2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twentieth Sitting

Monday 23 June at 3 p.m.

ADDENDUM 1

Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly

Answers to parliamentary questions

“Question No. 1 asked by Mr Bender,

      At least one child is killed every second as a result of a process known as abortion. The Holy See has recently called for a moratorium on abortion. Such a moratorium on the death penalty for convicted criminals was widely accepted several years ago. Wouldn't a moratorium on killing innocent children be much more important.

      To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

Whether he will support a moratorium on abortion in the Council of Europe in order to protect innocent human life.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

I think it is clear that all member states agree with Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1607 (2008) which states that “abortion can in no circumstances be regarded as a family planning method and must, as far as possible, be avoided”. All possible means compatible with women’s rights must be used to reduce the number of both unwanted pregnancies and abortions, as well as the continued high rates of maternal mortality.

“Question No. 2 asked by Mr Iwiński,

      To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

If the Council of Europe, bearing in mind the related environmental challenge, intends to comment on the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

The plans for constructing the NordStream gas pipeline is not an item on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers.

However, I would like to make the following comments in a national capacity: Nord Stream is a unique project for the Baltic Sea area because of its magnitude and possible impact. Sweden is fully aware of the significance of this project from many aspects and the different views expressed. The environmental impact of the pipeline must be thoroughly examined.

Within the context of the Espoo Convention, all Baltic Sea States have co-operated for almost two years on how to fulfil their obligations concerning this project. This co-operation continues and we hope that we and the other permitting countries will reach an understanding on the quality of the overall environmental impact assessment for the entire project.

“Question No. 3 asked by Mr Badré,

In keeping with the conclusions of the Warsaw Summit, the Swedish Chairmanship plans to turn the focus back onto the Council of Europe's fundamental tasks and hence to strengthen the system for protecting human rights which it put in place.

The Council of Europe is, however, still somewhat powerless in the face of the difficulties the European Court of Human Rights is encountering in processing applications within a reasonable time. There are currently 100 000 applications pending and the number of applications has been growing by 5% per year.

The way out of this deadlock lies in Protocol No. 14, which has been ratified by 46 of the 47 member states. While the Swedish Chairmanship clearly intends to address the problem, I am somewhat sceptical about the measures it plans. The colloquy which was held no more than two weeks ago and the good practices which are expected to follow on from this cannot provide an effective remedy.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

If the Chairmanship plans to hold a proper discussion in the Committee of Ministers on this subject, and intends to propose arrangements for the partial application of Protocol No. 14 if Russia continues to refuse to ratify it.”

“Question No. 16 asked by Mrs Däubler-Gmelin,

With a view to the Swedish Chairmanship's intention to focus on the ‘implementation of human rights’,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

Which chances he sees for promoting the entry into force of additional protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights and which measures he plans to take in order to strengthen two central institutions of the Council of Europe: the European Court on Human Rights and the Commissioner for Human Rights.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights is a key measure for safeguarding the Court’s future effectiveness. On several occasions, the Committee of Ministers have discussed the prospects of the Protocol entering into force.

But the Protocol is not the only measure available to us. Adapting the European Court to the circumstances – the essential purpose of Protocol No. 14 – is just one element of the equation.

In parallel to the awaited entry into force of Protocol No. 14, the Swedish Chairmanship will be laying before the Committee of Ministers proposals designed to give further impetus to national measures which would reduce pressure on the Court.

I will not comment on the possible partial implementation of the Protocol: full implementation remains our target. Partial implementation would raise complex issues. The forthcoming proposals by the Swedish Chairmanship do not aim to substitute for the Protocol but to complement it.

I agree that the Commissioner has become a central institution in this Organisation. I have viewed with satisfaction the development in the resources at his disposal in the light of the importance of his role.

I believe that the Commissioner knows very well how to strengthen his own activity in the framework of the independence which his mandate confers upon him. The most important contribution the Committee of Ministers can make in this respect, in collaboration with the Parliamentary Assembly, is to ensure that we continue to elect Commissioners of the stature of Alvaro Gil-Robles and Thomas Hammarberg.

“Question No. 4 asked by Mr Branger,

      On 22 January 2008, the Slovakian Chairmanship stated before this Assembly that the Council of Europe wished to be involved in future in the framing of the European Union’s European neighbourhood policy.

