rights.

There are fruitful proposals in the draft recommendation. For example, regarding the strengthening of the role of the Parliamentary Assembly, of course, we have to be more involved in the convention-building by our 46 member states. Of course, we have to be more responsible as regards our own budget. We must have the opportunity to bring serious violations of human rights before the European Court of Human Rights.

When I look to the Committee of Ministers, let us be honest, there is a paradoxical situation. We are speaking about the Committee of Ministers, but they are ambassadors. There is a problem to do with the counterparts. We must use checks and balances. We must work for real reflection and co-operation platforms between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly.

Let me say a word about human rights. Mrs Bemelmans-Videc will deal with the issue later. It is not acceptable that there is a duplication, or even a triplication, in the democratic sphere, so each instrument and each institution has to play its own role.

My final point is about the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. From now on we are in a multi-level decision-making world and we must avoid thinking that decisions can be taken only at national level. That is why we must involve the congress more strongly in our work.

Therefore, our group will vote in favour of the proposals. We are grateful for the work of Peter Schieder.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Van den Brande.

I call Mr Mooney, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr MOONEY (Ireland). – The preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe refers twice to the European peoples. I echo and reflect the widespread consensus of the Assembly in passing on our congratulations to Peter Schieder, not only on his report, but also on his outstanding contribution to the Parliamentary Assembly. I wish him well in the future.

I am glad that Mr Schieder referred to the preamble. The will of the founding fathers was to create an organisation that is close to European citizens. I am sure that even a cursory glance at where we are now would suggest, as the report reflects, that we have moved further away from the European citizen, rather than closer. Many of our constituents in our national countries, and even those in our national parliaments, are not aware of the detail of what we do. In particular, I welcome section VI, on page 24 of the report, which details the major deficiencies in the relationship between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. I support the view that the current institutional arrangements in the Council of Europe do not acknowledge the increased political role of the Assembly. The Assembly’s budgetary powers are insufficient. This Parliamentary Assembly should have by right the powers to influence its own budget. Even a local authority in Europe has the right to influence its budget.

I am amazed at the commitment and dedication of members. I am also amazed by the corners that the permanent Secretariat – which all of us have to deal with – has to cut to carry out our work efficiently and effectively on a shoestring budget. I support the rapporteur’s call to make greater use of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers as a place for dialogue between the EU and non-EU members. The European Court of Human Rights and the Parliamentary Assembly should be more closely associated. The Court is closely identified in the public’s mind as being a Europe-wide institution, but the Assembly is not.

The Parliamentary Assembly and its committees should adopt a more ruthless monitoring of committee reports, some of which are too localised, irrelevant and generally ignored by national governments and, more importantly, by the people of Europe. I would also plead with the political groupings represented in the Parliamentary Assembly to provide greater equity and wider representation in the appointment of rapporteurs. If the same names keep cropping up, as they do, it is inevitable that the views of those individuals become the de facto views of the Assembly. In my opinion, a more broadly based list of rapporteurs would add a new perspective.

I am also concerned that as the EU expands its membership, more and more countries that traditionally would have looked to the Council of Europe as the most important expression of their foreign policy are now looking towards the European Union and looking less towards the Council of Europe. That was again reflected in the number of reports and rapporteurs from non-EU countries who still see the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly as a strong expression of their foreign policy and of their will and anxiety to be part of the broader European family.

The report focuses on a number of key recommendations. A leading Irish politician, when he was starting a new political party about 20 years ago, admonished his followers and putative followers and told them that they would not be successful unless they were radical. He said, “You’re going to be either radical or redundant.” I end on that message.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Mooney.

I call Mr Greenway, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom). – The European Democratic Group supports the report. It has been a great pleasure for me personally to work in the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities with such an experienced and distinguished member of our Assembly as the rapporteur, Peter Schieder.

I hope that what the committee has proposed will appeal to the Assembly and, in due course, the Committee of Ministers, because it strikes a sensible balance between the aspirations of members of the Assembly for a bigger role in the Council’s affairs and the more conservative views of the Committee of Ministers, which may be less convinced that change is justified.

However, it is beyond argument that the Council of Europe has changed dramatically since its inception, yet the legal instruments that underpin the Council have not kept pace with that change. We are, thank goodness, living in a different Europe to the one in 1949 when our statute was signed. Mr Schieder referred to that. We now have a Court of Human Rights, a Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and a Conference of International Non-governmental Organisations. We have seen the spectacular growth of democracy across our continent, particularly in eastern Europe. The European Union itself has been created with 25 members, and it is still growing. This is a dynamism which we have to reflect in what we do here.

The EU dimension is hugely significant. The growth and increasing influence of the European Union have caused our citizens increasingly to question the democratic legitimacy of European institutions. The Council of Europe is not immune to that concern. On the contrary, too little is known about what we do and about whether the Council of Europe is as effective as it might be in spreading and promoting the interests of human rights, democracy and rule of law.

If we are ambitious for what this Council of Europe can achieve, we should be equally enthusiastic about the changes that are outlined in the report. They are all designed to make our task more relevant and effective. If we want to be the champions of democratic standards, then surely we have the duty to ensure first that our own processes are democratic and transparent. The analysis of the committee is that our institutional arrangements are not all they need to be. We need to make changes to ensure that the Council as a whole is more effective and is able to secure for future generations the increasing value of the role of our work.

We need to clarify the status of the Court and its judges, and to strengthen the role of the Congress and Conference of INGOs. More critically, however, of all these things we need to strengthen the parliamentary dimension of the Council of Europe’s decision-making process, and to redefine the Assembly’s relationship with the Committee of Ministers. The Assembly should also have a stronger voice on budgetary matters and supervision of the setting of priorities and political and intergovernmental initiatives. We are best placed to ensure the strengthening of relations between EU and non-EU countries and the realisation of the EU’s European neighbourhood policy.

The ideas in the report should not be seen as too contentious or too politically difficult. They should be seen as an essential work in progress towards making the Council of Europe more relevant and more effective and of greater value to our citizens. The European Democratic Group believes strongly in the philosophy that it is through the co-operation of sovereign national parliaments that we best make progress on democracy. Through co-operation and working together we can make progress on the rights and future role of the great Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Greenway.

I call Mr Kox who will speak on behalf of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I welcome the report by Peter Schieder on improving the institutional balance in the Council of Europe. It is an important follow-up to the debate that we had on the goals and results of the 3rd Summit and to the Juncker report. The rapporteur’s proposals also get our approval. We, too, would like the Assembly’s position in the framework of the Council of Europe to be improved structurally. Therefore, it is necessary that we can make decisions on our budget. The silly struggle with the Committee of Ministers on this matter has to come to an end, and the sooner the better. It is also necessary that the Committee of Ministers becomes a real Committee of Ministers instead of staying a committee of ambassadors. Like the rapporteur, we think that the Foreign Affairs Ministers should show their faces more often in this Organisation and Assembly, not just to deliver prepared speeches but to react to resolutions and recommendations of the Assembly. It is their Organisation too.

People might have concluded that we are not pleased with the Committee of Ministers. I have the idea that we are not the only people who are not satisfied with it. Let us show that to the Committee of Ministers. It is there to serve us, not to neglect us.

Mr President, we also agree that there should be better relations between the Assembly and the national parliaments. We would like to see more interest in our parliament at home and in the work that we are doing here, but we have to be honest about the fact that that process starts here. If we become more active and do more with the reports, resolutions and recommendations here and at home, the interest that our colleagues take in them might improve. If we take care that this Chamber is not what it has been too often in the past – an empty hall with few delegates – and we take care to ensure that this Chamber becomes a crowded place with real debate, we will be noticed.

When we were the first international body to debate the secret CIA flights and detention centres, everyone was interested in what we were doing here in Strasbourg. Therefore, we must continue our efforts on this issue and not leave it to the Committee of Ministers, because without our pressure, I fear that the story will end here. Let us stick to our major subjects and issues and not spend our time on less important debates. The same goes for other important reports, resolutions and recommendations. If we do not stand up for the job that we are doing, no one else will. It is at least partly up to us to decide whether or not the Assembly will be taken seriously.

Mr President, we do agree with the rapporteur that important improvements are necessary with regard to the European Court of Human Rights. It is unacceptable and a bloody shame that so many people have to wait for so long before their cases are dealt with by the court. Perhaps we should, like Cato, end every session here with the remark that we find it a shame that we promise justice to people in Europe by means of the court but do not deliver.

Mr President, the compliments of the Group of the Unified European Left go to Mr Schieder for his report, which shows once more that he is a wise man, and the Assembly can use some wisdom. Let me thank him on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left for his 35 years here in the Assembly, but we do not know whether it is a wise proposal of the rapporteur to establish a permanent group of wise persons with a mandate to give advice on institutional issues and to mediate between the organs and institutions of the Council of Europe. We would prefer open debates here in the Assembly with the Committee of Ministers on the follow-up to today’s debate – and, Mr Schieder, permanent wise men do not exist. If they did exist, this would be a better world.

We agree with the rapporteur that institutional reforms are required to avoid the Council of Europe turning into a fossil and – may I add? – the Assembly turning into a museum. Because we in the Group of the Unified European Left prefer to be living politicians instead of fossils, we endorse the draft recommendations in Mr Schieder’s report. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kox. I call Mr de Puig, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr de PUIG (Spain) thanked Mr Schieder for his work and his commitment to the role of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe had played a major role in Europe: when established in 1949 it had provided a model that had been followed by other parliamentary assemblies. Time had now passed and it was right to reform the institution. He argued that the Parliamentary Assembly did not have the internal capacity commensurate with its external capacity. It was necessary to give the Parliamentary Assembly more resources. The potential of the Council of Europe needed to be tapped more effectively.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr de Puig. I call Mr Manzella.

Mr MANZELLA (Italy) congratulated Mr Schieder on an excellent piece of work. The organisation should be invested with more meaning and significance. From a political/institutional point of view, he emphasised the importance of the organisation’s constitutional structure. Mr Schieder’s excellent report put all the issues in perspective.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you very much. I call Mrs Bemelmans-Videc.

Mrs BEMELMANS-VIDEC (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. There is an urgent need further to strengthen the position of the European Court of Human Rights within the three-pillar structure of the Council of Europe, in line with earlier recommendations by this Assembly and by the 3rd Summit.

In a principal statement in his report, which is thorough and presents an excellent overview of the institutional history of the Council of Europe, the rapporteur states that the major role of the Court and its functions are not adequately reflected in the institutional system and practice of the organisation. He also underlines the importance of finding the right balance between the operational and institutional needs of the Court. The crucial question therefore presents itself: what criteria should dictate this right balance?

The rapporteur summarises the opinions on the status of the Court. They range from its being an international organisation with its own legal personality, through being a common organ of the contracting parties to the Convention, to being a part or even an organ of the Council of Europe. The group of wise persons is then invited to find the philosopher’s stone.

Colleagues, should not this Assembly’s firm view be that the status of the Court should be one of the highest possible degree of independence? That would imply an optimal degree of administrative autonomy for the Court and its registry for reasons relating to, first, judicial independence and, only secondly, operational efficiency. This professional independence should also imply discretion in matters such as the degree to which managerial efficiency should indeed be the final criterion in matters of administration with consequences for the Court’s structure and work processes. It would imply more extensive budgetary rights for the Court, within the accountability in relation to the Committee of Ministers; the Court requires an acknowledged status in its assessment of funds needed for the proper conduct
of its work. It would also imply the Court’s supervisory authority and responsibility over its own staff. Finally – here I agree with the view of the Swiss delegation in its strategy document on the Council of Europe – the statute of the Court should contain employment conditions that correspond to those of other judges at international level.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Kucheida. Mr Kucheida is not here. I call Mr Branger.