      Some of the countries concerned by this policy, such as Belarus and the Maghreb and Mashreq countries, are already the focus of special attention from the Council, including regular exchanges on the local human rights situation.

      Our negotiating partners in these countries acknowledge the Council of Europe’s expertise and legitimacy in this field, which may also be of some considerable use to the European Union in the course of its work. The report on the implementation of the neighbourhood policy in 2007, presented by the European Commission on 2 April 2008, reflects the Commission’s growing concern about the state of civil liberties in the countries concerned. Increased complementarity with the Council of Europe would also be in keeping with the Juncker report.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

If the Committee of Ministers has established initial contacts with the European Commission with a view to putting this partnership into practice and, if it goes ahead, how it will be arranged.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

The question of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in the countries participating in the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy is indeed very important. I would like to recall that the Memorandum of Understanding concluded with the European Union last year states that the two organisations “will increase their common efforts towards enhanced pan-European relations, including further co-operation in [these] countries.”

Concrete steps have now been taken to give effect to this commitment. No less than five new European Union/Council of Europe Joint Programmes of co-operation to be implemented in the 5 Council of Europe member States beneficiary of the ENP - i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine in 2008 and 2009 - were signed last December to a total amount of 4 million euros. These programmes cover such important questions as support to the holding of free and fair elections, the promotion of freedom of the media or the setting-up of an active network of independent non-judicial human rights structures.

A meeting was organised early this year by the Council of Europe and the European Commission to review co-operation with delegations from the above countries and discuss prospects for further initiatives.

Regular exchanges also take place between the two organisations at the level of both headquarters and field missions in order to share their evaluation of the situation in the respective countries and work out joint activities.

Turning to the future, discussions are at present under way with the European Commission regarding the possible conclusion of new Joint Programmes in the countries participating in the ENP or the Enlargement process. I sincerely hope that these negotiations will come to a successful conclusion.

It is indeed in the interest of both organisations to pool their resources and expertise in order to strengthen democratic stability in Europe.

“Question No. 5 asked by Mr Vareikis,

More than ten years ago you said that the Baltic States are the litmus test for the West: it is the test that shows how much Western societies are ready to accept the Baltic States, recently occupied by Soviet Union, as part of the Euro-Atlantic community. It seems that the Baltic litmus test was positive.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

      What region is, according to your understanding, the litmus test now: Ukraine, the South Caucasus, the Western Balkans, Turkey.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

My statement ten years ago about the Baltic States being the litmus test for the West was made at a different moment and in a different context. Obviously, the situation has dramatically changed since then.

All the countries mentioned by Mr Vareikis are members of the Council of Europe and, thanks to the assistance provided by the Organisation, have made considerable progress regarding the core values of our Organisation.. This is also useful for further progress in European integration, which Sweden supports. However, as I stressed in my address, there remain important questions concerning the realisation of the Council of Europe core values human rights, democracy and the rule of law, not least in some of these countries as well as others. This could perhaps be seen as the litmus test, if you like.

“Question No. 6 asked by Mr Reimann,

      At an official meeting between the German and Swiss Ministries of Foreign Affairs on 6 June 2008, the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Micheline Calmy Rey, called for more direct democracy in Europe. Her idea is to enhance the public’s feeling of involvement in politics, particularly European politics, by, for example, holding regular referendums.

      To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

If the Committee of Ministers would be prepared to support a move to enhance certain aspects of direct democracy.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

Constitutional requirements and traditions are widely different in member states. In a number of Council of Europe member states, such as Switzerland, referendums are an instrument for direct democracy that has a long-standing political tradition. In others, this form of participation of citizens in the decision-making is a more recent phenomenon. In yet some other member states referendums are not provided for in the constitution.

The Committee of Ministers considers that referendums can be a way of promoting citizen participation in politics. I would like to recall that this autumn’s Madrid Session of the Forum for the Future of Democracy will have e-democracy as its main theme and that e-referendums is an issue that is likely to be discussed in that context.

The Committee of Ministers welcomes the recent preparation by the Venice Commission of a code of good practice on referendums. Together with the Code of Good Practice on Electoral Matters, it offers member states very useful reference points for holding free and democratic ballots in accordance with the values of the Council of Europe.

The Swedish Parliament will decide on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. This has been the normal procedure in Sweden for changes in EU treaties.

“Question No. 7 asked by Mrs Fiala,

In Sweden, all the major political parties have expressed their support for Turkish membership of the European Union.

However, it would seem that the more moderate sections of Islam in Turkey are growing weaker and one of the main effects of this has been a slow-down in progress towards gender equality.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What steps he plans to take to support the development in Turkey of a European version of Islam.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

The common values and standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law enshrined in the Council of Europe Statute apply to all member states. The work of the Council of Europe is centred on promoting them and ensuring that they are complied with, striving constantly to create conditions conducive to achieving these goals for the benefit of all Europeans. Freedom of religion is a human right, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, this right is not without boundaries, full respect for human rights often means that a balance has to be found between different rights, for which the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court for Human Rights provide the standards. This said, it is not for the Committee of Ministers to have views on the development of specific religions in Turkey, or any other country.

Co-operation between Turkey and the Council of Europe is a crucially important part of this process. The Swedish Chairmanship would be glad to see it intensify still further and, in this connection, I welcome the particularly active role that Turkey plays within the Council of Europe.

Generally speaking, the Council of Europe’s values and standards offer Turkey an excellent starting point from which to progress towards membership of the European Union, as they are very close to the Copenhagen criteria.

As a country negotiating accession to the European Union, Turkey has to meet the political criteria set down by the Copenhagen European Council. In this regard the accession process remains a decisive driving force behind further reforms in Turkey. The pace of the accession to the European Union is subjected to the pace of reforms.

The Negotiating Framework expects Turkey to sustain the process of reform and to work towards further improvement in the respect of the principles of liberty, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I strongly hope to see the renewed commitment by the Turkish Government to continue the reform process and address the existing shortcomings by translating their undertakings into real and tangible action.

“Question No. 8 asked by Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What action he will take to ensure that all political parties in Armenia have an opportunity to operate freely and to ensure that democracy and human rights are upheld in Armenia.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

I know that Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin closely follows the situation in Armenia, as she was one of the members of your Assembly who monitored the last presidential election in this country.

It is indeed important that the commitment undertaken by Armenia regarding democracy and respect for human rights is fully respected. Through its Ago Group, the Committee of Ministers, like your Assembly, has closely followed, with concern, the events which took place in Armenia on 1 March and after.

During a visit to Yerevan at the beginning of April, the Ago Group had the opportunity to underline with the Armenian authorities the importance of returning to the normal course of democracy and ensuring that the rights of all citizens are fully respected. This concerns in particular the right to express one’s opinion freely and demonstrate peacefully.

It is essential that steps are taken in the political arena to give the opposition a greater role in public affairs and that genuine dialogue is established between all political forces. Otherwise, the current tensions will continue and public confidence in the institutions will not be re-established.

Some steps have already been taken in this direction. I have in mind for example the recent revision of the law on rallies with the assistance of the Venice Commission. It will be important to ensure that, in the day-to-day application of the law, Armenian citizens can indeed fully exercise their right to peaceful assembly.

On the other hand, there are unfortunately other areas where progress is still urgently needed. This concerns in particular the release of those who were arrested after the 1 March events in connection with their political activities, as well as the launching of a thorough and independent investigation into these tragic events. I strongly hope that decisive steps will soon be taken on these matters too.

      “Question No. 9 asked by Mr Pozzo di Borgo,Co

Convergence between the Council of Europe and the European Union has been frequently evoked, particularly since the Juncker report of April 2006.

The European Council of 14 December 2007 decided, at France’s instigation, to set up a discussion group charged with planning for the European Union’s future between 2020 and 2030.

The group will be chaired by the former head of the Spanish Government, Mr Felipe González, and its final composition should be known during the French Presidency of the Union, which starts in a few days.

Among the subjects which it should address is the question of the rule of law, which is one of the Council of Europe's core areas of expertise.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

If he plans to involve the Council of Europe and, in particular, the Assembly in the work of the discussion group, and what measures would be taken to ensure that there are contacts between the two institutions in this connection.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

      The initiative launched by the European Council is indeed worth mentioning. The future of the European Union raises many questions on which to reflect, including the rule of law. It is true that in this field, as in many others, the Council of Europe - of which all European Union countries are members - has gained substantial experience and expertise. The more than 200 European Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe constitute the common European acquis on all aspects of the functioning of democratic societies based on the rule of law and the promotion of human rights.