Mr BRANGER (France) said that the Assembly had judiciously decided to organise a debate on the budget and his contribution should be seen in the light of current financial tensions. He expressed concerns about bureaucratic proliferation at a time when all were being asked to tighten their belts, highlighting problems of legitimacy and democratic deficits. He warned against the creation of a human rights agency, arguing that, in addition to increasing costs, it would threaten the statutory legitimacy of the Council of Europe. The current bureaucratic proliferation weakened the reception of the work of the Council of Europe. It made people feel that Europe was an ivory tower. They should fight to maintain the exemplary role of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Grebennikov.

Mr GREBENNIKOV (Russian Federation) argued that the debate on the balance of the institutions of the Council of Europe needed to take place in the Assembly. The Assembly should take on the role of a decision-making body. The powers delegated to the Assembly had to change because the activities of the Council of Europe were not the same as in 1949.

The Council of Europe should discuss the establishment of a permanent body. The Council would always be in a weak position unless it established a more energetic and purposeful attitude in the Committee of Ministers, the Assembly and its other bodies. It needed to deal with a wide range of issues, not just those relating to human rights: by doing that the prestige of the institution would be elevated.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Slutsky is not here, so I call Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal). – I congratulate President Schieder, and thank him for his excellent contribution to the work of our Assembly in the form of this report. We were in serious need of an in-depth reconsideration of the structure of our Organisation.

The propositions in the draft recommendation approved by the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities are very accurate, and I also congratulate the Chairman of that Committee, Mr Gross. In my opinion, those propositions amount to something very similar to a reform of the statute of the Council of Europe – perhaps even a new statute. I am afraid that such a task is hardly feasible in the present circumstances.

To push through even some of these reforms, we need to put very strong pressure on our national governments. That brings us back to something that we often say in our debates. We should not only come to Strasbourg to debate matters that should also be debated by our national parliaments, and they should be involved in the decisions that we make here. However, some important contributions to the work of our Assembly, and to its prestige and visibility, are within our immediate competence and powers.

Let me remind the Assembly of some of the suggestions that I included in my report to the conference of Speakers of Parliaments of Europe, held in Strasbourg in May 2004 under the presidency of Peter Schieder. I said that our Assembly would benefit from fewer and smaller committees; that appointments to all committees should be made through political groups, not just through the Monitoring Committee; that each member should have only one assignment to a single committee; that members of the Bureau should not sit on committees; that only permanent members of the Assembly should be assigned to committees; and that Substitutes should replace their own permanent members only in their absences. Adoption of those measures could make our Assembly more effective, and avoid some of the – partly justified – criticism that we suffer.

I feel that it would help to solve existing budgetary difficulties if our Assembly’s budget were the direct responsibility of our national parliaments. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the budget of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. I am not in favour of asking other ministries to finance the Council of Europe. The national parliaments could perfectly well take over not just some of the Assembly’s functions but some of its staff and work. Both institutions, the Assembly and the Congress, have enough power and resources to maintain their participation at the Council of Europe. Instead of complaining that we have no money, let us take a step forward in resolving the problem.

I understand from what earlier speakers have said that Peter Schieder is leaving us. I bid him farewell, and wish him good luck and good health. I thank him for all that he has done for the Parliamentary Assembly. I learnt a lot from him during his years in the Assembly and in the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, where he began participating in the Council of Europe many years ago.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Schieder, rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria) thanked colleagues for their comments.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – That was brief. I call Mr Ateş on behalf of the Committee.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I wish to thank all the contributors and Mr Schieder for his excellent work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, as the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) thanked those involved in the debate, in particular Mr Schieder who, as a very experienced member of the Council of Europe, had made an extremely significant contribution. The best way to recognise his contribution and work was to ensure that the proposals contained in the report were adopted.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The debate is closed.

The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities has presented a draft recommendation to which nine amendments have been tabled.

They will be taken in the following order: 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 3, 7, 6 and 4.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Zsolt Németh, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is in the draft recommendation, paragraph 11, after the first sentence, insert the following sentences:

“The institutional structure of the Council of Europe and the distribution of prerogatives between its statutory organs and specialized institutions and bodies should be put in line with democratic principles and values that our Organisation is meant to uphold. Failing that, it would risk a growing deficit of democratic legitimacy which it needs to fulfil its statutory goals.”

I call Mr Ateş to support amendment No. 1.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The amendment aims to strengthen the paragraph and make it more explicit. I ask colleagues to support it.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 2, tabled by Mr Zsolt Németh, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 11, add the following paragraph:

“At the same time, the Assembly stresses that, while the improvement of the institutional balance at the Council of Europe is important for a more efficient functioning of the Organisation, it is essential that its member states demonstrate their commitment to the values that the Council of Europe is designed to protect by giving an increased support to its action in favour of promoting democracy, the respect of human rights and the rule of law.”

I call Mr Ateş to support amendment No. 2.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – The paragraph talks about the necessary reforms, but national parliaments also have some responsibilities. We wish to emphasise that and make clear what responsibilities national parliaments have to these reforms.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 5, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Milan Urbáni and Mr Zoltán Szabó, which is in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 12, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly also provides a forum for international organisations such as the OECD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and several of the UN’s specialised agencies, and reviews their activities.”

I call Mr Schieder to support the amendment.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – In my former proposal, I forgot to mention the important role the Assembly also plays with regard to organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the amendment would rectify that.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 5 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 8, tabled by Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc and Mr Bart van Winsen, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 18.1.3.

I wish to inform the Assembly that the amendment should read “delete paragraph 18.1.3.1”, not “18.1.3”.

I call Mr Van den Brande to support the amendment.

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – Thank you for that useful point. If I may, I will also develop my argument on amendment No. 9, because it makes no sense to talk about one without the other, as they are related.

If paragraph 18.1.3.1 is deleted, it would be replaced by two points. The first is that the Assembly should fix the amount of its expenditure. The second point would ensure consultation before the global budget for the Council of Europe is fixed. We will have a debate on Thursday and we had the report by Mr Rigoni two years ago. It is really important that the Parliamentary Assembly has at least some say in the decision on budgetary matters. Until now, we have not had any responsibility for even one euro or French franc of our expenditure, so we should not talk about the institutional balance without mentioning that. We are not in the same position as national parliaments, but it is no longer acceptable that we play no role in setting our budget.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schieder.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – I fully agree with Mr Van den Brande. That is what the Assembly wants, as we have stated in the past. However, we oppose the amendment. Why? It is because the recommendation tries to create an atmosphere with the Committee of Ministers in which we share responsibility and have a dialogue on such important matters. The recommendation talks of inviting the Committee of Ministers to reach agreement and we do not want to make our argument as put in amendments Nos. 8 and 9. We should try to convince the Committee of Ministers and, therefore, we should retain the current formulation. Less is sometimes more.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment No. 9, tabled by Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc and Mr Bart van Winsen, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 19.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

"amend, on the basis of article 41.d of the Statute of the Council of Europe, article 38 of the Statute by adding after paragraph c, two new paragraphs worded as follows:

d. The Assembly shall fix the amount of its expenditure, the annual increment being determined by agreement between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly.

e. The Assembly shall be consulted by the Committee of Ministers before the latter fixes the amount of the overall budget of the Council of Europe for the coming year. This consultation shall take place at the earliest possible stage in order to allow the Assembly to take it into account in its opinion on the budget of the Council of Europe;".

Does Mr Van den Brande wish to support the amendment, given the outcome of the previous amendment?

Mr VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium). – As we rejected the amendment, paragraph 18.1.3.1 is still in place. Therefore, I still support my Amendment No. 9.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – So you are supporting the amendment?

Mr VAN DER BRANDE (Belgium) said that he was in favour of dialogue and wanted co-decision, but decisions should not be made on general texts.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Schieder.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – I do not want to argue again. I only ask the Assembly not to adopt a contradictory recommendation. We have just decided to reject Amendment No. 8. We cannot now adopt Amendment No. 9 because that would create a contradiction. That would not help us vis-à-vis all our partners. If the Assembly had decided the other way, I would now be in favour of Amendment No. 9, but we rejected Amendment No. 8 so we should also reject Amendment No. 9. We should have a consistent report, not a contradictory report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) (Translation). – The committee has been consistent: we are against.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 9 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mr Zsolt Németh, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 24, second sentence, replace the words “its integration within the COE” with the following words:

“the need for it to remain fully integrated in the COE”.

I call Mr Ateş to support Amendment No. 3.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – We think as a committee that the institutional needs of the permanent and consultative Court and its integration with the Council of Europe are very important. Therefore we have to strengthen the last part of the second sentence.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment No. 7, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, Mr Dick Marty, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Milan Urbáni and Mr Zoltán Szabó, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 24, replace the third sentence with the following sentences:

“Better synergies between the Court and other institutions and bodies of the COE have also to be developed. The need notably arises for closer cooperation between the Court and the Committee of Ministers in the context of the execution of the Court’s judgments and the supervision thereof. The Assembly considers that a clarification of the status of the Court, of its relationship with other authorities of the COE, and of its prerogatives, would recognise the changed institutional reality and further enhance the major role played by the Court in the COE institutional framework."

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No.7.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). –Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 were proposed by members who thought that we should state the position more clearly. I followed their suggestion to make the draft recommendation clearer. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 make things clearer and do not change the content.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 7 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 6, tabled by Mr Peter Schieder, Mr Dick Marty, Mrs Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, Mr Joseph Debono Grech and Mr Milan Urbáni, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 25.1.1, insert the following sub-paragraph:

“its relationship with the Committee of Ministers in the context of the execution of judgments;”.

I call Mr Schieder to support Amendment No. 6.

Mr SCHIEDER (Austria). – I support the amendment for the same reasons that I gave on Amendment No. 7.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 6 is adopted.

We come now to Amendment No. 4, tabled by Mr Zsolt Németh, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which, is in the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 25.1.3, add the following words:

”, while preserving the structural and functional coherence and the organisational integrity of the Council of Europe”.

I call Mr Ateş to support Amendment No. 4.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – We all know that the administrative function of the Court, including its budgetary needs, is important. However, when we try to meet the budgetary needs of the Court, we must be careful to preserve the standards, coherence, organisation and integrity of the Council of Europe. That is important and we should add this to the report.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The vote is open.

Amendment No. 4 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11017, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 11017, as amended, is adopted, with 90 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

(Mr Lloyd, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gardetto.)

14. Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

THE PRESIDENT. – The final order of the day is the debate on “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, a very important report, presented by Mr Jurgens on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 11020.

The list of speakers closed at 1 p.m. Thirteen names are on the list and one amendment has been tabled. I remind members that we have agreed that in order to conclude our proceedings at 7.30 p.m., we will need to interrupt the list of speakers at 7.20 p.m.

I call Mr Jurgens, the rapporteur. He has eight minutes.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – As you said, Mr President, the report is very important. That is not because of the rapporteur, but because of the substantive matter. We all know that the Court is the backbone of the mechanism that defends the rule of law, democracy and human rights within the Council of Europe. The Council is the only institution that can directly intervene in member states and take decisions on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, it is necessary that the Court’s decisions are implemented. It cannot implement its own decisions – no court can; it needs governments to do that on its behalf. In this case, it needs the governments of those member states against which a decision has been made to act.