They constitute the common basis for further action by the European Union. In this context, I should recall that the recently concluded Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union recognises that the Council of Europe and its European Convention on Human Rights constitute the common reference in terms of human rights.

In general terms there is agreement between the Council of Europe and the EU on this. Our main task now is to implement what we have agreed about. The important thing is to go from sounds to things, and to start working on the numerous tasks we have in common without being bogged down in new discussions on principles and formal arrangements.

I believe that the next Quadripartite meeting between the Council of Europe and the European Union will give an opportunity to raise the question posed by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

“Question No. 10 asked by Mrs Ojuland,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

In order to avoid double standards, why does the Committee of Ministers not monitor the honouring of obligations and commitments taken by member states upon accession.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

      It is not correct to say that the Committee of Ministers does not monitor the honouring of obligations and commitments undertaken by member states upon accession.

Firstly, as an organ responsible for supervising the execution of judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers verifies that member States comply with the obligations imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee attaches utmost importance to this and is particularly vigilant to ensure that the Court’s judgments are fully executed.

There are other mechanisms through which the Committee of Ministers monitors the fulfilment by member States of the commitments they have taken when acceding to certain Conventions, in particular at the time of their accession: for example the resolutions adopted by the Committee regarding the implementation of the Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities by those States which have adhered to the Convention. Again, the Committee of Ministers performs this function with the greatest care.

Thirdly, some member States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and Serbia) are still the subject of specific monitoring procedures within the Committee of Ministers. Progress made by those countries in the fulfilment of their commitments is the focus of regular comprehensive reports on the basis of which the Committee can address to them some specific recommendations. And indeed the Committee frequently does so.

Finally, when issues of political importance touch upon the commitments undertaken by member States, they can be raised - and indeed are frequently discussed within the Committee of Ministers. Often, questions and recommendations sent by the Parliamentary Assembly offer an opportunity to address such questions. I have in mind, for example, questions concerning the organisation of free and fair elections, which is clearly linked to the commitments undertaken by member States.

I hope these clarifications will reassure the Honourable Parliamentarian about the Committee of Ministers’ determination to ensure full respect by all member States of their commitments.

“Question No. 11 asked by Mr Matušić,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What is his opinion of the results of the referendum held in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty and on the prospects of the EU enlargement in that context.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

Of course I deeply deplore the outcome of the referendum. However, it is clear that the decision by the Irish voters must be respected.

The Taoiseach has made it equally clear that Ireland will respect other member states' right to decide their position. The ratification will continue in other member states, as it will in Sweden.

In the meantime work must go on as usual, even if the ratification issue will take time and energy that could have been used for other purposes. There is no reason way the Irish referendum should affect the further enlargement of the EU. In fact, the three incoming presidencies France, Czech Republic and Sweden have agreed on an 18-months joint work program where continued enlargement negotiations with, inter alia, Croatia and Turkey have a prominent place.

I strongly support the enlargement of the EU with countries which share the common values and are ready for accession. This requires strong commitment and thorough preparations. The EU is providing comprehensive assistance but also monitors developments carefully. For some countries progress is rather fast, for others the steps will follow in somewhat slower pace.

We will have to use the time before of us to think of how we can find a way to handle the situation. This is not least home work for our Irish friends. The European Council last week, at which I took part, analysed the situation. This is of course complex. However, the EU has met many difficulties earlier, and managed to find solutions that enabled the Union to make further progress. I am confident that this will be the case also this time, with full respect of decisions of Ireland. In this way, the enlargement process will continue on the basis of policy decisions already taken. Sweden will of course support such developments in all possible ways.

“Question No. 12 asked by Mr Zelenskiy,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

How will the Committee of Ministers implement the recommendation made by the Assembly in its Resolution 1612 (2008) on Chemical munitions buried in the Baltic Sea ‘to urge the United Kingdom and United States governments and NATO to declassify immediately military information on the location of all chemical munitions dumping sites present in the Baltic Sea’.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

      The Honourable Member refers to Resolution 1612. The Assembly had rightly addressed it to the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as to NATO, and not to the Committee of Ministers. In fact, since the Statute of the Council of Europe excludes defence matters from its remit, the Committee of Ministers would be unable to answer questions related to the classification of military information.