Most of the Court’s decisions are implemented. The impression that quite a few of its decisions are not implemented does not mean that work is not going on, in particular in the Council of Ministers, which, according to Article 46 of the Convention, has responsibility to ensure that member states implement those decisions. The Secretariat of the Directorate of Human Rights does that in an excellent way. The Committee of Ministers discusses its reports and regularly makes resolutions on them. However, we do not know what the Committee of Ministers does internally. We do not know what pressure is put on member governments. Of course, we do not have to know that, because it is a matter of diplomacy. What the Assembly does is to make use of the public statements of the Committee of Ministers – the resolutions and interim resolutions – on the implementation of decisions. The report goes into that and asks whether some decisions are not being implemented for no good reason. Where we have been given a good reason for not implementing them, we ask what is being done about that.

There are some well-known cases. Others, however, are not well known. They are the result of repetitive claims that come to the Court because something is structurally wrong in a country, and that gives rise to many claims that are made on the same basis. That is why I call them repetitive. The Italian cases in my file are a strong example of that. In Italy, it can take too long to decide what can be brought before the Court. The Court says that that is against Article 6 of the Convention. That is a structural matter for Italy. If claims continue to be made, the Court is overloaded with repetitive claims. There is a similar problem with preventive detention in Russia and Greece, where the prisons are too full. The Court has said that that must change, but it has not happened.

Such matters can come before the Parliamentary Assembly. We can ask governments what they are doing about those problems and ask them to ensure that the structural deficiencies are rectified. I am also worried about how security forces are investigated when their actions have possibly gone against basic human rights, as in the United Kingdom and Turkey. We must ask why the law is not being changed in Turkey. It forms the basis on which authors such as Pamuk are prosecuted for saying things that are regarded as unkind to the Turkish state. In my country, people who say unkind things about the state are given prizes, and we use that to generate public debate. Perhaps our Turkish friends could consider adopting that idea.

We must have an open debate on some aspects of non-implementation of the Court’s decisions. The Assembly is trying to assist the Committee of Ministers. This is the sixth report that has been brought before the Assembly, and I have been the chairman – the culprit – involved. That, too, is repetitive, but it is necessary.

I want to stress that to ensure that member states’ governments implement decisions, we need to have a monitoring system based on the national parliaments. If national governments report on a regular basis to their parliaments which cases have been decided against them, we will be in a position to ask what has happened about implementing them. That could be a basis for debate in parliaments and questions could be raised with the governments concerned. In the cases that I mentioned, perhaps the governments could use such a debate to get more resources to build prisons. The Court has condemned the country concerned. The debate could work in two ways – for the government itself and national parliaments, and for the Court in Strasbourg, which is very important.

I want to give three examples. The first is the Azzolini law in Italy – Mr Azzolini is one of our colleagues in the Assembly. The second is the law recently passed in Ukraine. We do not know whether those laws are working, but they set up a system whereby the national government has to promote the implementation of the Court’s decisions. The third example is the British system of a joint committee of the two chambers. I had the honour of attending one of its meetings when it discussed how matters were progressing on monitoring the implementation of the Court’s decisions. Those are good examples. If the report is accepted, I would want to send a letter to all parliaments asking them to adopt an internal system whereby, on a regular and systematic basis, the implementation of the Court’s decisions is discussed in Parliament.

The report has taken half a year or more to compile. In some respects, it is not up to the standards required by events that took place last week and two months ago. It reflects a general drift, which is useful when discussing things with members of the Assembly. If, as the draft resolution asks, the report comes back to the Assembly in six months’ time, I will be able to correct it so that it reflects what has happened recently. I hope to be able to report to the Assembly in six months that all parliaments of all members states have taken it on themselves to ensure that the decisions are implemented.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Jurgens, for your introduction. First in our debate, I call Mr Holovaty, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr HOLOVATY (Ukraine). – Mr President and dear colleagues, first I should like to thank Erik Jurgens for this excellent report and to say on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe that we support it and will vote in favour of it because it is extremely important for the future of this Organisation and for the future development of our countries.

There is no need to talk again about the importance of the Court as the constitutional instrument within this Organisation that sets standards for the rule of law and human rights within European legal and public order. Let us remind ourselves of our job: we often complain about the overloading of the Court and consider whether that is a factor in its inefficiency. However, we do not fully estimate the work of our national parliaments and governments. That is another side of the inefficiency that leads to the undermining of public and legal order on the European continent, because the national systems are not so efficient.

So we Europeans have such rights and should be proud of this unique system on which the European Court of Human Rights is built, but at the same time we should look for ways to improve the system. Our group supports the report because it gives a very good overview of what is inefficient at the national level. For a number of reasons – the lack of legislation and maladministration – governments do not fulfil the resolutions of the Assembly that require restitutio in integrum for the individuals in the respective cases.

The report is well balanced because the analysis is presented for countries that are old democracies or new democracies and for countries that have developed legal systems or those that are still in transition. On the basis of this report, we hope that in the near future national parliaments will put this issue top of their agenda and consider how their legal systems and judiciary and other institutions within their domestic governments are responsible for the fulfilment of such cases.

We really support the report because it increases the role of the Assembly and also says what the Committee of Ministers should do in order to improve the situation, as well as what the Assembly is supposed to do in future to control the activities of national parliaments and what the national parliaments should do in order to improve the situation and to make their citizens happier, especially those who apply to the European Court of Human Rights to get their rights restored when they are violated by their respective governments. So that is why I ask all our colleagues to join the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in supporting the report and the draft resolution and draft recommendation. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Holovaty. I call Mr Clappison, who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. May I begin by congratulating the Committee and particularly the rapporteur, Mr Jurgens, on their hard work? I wish to mention some UK issues, as some were mentioned by Mr Jurgens, because I am sure that my colleagues on the UK parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will be grateful for the way in which their hard work and commitment are recognised.

I think that this is a very good report, Mr President, subject to one reservation. Mr Jurgens did not mention this, but I am not sure that it is wise or proportionate to hold out the threat of suspension of national delegations in cases of non-compliance with Court judgments. This is a very serious matter, but I am not sure whether it is the right step to take. I think that it is better for important cases of non-compliance to be dealt with at a parliamentary level in the way that the rapporteur describes and also through the shaming of the governments concerned because of public opinion when it is drawn to people’s attention that there is a gap between the government’s supposed commitment to human rights and the way in which the judgments of the Court are being implemented.

Member states in non-compliance as found in this report need to reflect on their position, especially where the non-compliance involves important points of principle. As the rapporteur mentioned, that includes the United Kingdom, which features a great deal in the report, let it be said. Subject to two pieces of mitigation in its favour, I think that the UK Government needs to reflect seriously on its position and – dare I say it? – to do so in a spirit of self-criticism. After all, it was the UK Government that claimed credit for its record in incorporating the European Convention into UK law. Yet the Government finds itself in the position of being in a list of five countries in which unacceptable delays in implementation have arisen.

We find that UK is a member state with a long list of unimplemented judgments, as shown in appendix 1. However, to be fair, there are two important pieces of mitigation that we need to bear in mind. The first is the need to respect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in its British form and setting. I believe that the report is very fair about that and recognises it, and I believe that it is something that needs to be overriding. It is not a structural problem but something that is fundamental to the United Kingdom and to other countries, and that needs to be recognised.

The second piece of mitigation lies in the nature and effect of some of the judgments that have not been implemented. While it is invidious to be selective about human rights, I have to say that some of the Court’s findings in cases where there has not been implementation are not exactly fundamental to human rights. One of the unimplemented judgments concerns so-called binding-over orders in UK courts. Those orders are not as dramatic or interesting as they sound, and I think that it is fair to say that the issues involved are very small and theoretical and do not add a great deal of lustre to the reputation of the European Court in the United Kingdom. I would not think it appropriate to suspend the membership of the UK delegation, say, on the strength of non-compliance with something like that.

At the same time, however, another case of unimplemented judgments involves much more serious points and ties in with growing concern about the state of human rights in the UK and the rest of Europe. The rapporteur and the committee are absolutely right to highlight the importance of those points. We look to effective protection of them, especially the right to freedom of speech, which is under constant encroachment in the UK and throughout Europe. We want to protect them, and it is right that the committee should look carefully at cases of unimplemented judgments and put pressure on the governments to ensure that those human rights are effectively protected.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Clappison. I call Mr Gross, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – Thank you very much, Mr President. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I should like to praise Mr Jurgens’ work, for which I thank him, by linking this subject to the last one. We are not aware how revolutionary our institution is, and perhaps the revolutionary potential is shown not in the existence of the Court itself, but in how the issue can be addressed.

I am not sure whether today these 46 countries would have the power and the strength to allow every individual citizen to address the Court when they think that their courts at home do not respect human rights as they should. That is an extraordinary achievement, and we cannot support it by neglecting the implementation of the Court’s decisions. That is why Mr Jurgens’ work is so important. We should also understand that he considers not only governments and ministers but also us in his report. That is why it is also so important that he is able to show that, in Ukraine and Italy, our colleagues could make laws that help the governments to respect the Court’s judgments in their citizens’ favour.

When we praise this revolutionary invention of ours, which occurred 50 or 60 years ago, perhaps we could think about what it would mean today and what it would mean on a global level. That is the way that we respect and honour what our predecessors have done in globalising what we have in Europe – basic liberal human rights values – by enlarging the assessment of human rights in social and ecological ways.

As Mr Jurgens said, his whole career in this Assembly has been committed to the Court of Human Rights and to the implementation of its judgments, and we should be most grateful to him for that. We should be grateful to him and to Mr Schieder when we take these serious issues back home to the countries that are trying to create parliamentary settings to guarantee those implementations, as the Italians and the Ukrainians did. We should be grateful to Mr Jurgens for giving us the support to do this.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Bemelmans-Videc, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European Peoples’ Party.

Mrs BEMELMANS-VIDEC (Netherlands). – The 3rd Summit declaration calls for effective implementation by all member states in promoting the fundamental values central to the European Convention on Human Rights. In line with that call, this Parliamentary Assembly today is debating the sixth report by Mr Jurgens on the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Our group values this report as vital to the contribution that this Assembly seeks to make in maximising the effectiveness of the Court by its regular monitoring of the implementation of judgments, for the very reason stated: “non-compliance by member states undermines the very authority of the Court”. The Court is the essential pillar of the Council of Europe.

This is a thorough and balanced report, in relation to the choice and the presentation of countries and cases. Its quality underlines the need for member states actively and effectively to seek compliance with the Court’s judgments. That is a core business of the Council of Europe and a core business of this Assembly.

The draft resolution and draft recommendation call on member states to face structural deficiencies – including a lack of effective domestic mechanisms and procedures – and to respond to unacceptable delays. They urge the Committee of Ministers to increase by all available means its effectiveness as the statutory guarantor of the implementation of the Court’s judgments. Most notably, however, the report speaks to this Assembly itself, and to its members who, as members of national parliaments, are the prime movers in this field. National parliaments are urged to introduce specific mechanisms and procedures for effective parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the Court’s judgments on the basis of regular reports by the responsible governmental ministries. In other words, they are invited to set up systems to monitor progress.

The last paragraph recommends that the Committee of Ministers – and the Assembly’s own members in their national parliaments – “intensifies its pressure and to take more robust measures in case of continuous non-compliance with a judgment by a member state due to either refusal, negligence of incapacity to take appropriate measures.” Mr President, dear colleagues, our political group takes this recommendation to heart and will act upon it.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Our next speaker is Mr Kucheida. He is not present. After that we have Mr Frunda, who also does not seem to be with us. I therefore call Mrs Graf.