Having said that, I would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Open Partial Agreement on Major Hazards (EUR-OPA) is particularly competent in evaluating the risks for civil populations of hazardous activities and events, and to propose measures to protect against such risks.

“Question No. 13 asked by Mr Kosachev,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What measures will the Swedish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers take to make use of the Council of Europe potential in order to stabilise the situation in Kosovo on the basis of Resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

As I mentioned in my speech, Sweden decided together with the former Slovak Chair of the Committee of Ministers, and after consultation with all member states, to discuss the future role of the Council of Europe in South-East Europe at the Ministerial Session held in May. We discussed further steps the Council of Europe should take to consolidate the progress made in that region so far. The Kosovo issue was of course addressed and I can reaffirm again that there is a broad consensus among member states that the Council of Europe should continue its most valuable work in promoting democratic institution-building, human rights and the rule of law in Kosovo. This quite independently of disagreements on the future status of Kosovo.

The most appropriate way to carry on can to be found within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. As Chair of the Committee of Ministers, but also in its national capacity, Sweden will push for such action. I am confident that in the spirit of our discussion during the Ministerial Session, the governments of all member states will support concrete decisions on future Council of Europe action in the region.

Operational solutions should be found to improve the Council of Europe’s capacity to work effectively with the relevant partners in Kosovo, taking also account of the current reconfiguration process of the United Nations Mission and the international civilian presence in Kosovo.

Particular attention should be paid in the near future to ensuring the real effect in Kosovo of Council of Europe standards and substantive norms in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as in relation to reform of the education system and the protection of all cultural heritage in Kosovo.

“Question No. 14 asked by Mr Tulaev,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What is the opinion of the Swedish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers with regard to the relations between the EU and Kaliningrad.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

      Sweden sees the enlargement of the European Union as an important contribution to democratic development and stability in Europe. The accession of ten countries in 2004 to the European was a milestone in that respect. The results are also very positive.

The situation of the Kaliningrad region was given great attention during the accession negotiations, and a number of specific measures emerged in consultation with the Russian Federation. The transit arrangements were of particular importance. The solutions found are working well.

The EU is co-operating with Kaliningrad since the early 1990s. For 2007-2013 Kaliningrad and neighbouring regions of Lithuania and Poland will benefit from a €132 million cross border co-operation programme that brings them together. Kaliningrad will also continue to remain a special priority in the national programme for Russia under the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument. I can add that also Sweden’s bilateral co-operation with the Russian Federation has a special focus on Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad is now one of the fastest growing regions of Russia not at least due to its unique position after the 2004 EU enlargement which has created significant opportunities.

“Question No. 15 asked by Mrs Nakashidzé,

The Council of Europe has done much to promote freedom and respect for human rights across the continent. Thanks in large part to its work, today there are very few areas left in Europe where injustice and contempt for basic rights rule exist. Georgia's province of Abkhazia is one of the few exceptions where hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons are deprived of the right to return to their homes and their property is sold in clear contempt of basic property rights and international law. Russia is clearly preparing to annex the territory and is raising tensions by deploying illegal military units and building military infrastructure in Abkhazia, in violation of its commitments to the Council of Europe.

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What would you propose that the Council of Europe should do to encourage dialogue between Georgians and Abkhaz, and to encourage Russia to become a partner for peace so as to promote true security in the region.”

Reply by Mr Carl Bildt, on behalf of the Committee of Ministers:

      It is indeed important to ensure that the Council of Europe principles and standards concerning respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law are also fully respected in this part of Georgia. There cannot be any “black hole” on the territory of any Council of Europe member states when it comes to such fundamental values. The question of the return of IDPs to their homes and the restitution of their property is particularly important in this context.

It is essential that all parties concerned demonstrate a genuine effort to reach a peaceful solution allowing for the settlement of the current situation in Abkhazia. This implies that they refrain from any statements or acts that may lead to an escalation of tensions. The Russian Federation has a key role to play in this process. Its repeated public stand in favour of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia must be accompanied by acts which confirm this.

As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I am willing to make any contribution which can help this process.