Mrs GRAF (Germany) said that the European Court of Human Rights was the core of the human rights system in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights provided credibility for human rights enforcement in Europe. As such, enforcement was a very important issue. She praised the report, which was detailed, objective and provided a good foundation. The report highlighted serious shortcomings in five countries: Italy, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. She appealed to UK colleagues to address the issue of corporal punishment. She stressed the importance of upholding the rights of children. She argued that the right of freedom of opinion was not being upheld as it should be in Turkey. However, Turkey had made progress which should be recognised.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Pourgourides.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – Erik Jurgens, although a socialist, has the ability to approach difficult issues in a pragmatic and down-to-earth manner. As a result, he manages to produce reports with which few can disagree. This is an important report. The rapporteur, an experienced member of the Assembly, has watched the workings of the Committee of Ministers carefully over the years, and has come to the correct conclusion that the Committee of Ministers was unable – for very good reasons – to take the necessary steps to force member states to implement the Court’s judgments speedily and fully. As a constitutional lawyer, he knows perfectly well that the authority of the Court depends on the effective execution of its judgment by member states. He has therefore proposed some new approaches. Perhaps the most important of these is the idea of involving the national delegations and, through them, the national parliaments in the efforts to have the Court’s judgment speedily implemented.

In countries with longstanding issues of non-compliance with the Strasbourg Court’s judgments, it is the duty of national parliaments to put pressure on their governments to implement the Court’s judgments fully and speedily, and it is the duty of national delegations to place specific proposals before their national parliaments. If they fail to do so, the Assembly should consider using Rule 8 of its Rules of Procedure – suspension of the right of the national delegations in question to be represented in the Assembly. It could be a most effective tool in the important and noble task of ensuring that the Court’s judgments are implemented fully and speedily.

      I believe that that should be applied to the case of Turkey – not only in regard to substantial and longstanding instances of non-compliance with many requirements involving, inter alia, freedom of expression and fair trial, but in regard to non-compliance over missing persons in Cyprus, an issue whose resolution is long overdue, the rights of enclaved Greek Cypriots in the occupied part of Cyprus and the property rights of tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots.

The Court’s judgments on those issues should be implemented without further delay. Their implementation is a duty that has nothing to do with the solution of the Cyprus problem, which must not be used as a pretext for not implementing the Court’s judgments. Allowing that to happen constitutes a complete undermining of the Court’s authority.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) thanked Mr Jurgens for his very objective report. It was a successful attempt to analyse the situation that existed in all countries and the only appropriate approach for the Assembly to take. The report leveled well-founded criticisms at a number of countries, including the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation recognised the key role played by the European Court in guaranteeing human rights. The Russian Federation Parliament had adopted strict protocols for the implementation of Article 14, and although the government of the Russian Federation had caused some delays, it was hoped these would be resolved when the measure reached the Parliament. However, he stressed that the Russian Federation was not in a position to interfere in the law of another sovereign state.

He wished to draw the attention of members to recent signs of politicalisation of the activities of the European Court. The Court had ruled that the limitation of the human rights of members of elected bodies was intolerable, but in some countries – for example, Latvia – it was accepted. Such inappropriate political decisions were unacceptable.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Damanaki.

Mrs DAMANAKI (Greece). – We all agree that the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is crucial to the credibility of the Court and the future of the institution. I strongly believe that full and complete execution of the Court’s judgments should be one of our main priorities, especially during this transitional period when a whole reform process is taking place. It is important for the Court’s decisions not to be associated with any kind of reservations or political conditions; otherwise the Court’s credibility will be irrevocably damaged. That is why we support the Council of Europe’s endeavours to confront the enormous problem of the Court’s ever-growing work load over the past few years.

Mr Jurgens’s report describes the reality of our countries in a very serious and realistic way. It underlines the problems related to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the difficulties that we must face to improve the situation. The problems that it describes in my country, Greece, really exist. There is a delay in the implementation of judgments which creates a series of problems such as overcrowded prisons and detention facilities. Of course the situation in Greek prisons is better than that in neighbouring countries, but we can and must do more.

Last year our parliament voted for a law that envisages beneficial measures for persons sentenced as a result of misdemeanours, so that they can leave prison under better conditions. Thanks to the implementation of that law, 400 prisoners were discharged in 2005. Moreover, 765 prisoners benefited from alternative penalties in the field of social work. Last June we inaugurated a new detention facility for 400 prisoners, and two more detention facilities are to be constructed next year.

What we really have to do, however, is take measures ensuring the quick implementation of the Court’s decisions. That is our main problem. There is a strong need to simplify the procedures for effective execution of judgments, and to create a mechanism that will allow the delivery of just satisfaction to the citizens affected by the delays. We hope that the government will accelerate the implementation of all the necessary measures to improve the position. In any event, I believe that implementation of the European Court’s judgments is of crucial importance and that we must protect the institution in the way that it deserves.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Grebennikov.

Mr GREBENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the report highlighted many significant issues, although some time was needed to discuss other matters. The shortcomings of the Russian legal system could not be ignored, but the legacy should also not be forgotten. The Russian Federation could not influence those countries that were now independent, such as Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic states. The report and recommendations should state more clearly that the Russian Federation could have an impact only in some situations. The Council of Europe could not act as a steamroller for human rights. It should take account of the Russian Federation’s aspiration to move away from hegemonies despite opposing pressures.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Sobko. He is not here.

I call Mrs Kanelli. She is not here either.

      That concludes the list of speakers.

      I call Mr Jurgens, the rapporteur, to reply. He has four minutes.

Mr JURGENS (Netherlands). – I can well understand the emotional appeal by Mr Grebennikov. I am from a country that took 400 years – from 1568 – to become a democracy. I appreciate what the Russian Federation has gone through since 1990 to join the Council of Europe. All of us understand that we must look at the situation of the country concerned before we criticise.

At the same time, we cannot have two methods of implementing the decisions of the Court. As Mr Pourgourides said, we cannot say that we must first solve the difficult political situation, as in Cyprus, and then implement the decision of the Court. However, we must realise that in some countries it is more difficult to implement decisions than in others. The Court itself often recognises that situation when making its decisions.

I agree that sometimes the Council of Europe takes on the role of inquisitor and goes into a country to tell people what to do. But this Assembly tries to work with colleagues from national parliaments to solve problems. Sometimes we say to colleagues such as Mr Grebennikov and Mr Kosachev that their country could do better, but we say it in a comradely way, to fellow members of the Assembly. We should not be as arrogant as the European Union can appear to be towards candidates for membership, and I say that as a representative of a European Union member state. The European Union’s tone can be unacceptable, even to me. One of the reasons why my parliament would object to funding a fundamental human rights agency is that the European Union shows that same arrogance towards the Council of Europe, which already does that work very well.

I note that Mr Holovaty is back among us, and we applaud that. I saw him in his full glory in Kiev as Minister of Justice, and now he is in even higher glory as a Member of Parliament and of the Assembly. I am grateful for the assistance that I have been given. Mr Gross, Mrs Bemelmans-Videc and Mrs Graf all stressed the importance of applying the report structurally. If the report is accepted, we should send it to the justice committees of all the parliaments and ask them to set up a monitoring mechanism, like the UK has done, if they do not have one already, to monitor the implementation of the decisions of the Court.

On the points made about the Ilaşcu decision, if there is criticism of the decisions of the Court, it should be possible to discuss the decisions moderately, as we usually do here. We should consult the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, because such criticisms should be addressed and not left open. I agree with Mr Clappison that we should be very careful about using the ultimate remedy – removing the credentials of a delegation – and do so only in the last instance, when a country is being very obstreperous.

I am grateful for all the support from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the secretariat on my report and the report by Mr Marty. The Secretariat has worked very hard and I thank everyone for their help in this matter.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

I call Mr Marty. He has two minutes.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) thanked the President and colleagues. The committee had adopted the report unanimously: it was a fundamentally important report which called for all bodies to come together to ensure the enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court was the Council of Europe’s most important achievement in human rights. Members were in the process of building a common heritage of values. He asked them to adopt the draft resolution and draft recommendation.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Marty.

      The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled, and a draft recommendation.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

      We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Valery Grebennikov, Mr Gadzhy Makhachev, Mrs Svetlana Smirnova, Mrs Vera Oskina, Mr Leonid Slutsky, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov and Mr Sergey Sobko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11.2, delete the words ", a contention which cannot be taken seriously".

      I call Mr Grebennikov to support Amendment No. 1

      Mr GREBENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that the words demonstrated a hegemonic attitude and was disrespectful to a Council of Europe member state.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Frunda to speak against the amendment.

      Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – First, may I apologise to Eric and to other colleagues for being a little late to take the floor? I congratulate Eric on his work. I am speaking against the amendment because it is obvious to everyone that in this case the Russian Federation has great power and influence on the Transnistrian authorities.

      THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MARTY (Switzerland). – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 11020.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document in 11020 is adopted, with 55 votes for, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 11020.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 11020 is adopted, with 58 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

      My congratulations go to Mr Jurgens on this important work, which, as has been pointed out, is core business of our Assembly.

15. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which were approved earlier.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Resumption of the 2006 Ordinary Session

2.       Opening statement by the President

3.       Voting cards and the register of attendance

4.       Examination of credentials

5.       Election of Vice-Presidents

6.       Changes in the membership of committees (Doc. Commissions (2006) 6)

7.       Requests for urgent procedure and current affairs debates

8.       Adoption of the order of business

9.       Time limit on speeches

10.       Organisation of debates

11.       Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly

      Speakers

      Presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of report (Doc. 11036, Parts 1 and 2 and addenda)

      Presentation by Mr de Puig of the observation of the parliamentary and presidential elections in Mexico (Doc. 11016 and addendum)

      Presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of the observation of the parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macdeonia” (Doc. 11015)

      Presentation by Mr Gardetto of the observation of the parliamentary elections in the Republic of Montenegro (Doc. 11037)

      Speakers

      Mr Frunda (Romania)

Mrs Nakashidzé (Georgia)

Mr Sobko (Russian Federation)

Mrs Durrieu (France)

Mr Islami (Albania)

      Replies

      Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

      Mr de Puig (Spain)

      Mr Gardetto (Monaco)

      Mr Gross (Switzerland)

12.       Address by Mr Ivo Sanader, Prime Minister of Croatia

      Questions

      Mr Evans (United Kingdom)

      Mr Proroković (Serbia)

      Mr Fassino (Italy)

13.       The institutional balance at the Council of Europe

      Presentation by Mr Schieder of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities (Doc. 11017)

      Presentation by Mr Ateş of the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 11038)

      Speakers

      Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

Mr Mooney (Ireland)

      Mr Greenway (United Kingdom)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr de Puig (Spain)

      Mr Manzella (Italy)

      Mrs Bemelmans-Videc (Netherlands)

      Mr Branger (France)

      Mr Grebennikov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

      Replies

      Mr Schieder (Austria)

      Mr Ateş (Turkey)

      Mr Gross (Switzerland)

      Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 6 and 4 agreed to.

      Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted.

14.        Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

      Presentation by Mr Jurgens of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Doc. 11020)

      Speakers

      Mr Holovaty (Ukraine)

      Mr Clappison (United Kingdom)

      Mr Gross (Switzerland)

      Mrs Bemelmans-Videc (Netherlands)

      Mrs Graf (Germany)

      Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus)

      Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

      Mrs Damanaki (Greece)

      Mr Grevennikov (Russian Federation)

      Replies

      Mr Jurgens (Netherlands)

      Mr Marty (Switzerland)

Draft resolution adopted.

      Draft recommendation adopted.

15.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting