AS (2013) CR 08

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Eighth sitting

Thursday 24 January 2013 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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 report.

Mr Boden, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.30 p.m.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Urgent debate: recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region

THE PRESIDENT* – First this afternoon is the resumed debate under urgent procedure on the report “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean”, Document 13107, presented by Ms Woldseth on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. We will continue with the list of speakers. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

In order to hear from Mr Füle at around 4.15 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at approximately 3.45 p.m., to allow time for the replies and votes.

Is this agreed?

It is agreed.

In the debate I call next Mr Bockel.

Mr BOCKEL (France)* – Let me acknowledge the work of our committee and the opinion it has produced. We were right to place the issue of Islamic terrorism in the Sahel on the agenda of our Assembly, because, as Angela Merkel said last week, terrorism in Mali is a menace not only for Africa but for Europe.

Belgium, Denmark, Italy and the United Kingdom quickly announced their help in bringing a logistical solution to French troops, who have been helped to intervene and respond to a situation of extreme urgency and danger for the Malian population.

This military engagement above all is an engagement for France, in defending democracy, liberty and the law in the struggle against fundamentalism. I repeat: this combat is justified in as much as AQIM embodies all that our Organisation despises. Let us remember how this network is financed: the trafficking of drugs, arms and immigrants, and the taking of hostages.

Given that analysis, one must question the role of the European Union, which could be more active. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy could, for example, mobilise the European Council on this matter – not only from the technical perspective, but the political one. That would create political credibility for the European Union.

This intervention would be better if there were true political support for the military action. It is necessary to hold a big international conference on this matter.

This morning I was at the Committee of Defence and Foreign Affairs at the French Senate, where we had a closed briefing from our minister, Mr Le Drian. We considered some very specific questions. Malian and African forces are in the process of arriving and one of our worries concerns the training of these soldiers, both militarily and in respect of the matters that concern our Assembly – human rights. We have to ensure that those soldiers on the ground are properly trained, so outrages will not happen again – it is not acceptable in any way.

I thank the Assembly for taking up this matter. Believe me, for France and those on the ground the debates this afternoon and this morning are so important.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Salles.

Mr SALLES (France)* – The Malian situation has been worrying for some months now. In a decaying State, heavily armed Islamist terrorists have taken control of the north of the country, particularly the city of Timbuktu, without any other State intervening. United Nations Resolution 2085, adopted in December 2012, allowed for the deployment of an African-led international support mission to Mali. However, given the imminent threat, the transitional government in Mali made a cry for help for France to intervene. This is how our country leapt into this operation, so as to protect the south of Mali and drive back the terrorists who were controlling the north.

Since then, everybody has been able to follow the chain of events in the media. Everybody will understand that we are in an emergency situation, which did not allow us immediately to set up an international force. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the fight against terrorism in the region, which goes way beyond the frontiers of Mali and spreads to the whole of the Sahel, will not be a short-term event. It will be long, drawn-out combat and international co-operation, bringing in the African countries as well, is vital.

Mali is in the forefront of a fight against terrorism and faces the most dangerous forms of trafficking, affecting human rights, democracy and even the stability of the whole of the Mediterranean region. In fact, that country has become the hub of terrorist movements that are coalescing from all over the world. This is why I support the report that has been presented by our colleague, Ms Woldseth, whom I congratulate.

It is vital at this early stage to call, as soon as possible, for the setting up of an international force in the region to back up and support the actions initiated by France. It is also so important to help Mali to rebuild its democratic institutions. I share the rapporteur’s concern to see Mali draw up a transition road map regarding the framework of open political dialogue. The constitutional order and unity of the country is at stake. The international community must play a part and has a responsibility in this regard, and it must ensure the upholding of human rights in the region.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Loncle.

Mr LONCLE (France)* – In addition to the report of our excellent Norwegian colleague and the resolution that is before us today, I would like to make four comments on the question of security in the Sahel.

First, the measures taken by France at the request of the Malian authorities, supported by the European Union, the United States, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States, and validated by the UN, are both legal and legitimate. This activity involves three different thrusts: the security thrust, to combat AQIM and to allow Mali to rediscover its integrity; the political thrust for necessary dialogue with the political forces in the north, excluding terrorist groups, for stabilisation of Malian governments, with a road map that will lead to the organisation of presidential and legislative elections as soon as possible in a secure environment; and an economic development thrust, which has been piloted by the European Union, so that we can combat poverty, which can also be a breeding ground for terrorism.

      Secondly, on a semantic point, this is not a crusade against terrorism, but a determined fight against the barbaric behaviour of jihadist narco-Salafist gangsters who are kidnapping and terrorising the northern population, particularly the women. The recent terrible raid on the gas plant in southern Algeria bears witness to that.

Thirdly, the international community – we the democracies – must remember that NATO intervention in Libya, led by France and Britain, a few months ago was conducted and concluded without the powers realising the knock-on effects. The result was considerable disorder in the vast region of the Sahel, vast population movements, pillaging, arms trafficking and the multiplying of terrorist groups.

Fourthly, I wish to quote the President of the African Union – representing 54 countries – the President of Benin, in a letter to President François Hollande of France that was published yesterday. It had always been his conviction, he wrote, that it was not just an African matter and that although the theatre happened to be African, it was a problem for the entire international community, because it was about terrorism. Terrorism knew no frontiers, he wrote, which was why it required an international response and called upon the forces of the best-equipped countries. He also wrote that the blood split by French citizens in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights would go down in the annals of relations between France and Africa.

That is why I am proud to support our policy, the motives for which I have tried to explain.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I wish to support our rapporteur, the author of this timely and important report on an urgent matter. One is tempted to believe that these events are occurring in countries far removed from our own, but in fact this is Europe’s backyard. These countries are close to Spain. Norway is further from Spain than the countries concerned, but it concerns the whole of Europe.

We cannot afford to show weakness in the fight against terrorism, which is one of the scourges of the modern world, certainly in Europe. Madrid has been affected by Islamist terrorism, as have London and other cities and countries in Europe. It is happening not far from here, but in our own countries – or very close to them – so it is important that we step up co-operation with the security and defence forces in countries such as Algeria and Morocco. That co-operation is necessary to combat not only terrorism, but drug, people and arms trafficking, in which various organised crime units are involved. We need to step up the fight against these phenomena.

This is happening close to home, so we must make our position clear. I support the actions of the French and Algerian Governments. Of course, there were undesirable consequences. We all want things to work out for the best, but the French and Algerian Governments are trying to uphold our values. In the past, we have heard about possible links in respect of oil and Islamist terrorism. I think the situation is similar in Mali, Algeria and the Sahel.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – In addition to welcoming Ms Woldseth’s report, I wish to make four brief points.

First, the military intervention in accordance with international law and the United Nations mandate needs time to be effective and could require greater participation by the international community, perhaps first and foremost by the European Union. Certain European countries such as Spain have already pledged assistance with transportation and military training, but that needs to produce results if we are to eradicate this challenge to security in the Sahel. As my friend Mr Agramunt said, this region is very close to the southern borders of European and Spain. Soft means are needed, too, but in some cases military force must be used in accordance with international law. Neighbouring countries also need to be mobilised, but unfortunately this has not happened yet.

Secondly, the fight against terrorism is an international duty. Terrorism is a global force. Those responsible for the terrorist actions related to the military conflict in the north of Mali came from very different countries, so we need co-ordinated international action. As the rapporteur said, Council of Europe conventions are also relevant, especially the convention relating to the financing of terrorist groups.

Thirdly, violations of humanitarian law are evident in the north of Mali, and we need to consider the possibility of reprisals. The Council of Europe must ensure that international humanitarian law is respected.

      Fourthly and most importantly, we must attack the roots of the problem. The Libyan Government must eradicate the trafficking of weapons towards the south and pursue the road map towards democratisation and eradicating poverty. In that respect, sanctions have been very effective. There also needs to be political autonomy for the Tuaregs. The terminology in respect of the Muslim world differs – there are radical Islamists and other types of Islamists – but Ms Woldseth refers to Islamist radicals in her report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – I pay tribute to Ms Woldseth for her report. The committee has worked valiantly to make this resolution possible. The latest events in Mali, particularly the French military intervention, were a response to a specific request from the Malian Government approved by the UN Security Council. This is an intervention to put a stop to the threat from terrorist groups, which are beginning to sweep through the whole of Malian territory. This turn of events has not happened by accident; it is the fruit of seeds that were sown by totalitarian regimes such as that of Gaddafi. Terrorism is born and develops in a political context, and it tries to manipulate and ride on the back of religious belief or nationalist feelings.

It is important to be cautious in our terminology, because we do not want to give the impression that our fight against terrorism is a religious war or a conflict between cultures and civilisations. As the report demonstrates, many of the terrorist groups in northern Mali came from Libya after the fall of Gaddafi. Many members of such groups have already participated in the fight of Gaddafi’s forces against the Libyan people, which was born of the despotism that Gaddafi inflicted and which has led to political instability. Northern Mali is the kind of place to which terrorist groups, and those who traffic in weapons and drugs, go. We are pleased that the resolution mentions the fact that the Tuareg rebels recently said they would not push for independence in return for autonomy within Mali. That decision is a very constructive move, which is to be encouraged for the settlement of regional conflicts.

      Finally, Morocco’s position has always been to support Malian independence, unity and political stability. Our government has always made great efforts to enter into close relations with Mali. Morocco is part of the military forces deployed in the region, and on 25 January Morocco will host an important meeting of ministers from Morocco, Spain, Portugal and France to ensure greater regional co-operation given the challenges to Morocco’s security. As many speakers have said, there is a military approach now because of what has happened, but that should not preclude a political approach as well.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Ameur from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.

      Mr AMEUR (Morocco)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on the work she has done, and above all on the relevant conclusions and recommendations. The Mali conflict and the war that is under way remind us of a number of lessons and truths. First, going beyond the military intervention, which is intended to avoid the territorial disintegration of Mali and the destabilisation of the region, the international community must give pride of place to a political solution, which is the only guarantor of long-lasting stability and security and the territorial integrity of Mali.

Secondly, there are grave dangers in separatism and the excesses to which it may lead. Mali teaches us how legitimate aspirations without a clear political solution can be exploited by extremists and traffickers to establish a mediaeval State with no rule of law, which is a source of great danger. That is why we think the decision of the Tuareg rebels is constructive if we are to achieve a peaceful settlement of the regional problems. Morocco has unceasingly advocated a political negotiated solution for the western Sahara to prevent connections between extremism and arms trafficking from taking on uncontrollable dimensions.

      Thirdly, limited economic and social development generate poverty, inequality, social injustice and territorial dislocation. They are conducive to terrorism and extremism, which are of an immediate danger to the neighbouring region and to the more distant region. Fourthly, given the strength of its historic economic links with Mali, Morocco has spared no effort to help the Malian authorities to preserve their country’s security as well as its stability and territorial integrity. Morocco calls for robust inter-regional co-operation to address the threat of terrorism, but first and foremost to promote political and human development that respect democratic values and human rights, and that are conducive to economic development in a spirit of solidarity. Only such a comprehensive, meaningful approach will provide appropriate responses to terrorism, and to the roots of the evil that fuel extremism.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ameur. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Woldseth to reply. You have six minutes.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – It is important to start by emphasising that the word “Islamism” in the report and that the draft resolution does not refer to the Muslim religion or faith or to Muslims in general. I say that to avoid any misunderstanding with our Muslim friends here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I also thank all of you for participating in the debate. I do not think I have heard anyone disagree with the report, and I thank you all for that. It means that we are strong, we are together and we want to fight terrorism in every part of the world using the means that we in the Council of Europe have. Of course, we have to condemn all violence, whether it is perpetrated by terrorists or by the army in Mali. Both women and children should be safe, and they should have the right to live their lives as every other citizen, without the violation of their human rights.

I agree with you, Mr Mariani, that the road map will take time – not only days or months but probably years. Let us hope that the transitional authorities in Mali get together and have the necessary dialogue, and finally get the road map.

Lord Anderson, you are so right when you say that this might not have happened in a stable and well governed State. That is why the Council of Europe, in its partnership policy, can make such a State stable and well governed. I thank you all, and I especially thank Despina Chatzivassiliou for helping me. Without her help, I would not have managed to do this when the debate was moved four hours earlier than we planned to have it. Thank you all for the debate.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Woldseth. I call Mr Marcenaro to speak on behalf of the committee. You have two minutes.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I would like to say two things. First, I thank Ms Woldseth for her work on the report. She has contributed to the clarification of the issues involved. She has described what is taking place: there is a form of terrorism that wants to impose a given model and solution. Some kind of intervention is necessary, or the fire will spread. We have not forgotten the serious situation that prevailed in Algeria a few years ago, following the civil war in the country. Risk prevention is therefore very important.

We must look at what is happening in Mali in a wider context. We are coming across a similar phenomenon in Afghanistan. This is a genuine threat, so we need to fight it, with force if necessary. First and foremost, however, we must use the weapons of culture.

      What has happened in countries along the southern shore of the Mediterranean in recent years offers great hope, however, and we must harness that hope as we move forward.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

      The debate is closed.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which 17 amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the organisation of debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. The amendments are Amendments 4, 5, 13, 17, 2 and 15 to the draft resolution.

Is that so Mr Marcenaro?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 4, 5, 13, 17, 2 and 15 to the draft resolution are agreed.

The following amendments are adopted:

Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Ms Elena Nikolaeva, Mr Leonid Slutsky, Mr Vyacheslav Fetisov and Mr Otari Arshba, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the last sentence.

Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Ms Elena Nikolaeva, Mr Leonid Slutsky, Mr Vyacheslav Fetisov and Mr Otari Arshba, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 3, insert the following paragraph: “In this respect, the Assembly, remembering the importance of the full implementation of the UNSC Resolution 2017, calls upon the Libyan authorities to take all necessary steps to prevent the proliferation of all arms and related materiel of all types, in particular man-portable surface-to-air missiles, to ensure their proper custody, as well as to meet Libya’s arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation obligations under international law, through the full implementation of their plans in this regard.”

Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Josette Durrieu, Mr Jean-Marie Bockel, Mr Gérard Bapt, Lord Donald Anderson and Mr António Braga, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 4, add the following words: “In this connection, the Assembly considers that the Tuareg rebels’ decision constitutes a constructive dynamic to be encouraged with a view to a peaceful, political settlement of the regional conflicts.”

Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Ms Marietta De Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Björn Von Sydow, Lord John E. Tomlinson and Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego, which is, in the draft resolution, move paragraphs 6 and 7 to after paragraph 2.

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Robert Walter, Mr Alexey Pushkov, Mr Otari Arshba, Mr Alexander Sidyakin, Mr Robert Shlegel, Mr Anton Belyakov and Mr Anvar Makhmutov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph: “The Assembly acknowledges the Algerian security forces counter-terrorist activities and the continuing threat posed by al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Magrheb (AQIM) and associated groups. European governments should continue to assist the Algerian authorities in countering terrorist threats in the region.”

Amendment 15, tabled by Ms Josette Durrieu, Mr Jean-Marie Bockel, Mr Gérard Bapt, Lord Donald Anderson and Mr António Braga, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 14, add the following words: “To this end, the Assembly calls on the neighbouring countries to give their support to a political process and pursue their active commitment in favour of preserving security and the territorial integrity of Mali.”

We will proceed to consider the remaining amendments in the order set out in the Organisation of debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I call Mr Walter on a point of order.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I do not wish to be awkward, but for such debates it is normal for a list of amendments along with the text of the document they are amending to be available outside the Chamber and in the Table Office, so that we can see what we are amending without having to refer to several pieces of paper. When I came into the Chamber 10 or so minutes ago, that was not available. May I ask whether it is available now, and if so whether it could be distributed to members in the Chamber?

THE PRESIDENT* – If you could bear with me for a few seconds, we will distribute such a list of amendments. The lists are now being distributed.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Şaban Dişli and Mr Fazil Mustafa, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, delete the word “islamist”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 8.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Terror has no religion. It is inappropriate to associate the name of a world religion with crime, radicalism or terror. We Muslims are greatly offended and hurt by the way the report refers to Islam. Our Secretary General, Mr Jagland, stated that we need to “stop using ‘Islamic terrorism’”, which indicates that terrorism is about Islam. We should be saying that terrorism is terrorism and not linked to religion.” I congratulate him on making those comments, and I am making the same point.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Lord Anderson.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Terrorism has many faces. If there were Christian terrorism, we should call it that. This terrorism is carried out by people who claim to be influenced by Islam, so the term “Islamist terrorism” or something similar is appropriate. We should call a spade a spade.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is in favour of the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

Amendment 8 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Şaban Dişli and Mr Fazil Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, delete the words “radical Islamist”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 9.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Al-Qaeda is a well-known terrorist organisation, whereas Islam is a religion of peace. Consequently, mainstream Muslims do not approve of Al-Qaeda’s methods. Council of Europe resolutions should not associate terrorist organisations with Islam. The wording used in the report, which describes Al-Qaeda as “radical Islamist”, is what Al-Qaeda wants, as it wants to associate itself with other Muslims, who reject it. This rhetoric helps Al-Qaeda to gain wider support, so we should avoid this wording.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Recordon.

Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – The mover of the amendment is wrong. In no way are we trying to stigmatise Islam as a whole, but I criticise Islamist extremism in the same way as I stigmatise the excesses of Calvin, who burnt Michael Servetus at the stake, or the Inquisition, with its extreme abuses, which could be called “Christianist”.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) – In this case, too, the committee was in favour of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Andreas Gross, Lord Donald Anderson, Mr Roman Jakič, Lord John E. Tomlinson, Ms Eka Beselia, Mr Renato Farina and Mr Luc Recordon, which is in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the words “The Assembly notes” with the following words:

“The Assembly recognises the complexity of the local situation and the varied policies and background of the Tuareg groups often stemming from the long-standing neglect of the north from colonial times and notes”.

We first come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 3, replace the words “and notes” with the following words: “. It notes”.

I call Mr Gross to support the sub-amendment.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – The sub-amendment relates to the end of the amendment. There would be a full stop after “colonial times”, after which a new sentence would begin: “It notes”. It is just a stylistic question.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. I think we can assume that the sub-amendment will be agreed to.

The vote is open.

The sub-amendment is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 3, as amended. I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – As I said in my contribution, we have to be careful not to forget the complexity and variety of the different groups and the local situations. We also have to take into account the different historical elements when we want to find a solution, which cannot be only military.

The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – To suggest, as the amendment does, that the colonial past is one of the main considerations in the interpretation of the current situation is not consistent. A number of elements have to be considered, but colonialism is certainly not the main one in this regard.

The PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The amendment offers an excuse for the actions that some groups are taking. It specifically gives an excuse for terrorism. That is not helpful for this situation and in this area. If what the amendment suggests were the case, everyone could use it as an excuse. In England, for example, we could blame the Romans for our troubles, but we do not. We have to live with what we have today. We should not give people an excuse to be terrorists.

The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Gross on a point of order.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – My Spanish colleague spoke against the amendment and I spoke in favour. Mr Hancock does not have the right to speak. We have already voted on the amendment. If he had listened to the debate and not just spoken, he would have heard that this is nothing to do with excuses; the reference is there to explain the situation so that we can find a solution. He should be in order. He often says that other people are out of order, but he does not know how to be in order.

The PRESIDENT* – You are right that we have voted, Mr Gross, but in a plenary such as this one we should not prevent people from speaking. That is my position, but I think that technically you are correct. I am sorry, Mr Hancock, but the debate is now over. We have already voted on the sub-amendment, so we will now confirm the vote on Amendment 3, as amended.

What was the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy) – I have just heard someone speak in favour and someone speak against. The committee remains in favour.

The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.

(Mr Mignon, the President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Hörster)

THE PRESIDENT* – Lord Tomlinson, do you want the floor?

      Lord TOMLINSON (United Kingdom) – Not really, but I want to know the result of that long-delayed vote on Amendment 3. I did not see it displayed on the screen. Mr Hancock interrupted us several times and, after all that, I want to know the outcome.

      THE PRESIDENT* – As you have asked, I will give you an answer. I was not in the Chair, as I am sure you noticed. I am told that Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.

      We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Ms Marietta De Pourbaix-Lundin, Mr Björn von Sydow, Lord Tomlinson and Mr Jean-Claude Frécon, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 5, to insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly is also concerned that the continuing deterioration of the civil war in Syria, in the absence of any efficient international solution, constitutes a further dangerous flash point.”

      I call Mr Marcenaro to support Amendment 16.

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The amendment is to point out that there are sources of infection in the international situation that, if not addressed by the international community, might constitute further dangers.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Marcenaro.

      We come to Sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 16, tabled by Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Vladimir Ilić, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Natalia Burykina, Ms Olga Borzova, and Mr Anvar Makhmutov, which is, in Amendment 16, after the words “international solution”, to insert the following words: “which should be based on the Geneva Communiqué on Syria”.

I call Ms Gerasimova to support the sub-amendment.

Ms GERASIMOVA (Russian Federation)* – The amendment should make reference to the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, because that is the only basis – there is no alternative – for a political and diplomatic settlement of the Syrian crisis. The Assembly should call on all Syrian parties to agree a ceasefire and reach a peaceful settlement.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee has not examined the sub-amendment, so it has no opinion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I was asking for your opinion, Mr Marcenaro, but I take it that yours is the same.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Marcenaro is in favour of the sub-amendment, but the committee was not able to give its opinion, so I will leave it to the wisdom of the Assembly.

      The vote is open.

      Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 16, as amended? I call Mr Beneyto.

      Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – This might be a small point, but the report is on Mali and Algeria, which is already a complicated, important and difficult matter, and referring to the Syrian situation would not be consistent with that strict and rigorous work.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Ms Josette Durrieu, Mr Jean-Marie Bockel, Mr Gérard Bapt, Lord Anderson and Mr António Braga, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6, to add the following words:

“To this end, the Assembly asks the member, observer and partner States to support the action taken by the ECOWAS to ensure the implementation of the International Support Mission for Mali (MISMA) and invites them to provide the financial and logistical support necessary for the rapid deployment of this mission’s troops and to participate actively in the donor conference for the defence of Mail, to be held in Addis Ababa on 29 January 2013.”

      Ms Durrieu is not in the Chamber, so I call Lord Anderson. You are the voice of Ms Durrieu.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The words are those of Ms Durrieu, but the voice is the voice of Anderson. The amendment would take the existing paragraph further, arguing that, if we are seeking stability and supporting ECOWAS, we must provide the means of doing so, including training.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 14, to replace the words “To this end, the Assembly asks the member, observer and partner States to support the action taken by the ECOWAS to ensure the implementation of the International Support Mission for Mali (MISMA) and invites them to provide the financial and logistical support necessary for the rapid deployment of this mission's troops and” with the following words: “It also asks them”, and move the amendment to be inserted to the end of paragraph 13.

      I call Ms Woldseth, on behalf the committee, to support the sub-amendment.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – The sub-amendment would simply make the amendment more readable, so I hope that it will be adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I agree with that drafting improvement.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Lord Anderson is in favour. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 14, as amended? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 14, as amended, is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 8, first sentence, replace the words “and observer” with the words “observer and partner for democracy.”

The oral amendment is admissible, provided that no one objects. That is not the case. I call Ms Woldseth to support the oral amendment.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I move it.

THE PRESIDENT* – It was my duty to ask you to do so.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Oral amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego, Ms Melita Mulić, the Earl of Dundee and Mr Joe Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, after the words “observer States.” to insert the following words:

“The Assembly acknowledges that over many years the Algerian government and people have suffered the most violent attacks on their territory from terrorists with an absolutist ideological agenda and understands, therefore, why in the emergency situation in the gas plant they responded robustly to terrorists with whom there was no prospect of serious negotiation.”

I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 7.

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Algeria does not figure much in the draft resolution, but we surely need to understand Algeria’s past, including other terrorist attacks, and its speedy response to this outrage on its territory.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which is, in Amendment 7, to replace the words “paragraph 8, after the word ‘observer States.’ insert the following words:” with the following words: “after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:”.

I call Ms Woldseth to support the sub-amendment.

      Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – This is a technical change to make the report more reader-friendly.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case. What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I always like to be reader-friendly.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case. The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 7, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Nursuna Memecan, Mr Burhan Kayatürk, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Ganira Pashayeva, Mr Rafael Huseynov and Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly commends the determined action taken by Algeria to rescue the hostages in the gas plants in In Amenas. The Assembly supports the Algerian Government in combating terrorism which is a crime against humanity and has no religion and nationality and reiterates its conviction that an efficient fight against terrorism can only be achieved in solidarity with international community.”

      I call Ms Memecan to support the amendment.

      Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I do not want to move the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The reason for not moving the amendment is that the issue it concerns was dealt with in the previous sub-amended amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Amendment 6 is not moved.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Younal Loutfi and Mr Fazil Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, delete the word “Islamist”.

      I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 10.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Islam preaches peace, and its values are clearly defined. Killings, torture, rape, amputations and other crimes mentioned in the report have no place in Islam. On the contrary, Islam condemns all such crimes. We must make an ethical decision. Associating words derived from the name of a peaceful world religion with crime, radicalism or terror stems not only from Islamophobia but from hate speech. Should we include such hate speech in our Council of Europe resolutions? This is about not Islam or religion, but our values, ethics and principles. We must be consistent.

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

      I call Mr Bockel.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – We should not be afraid of words, and a failure to designate may lead to damage and confusion. Of course Islam is not the same as Islamism, but when we see what is happening in Timbuktu in the name of Islamism, we need to defend true Islam. Not calling things what they are does a disservice to Islam.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – We were against. I repeat that the committee assessed every use of the adjective depending on its context. We were in favour of deleting the adjective from some paragraphs, but we are against doing so in this case because of the context.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Younal Loutfi and Mr Fazil Mustafa, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 11, delete the word “Islamist”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support the amendment.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Islam preaches peace and the values of Islam are clearly defined. Harassment, abuse and sexual violence to women have no place in Islam. On the contrary, such crimes are strongly condemned by Islam and constitute the biggest sins according to Islam. I remind colleagues that the Koran orders men to live with women on a footing of kindness and equality, and not to treat them with harshness. The Prophet Mohammed states that the best of you are those who behave best to their wives, and that paradise lies under the feet of the mother. How can such a religion be associated with such terrible crimes?

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

I call Mr Loncle.

Mr LONCLE (France)* – One can understand the arguments of Ms Gündeş Bakir, but I was explaining the semantics. I talked about narco-jihadism, for instance, and we could have found other terms in the report. I acknowledge that the term “radical Islamist” may be negotiable, but perhaps we have not taken enough care about the semantics of this serious matter. I well understand the concerns expressed by Ms Gündeş Bakir.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 11 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Kerstin Lundgren, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Younal Loutfi and Mr Fazil Mustafa, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 15, delete the word “Islamic”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support the amendment.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Islam’s holy book the Koran says that if anyone kills a person, it will be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saves a life, it will be as if he saved the life of all mankind. How can such a religion be associated with terror? Just as it is wrong to use phrases such as “Christian terrorism” or “Judaic terrorism”, it is wrong to use phrases such as “Islamic terrorism” in Council of Europe resolutions, because terror has no religion.

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

Mr LONCLE (France)* – I point out to our colleague that AQIM means al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The name was not coined by us but by those bands that are organised in the Sahel. It is not our fault.

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

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – We are against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

I have received an oral amendment from Ms Woldseth, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which reads as follows:

In the draft resolution, in paragraph 15, replace the words “Islamic” with “Islamist”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

I call Ms Woldseth to support the oral amendment.

Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – The point of the amendment is to have consistency in the report. Rather than using one term in one paragraph, and another term in a different paragraph, the word “Islamist” would be used throughout.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

Oral Amendment 2 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Lord Anderson, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr João Bosco Mota Amaral, the Earl of Dundee and Mr Joe Benton, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 15, add the following sentence: “Such assistance may involve military intervention, including the provision of military assets and training and continued development aid, but ultimately lasting stability can only be achieved by a political roadmap leading to national reconstruction, enhanced democracy and respect for human rights.”

      I call Lord Anderson to support Amendment 1.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – The amendment adds to an earlier amendment that I tabled. Effectively, the aim is to end on a high note, consistent with the ideals of the Council of Europe. Only through a political settlement can one ultimately have stability.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to Sub-amendment 1 to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Miloš Aligrudić, Mr Vladimir Ilić, Mr Andreas Gross, Ms Aleksandra Djurović, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Samad Seyidov, Ms Natalia Burykina, Ms Olga Borzova, Mr Anvar Makhmutov and Ms Nadezda Gerasimova, which is, in Amendment 1, after the words “military intervention”, insert the following words: “authorised by the UN Security Council”.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support the sub-amendment.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia)* – We know that the French intervention in Mali was in compliance with international law and authorised by the UN Security Council. The idea of the sub-amendment is to say that any military intervention under the resolution must be fully in compliance with international law and authorised by the UN Security Council.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?

I call Mr Bockel.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – This is an opportunity for me to hail Algeria, as others have done, for its role in this conflict and for the way in which it has dealt with the difficulties that it has faced. If there is to be a political solution, Algeria has an essential role to play.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Although I would have preferred the sub-amendment to say just that a military intervention must be in accordance with international law, because that may include self-defence, I am content to accept it.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – The committee did not discuss the sub-amendment, but I would be in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will leave it to the wisdom of the Assembly. The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? I call Mr Hancock.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – My problem with the amendment is the word “may”. The one thing that is certain is that military intervention will be needed in Mali and, eventually, to help Algeria. To say that it “may” be necessary beggars belief. If the words could be changed to “will undoubtedly involve military intervention”, the amendment would have more credibility.

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

      Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole draft resolution contained in Document 13107, as amended. The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13107, as amended, is adopted, with 90 votes for, 1 against, and 5 abstentions.

      I congratulate the rapporteur. The work on the resolution has been done very swiftly over the last couple of days by the committee’s secretariat. I also thank the chairman of the committee.

2. Address by Mr Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European

Neighbourhood Policy

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now have the honour of hearing an address by Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. After his address Mr Füle has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

      Commissioner, it is a great honour and pleasure to host you, as I have said to you several times today. There is no harm in saying it again. As you know, I chose rapprochement with the European Union as one of the priorities for the term of office entrusted to me by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Your visit to us is therefore highly symbolic.

      Over recent years, we have done a great deal to bolster the partnership between the institutions of the European Union and the Council of Europe, in particular in countries that aspire to become members of the Union. Last year, we began holding regular meetings. That is already an effective mechanism for exchanging information and co-ordinating our respective political messages. I am pleased that we have already met twice in Brussels and that we are meeting today for the third time in Strasbourg.

      Your statement in the Chamber today will take our co-operation a notch higher. It bears graphic witness to our common resolve and willingness to work hand in hand. We can only welcome that. As we stressed in our joint declaration this morning, which is available to all parliamentarians in the Chamber, our strong co-operation with and commitment to countries in the east, west and south are decisive in supporting their necessary transformation and the development of deeply-rooted democracy. Politically and on the ground, the situation is already very good, but we can doubtless do even better.

We will listen to your statement with great interest in order that, jointly, we might pinpoint new opportunities for co-operation and synergy.

It is with great pleasure, Commissioner, that I give you the floor.

Mr FÜLE (European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy) – This is a special moment for me. I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly today. The timing is good, coming as it does after the adoption of the 2012 Enlargement Package in October and the Council’s conclusions on enlargement of last month, which have set an ambitious programme for the first half of 2013. We are also looking forward to the adoption of the next European Neighbourhood Policy package in March.

Allow me to start by expressing my appreciation for the close and efficient co-operation between the European Commission and the Council of Europe, particularly with regard to the implementation of the Copenhagen political criteria by candidate countries and potential candidates in the field of the protection of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. I also recognise the crucial role of the Council of Europe with our neighbours to the east and south in strengthening democracy and safeguarding human rights.

The past year has seen major progress by a number of enlargement countries on their road towards the European Union. Croatia is very much on its way to becoming the 28th member State, Serbia is a candidate country and accession negotiations have opened with Montenegro. In 2013, it will be essential for the credibility of our policy that the momentum of enlargement is maintained. That means continuing to engage with government authorities and other important stakeholders to move the enlargement agenda forward, so that in 12 months’ time, we can look back and say that our efforts have been rewarded.

The Council of Europe is a key partner in various aspects of the enlargement process. Our co-operation in joint programmes and projects, such as the Sarajevo process on refugees, has been excellent. We also appreciate the activities of the Council of Europe in fighting discrimination and promoting Roma inclusion. The Commission fully supports the investigation under the auspices of EULEX into the alleged crimes committed in the period during and after the conflict in Kosovo, addressed in the Marty report endorsed by this Assembly.

Before taking you through the enlargement agenda for the year ahead, let me touch on three horizontal issues which I think are extremely important and which will define enlargement this year. The first is the credibility of the enlargement process. We are aware of how important it is to take the lessons of the past into account throughout the enlargement process, to keep it credible and maximise its transformative power for candidate and aspirant countries. The clearest example I can give you of this is the core theme of the 2012 Enlargement Package: our focus on the rule of law. That is central to the enlargement process, and it makes a critical difference by strengthening democratic institutions and improving the daily lives of citizens. Our approach to chapters 23 and 24 of the acquis, which have the greatest focus on the rule of law, has evolved to take into account our experiences: we now open these chapters at the start of negotiations and close them at the end, to allow countries to develop a solid track record of performance in this important area. I believe that this shows our commitment to making the enlargement process work for everyone involved.

The second is open bilateral issues. We face a challenge because we say clearly that we do not want bilateral issues to be imported into the European Union, and we do not want bilateral mines to explode in the middle of the accession process, which could hold up or derail it. The question, therefore, is how we are to handle bilateral issues. Some may be solved easily between the parties concerned; others may be solved with the help of the European Union. Croatia and Slovenia have shown that an arbitration mechanism can help, and ultimately we have the International Court of Justice in The Hague. What is most important in 2013 is that the issue is acknowledged as a major element of good neighbourly relations, a principle to which we will refer more and more as we move to the next stage of enlargement. It is important that we start to tackle such issues so that they do not delay the accession process.

The third horizontal issue that will be important in the coming year is how to reconcile the 130 000 or 140 000 pages of the acquis – the legislation adopted over the past years – with what is in the pipeline and what is decided in each Council and European Parliament session, and how to deepen integration, particularly in the eurozone. The crisis has shown that just as it is important to deliver on the acquis, it is also important that not only candidate countries but also aspirant countries subscribe to the changes in economic governance of the European Union. The improvement of competition comes to mind.

Looking to the work on enlargement that lies ahead, this spring the European Commission will publish its last monitoring report on Croatia, as well as a series of reports. On the basis of those reports, the Council will consider whether sufficient progress has been made for accession negotiations to be opened with Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and whether to approve a mandate to start negotiations with Kosovo on a stabilisation and association agreement. Depending on progress, a report on Albania is also possible. I look forward to the advancement of accession negotiations with Montenegro, hopefully with Turkey and also with Iceland after the April elections. The forthcoming year should also see progress in the visa dialogue with Kosovo and the launch of a visa dialogue with Turkey.

On Bosnia and Herzegovina, you will of course be familiar with the stalemate regarding the Sejdić-Finci ruling of the European Court on Human Rights. A year before elections is not an ideal time for compromises, but for Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no choice. Secretary General Jagland made it clear that the next elections cannot be seen to have met European standards if the issue is not resolved, and I support him fully. Non-implementation of the Sejdić-Finci ruling is keeping the stabilisation and association agreement as well as a credible European Union membership application on hold. Only after the stabilisation and association agreement enters into force will the European Union be in a position to support Bosnia and Herzegovina in addressing the structural shortcomings of Dayton. The Head of Delegation and European Union Special Representative Peter Sørensen received a reinforced political mandate during his visit in Brussels last week. High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission Baroness Ashton and I made it clear that he enjoys our full support for intensified engagement with political leaders and government representatives in the effort to reach a solution.

I am also making it clear to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s representatives that two myths should be dispelled when it comes to implementing the Sejdić-Finci ruling. First, it is not true that European Union member States will eventually lower the bar for a credible membership application if Bosnia and Herzegovina’s authorities continue to fail in their efforts to reach a shared solution. Secondly, it is equally not true that procrastinating on the implementation of the Sejdić-Finci ruling will lead to a situation more conducive to a solution after the next parliamentary elections, because we will not consider such elections to meet the necessary standards. A solution is needed now. In that regard, the role of the Strasbourg-based institutions in assisting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s authorities is crucial. That includes you as the Assembly, the honourable President Mignon and Secretary General Jagland. I thank you for your co-operation so far and plead for your continuous active engagement.

In these difficult times for Europe, enlargement continues to be a part of the solution. The European Union has never been about building walls; it is about eliminating dividing lines through values and principles. There is no more powerful instrument of transformation than enlargement. We need to continue using it wisely.

Let me turn to our European neighbourhood policy. Since the May 2011 review, the European Union has increased its neighbourhood policy’s emphasis on a shared commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We have put the more for more principle, differentiation and joint ownership with partners at the heart of our approach. The basis of the more for more principle is more progress towards reform in exchange for a stronger relationship with the European Union.

The new approach to the neighbourhood also means that we must reach out to citizens. It means not only working with governments but extending the hand of partnership to civil society. I have seen at first hand the tremendous work done by civil society across the European neighbourhood. It is essential that we build lasting, sustainable assistance enabling civil society to continue to deliver on our shared objectives. We have begun to do so with the establishment of the Civil Society Facility, the creation of the European Endowment for Democracy and reinforced dialogue with civil society, but more needs to be done.

Our new approach also provides us with an opportunity to deepen our interactions with other agents of change and reform, including the Council of Europe. I am clear that as events in the European neighbourhood affect us all, the European neighbourhood policy is not just for European Union institutions to consider. We must open the ENP in an inclusive way that allows other non-governmental actors, countries and international organisations to share in its aims and contribute towards its success. We plan to publish the next ENP package in March. It will include a communication and 12 country progress reports incorporating valuable input from the Council of Europe, for which I am grateful.

Reporting annually on our partnership with our neighbours is itself a novelty. More work will be needed in 2013 to implement all key recommendations, particularly on civil freedoms and the rule of law, so that our ambitious commitments make a practical difference on the ground.

We believe it is time to improve the comprehensive approach to the European neighbourhood policy, also making the common foreign security policy and the common security and defence policy tools more effective in tackling the security challenges and protracted conflicts of our neighbourhood.

In this overall context, co-operation with the Council of Europe is essential and strategic. The Council of Europe has indisputable assets: its unique pan-European dimension, its varied experience of drawing up legal standards and monitoring their application, and its experience in building up democratic institutions and harmonising legislation. We are particularly interested in relying on the Council of Europe’s expertise and added value in five key areas: constitutional governance, justice reform, the fight against corruption and money laundering, the promotion of European democratic values, and the consolidation of democracy with a particular interest in the aspects of freedom of association and assembly and intercultural dialogue.

Our experience of co-operating with the Council of Europe in our eastern neighbourhood policy shows how important its support is in the establishment of sustainable democracies. Working together through the European Union-funded Council of Europe eastern partnership facility and multilateral co-operation in the framework of the platform on democracy, good governance and stability are making a real difference in our eastern neighbourhood. The platform and the related panels work to achieve high standards in elections, in judicial reform and in the fight against corruption, and they also play an important part in supporting the fight against cyber-crime.

In November, the second eastern partnership summit will take place in Vilnius. The summit will focus on the implementation of the reform process in partner countries based on the eastern partnership road map. Partner countries’ efforts to implement reforms vigorously will provide the best possible setting for the Vilnius summit. We have always been clear that for countries in the eastern partnership, the possibility offered by Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union remains alive – by this, I mean the possibility of joining our shared European project if they share our principles of freedom, democracy and respect for the rule of law.

The Council of Europe and the European Union share a common interest in supporting and working with our neighbours to the south. I would like to recognise the Council of Europe’s efforts, which include the adoption of Partners for Democracy status; the on-going co-operation dialogue with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan; the identification of co-operation priorities for Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan; and the opening of Council of Europe offices in Tunis and Rabat. Of course, there is also our joint programme to strengthen democratic reforms in the southern neighbourhood. I also recognise the important support that the Council of Europe’s specialised bodies could offer to other partners in the region, in particular the support of this Assembly and the Venice Commission.

Together with the Council of Europe, we face the challenge of making our offer more attractive to the people of the south. They need to be convinced that stronger engagement with the European Union and adherence to the values defended by the Council of Europe are in their interest, reflecting the legitimate aspiration of our neighbour-citizens. For the European Union, we see the ultimate goal for this region being integration in the European Union internal market, enlarging the European economic zone to include partners, and projecting our norms and standards. I recognise that it is challenging to explain the benefits of this long-term ambition to citizens, and more complicated than to do so for our partners in the east. But I believe that we need to make this ambition much more visible and concrete, and to explain its benefits to people on the ground.

Co-ordination between the European Union and the Council of Europe is crucial for coherent and effective action. We rely on each other’s efforts to advance our common objectives and support our shared values. I am absolutely clear that the key is to work hand in hand to provide the best support possible for the democratic process in the partner countries. I hope that in the future we will have the opportunity to expand our collaboration to make it even more stable and strategic.

      Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to our discussion.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your most interesting address. Colleagues, we have a bit of a timing problem now. We have been under pressure of time throughout the day, as you will have seen, so the Commissioner has asked me whether it would be possible to group together various questions so that he can take them en bloc. If that is all right with everybody, that is what I suggest we do. I suggest that we give the floor first to the spokespersons for the groups and then the Commissioner will reply.

      I remind members that questions should be limited to 30 seconds and no more. The first question is from Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Commissioner, you spoke of the European Union as a union of values. We face problems such as the Yulia Tymoshenko and Lutsenko cases. How do those influence your view of the neighbourhood policy? How high on your agenda are such matters?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Vučković, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms VUČKOVIĆ (Serbia) – Commissioner, there is obvious and acknowledged progress in the countries of the western Balkans, but they have in common decreased support among their citizens for the reforms. Do you agree that that is because the European Union has mainly focused on political priorities, and not sufficiently on economic and social reforms in these societies? Do you not think that, today, there is a need for new encouragement for the western Balkans to renew enthusiasm both for reforms and for enlargement?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Fusu, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FUSU (Republic of Moldova)* – My question is about the five countries that are members of the Council of Europe but also part of the eastern partnership: Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Republic of Moldova. Do you think the partnership is an antechamber for integration into Europe? How can the principle of “more for more” be applied?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Sir Roger Gale, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      SIR ROGER GALE (United Kingdom) – Given the porous nature of the Schengen countries’ boundaries, as indicated in the debate this morning, what reassurance can the Commissioner offer the Assembly that any future enlargement will be accompanied by proposals for enhanced border security?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – Commissioner, you know very well what the situation is in Moldova. All the branches of power are divided between various political forces, which is completely unacceptable in a democratic State. There is no proper division of power. One person is being monitored by Europol, and the prosecutor’s office and the judiciary are not independent, yet Moldova is still a success story, we are told. Is it not time to take off our rose-coloured glasses? Surely the eastern partnership is a failure. Do we not need to focus on decriminalisation and “demafia-isation” of the powers that be in Moldova?

Mr FÜLE – Thank you. Let me address the questions in order.

The issue of politically motivated justice is high on our agenda. At the end of last year, the member States – based on proposals from High Representative Catherine Ashton and me – made it clear that it would be possible to sign, on the occasion of the Vilnius summit, the association agreement negotiated with Ukraine, which is an important instrument in moving forward the political association and economic integration between the European Union and Ukraine, only if there is progress on three issues. One of those issues is for the Ukrainian authorities to address politically motivated justice. That also explains why we support the so-called Kwasniewski-Cox mission of the President of the European Parliament and interact with it. I am going to Ukraine soon, on 7 to 8 February, and this issue will be high on my agenda.

The second question is an important one. I made it clear in my statement that I realised that the scissors are being opened more and more, with regard to what we refer to as the acquis of the past and the challenges that we are facing now, which will become part of the acquis in only one, two or three years, but on which action is needed now.

We had a meeting in Dublin only a couple of days ago at the initiative of the presidency, where I presented to the aspirant and candidate countries five concrete suggestions on how to involve them in addressing economic and social issues. I mentioned starting the dialogue between the Commission and these countries on social issues, helping them to address those using the instrument for pre-accession assistance money and addressing challenges through our strong co-operation with the European financial institutions.

The eastern partnership – there are six countries in it – is not an antechamber of the Union for those with membership aspirations. I made it clear in my statement, but let me make it even clearer, that in our new neighbourhood policy we refer to Article 49, and we have taken down the brick walls between the eastern partnership and the eventual aspirations of our partners. It is not about lowering the bar and not about questioning the ultimate role of member States to make the decision on this issue. It is just to make the point that, if those countries have European aspirations, the best way for them to get ever closer to referring, eventually, to Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty is by working in the eastern partnership, getting closer to the European Union through association agreements and through the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, and building on the values and principles that the eastern partnership is based on.

I reassure members that the issue of enhanced border security will be taken care of. Actually, I can reassure them that we will deliver not only on border security but on creating the conditions within countries so that what we have seen recently – an inflow of asylum seekers from some western Balkan countries – does not happen. Why? I also mentioned – my speech was a little bit longer, but I wanted to share that point – that the enlargement and accession process cannot be a box-ticking exercise. When we are discussing or negotiating a country’s transformation, especially countries with a totalitarian experience, it is particularly important that we put forward the track record, rather than have a box-ticking exercise.

It is important that we move forward on chapters 23 and 24, which deal with the values and principles – fundamental freedoms, judicial reform, justice, freedom and security. Chapter 24 delivers the main requirements for a country to become a part of Schengen. We will open those chapters at the beginning of the process and close them at the end. In addition to the opening and closing benchmarks, part of the work with the candidate countries is to introduce interim benchmarks.

Member States will be in stronger control of the accession process, allowing them not only to monitor the progress or timing of the negotiations – I am talking about years, rather than months – but to steer this process. I am confident that, as a result of this process, people will not just see enhanced border security.

Moldova is a success of the eastern partnership. I make that statement while acknowledging that there are a number of challenges. I consider those challenges in respect of the inclusivity of the reform process, ensuring the sustainability of that process. The recent shooting incident has shown that there is a lot of work to do as far as the rule of law is concerned. But we have an intensive engagement with authorities on the agenda, which allows us to be more helpful in assisting them address these challenges the closer they get to the European Union. The eastern partnership is successful in respect of that purpose. It not only sets ambitious goals and not only provides member States with the instruments – association agreements, the DCFTA for economic integration and visa liberalisation – but provides for much more intensive interaction with the commission and member States.

The “more for more” principle has been invented not only for those in the south. The principle applies to the east, acknowledging, of course, other principles, such as how there could be differences in approaches to the reforms. That explains why, when distributing the additional money to partners in the eastern partnership, not all of them have had this opportunity; only some of them have had it – those working seriously on the reforms.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We will have five more questions. I call Ms Bourzai.

      Ms BOURZAI (France)* – On 25 June 2012, the Foreign Affairs Council noted the importance of co-operation between countries in central Asia and the European Union. The European Union wants Uzbekistan to accede as quickly as possible to the WTO and the security partnership with Uzbekistan to be stepped up. I remind you that European sanctions against the country were lifted in 2009 and that the European Union has a delegation on the ground. What is your assessment of the state of democracy in Uzbekistan?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Zohrabyan.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – A Resolution of the European Parliament in 2011 on revision of the European neighbourhood policy asks European institutions to implement more measures and programmes to reinforce confidence through consultation and informal contacts with unrecognised countries so as to shore up civil society. What is your position on this innovative approach to ensuring that the inhabitants of these countries will benefit from the same rights as those living in Europe?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Gündeş Bakir.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – What is your opinion of some countries unilaterally blocking many chapters on Turkish accession to the European Union? Do you think that the obstruction of the accession process by certain countries is to the benefit of the European Union?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – You said last October that the central aim of the enlargement policy was the rule of law. On Serbia, you declared that the beginning of the accession negotiations depended on the settlement of problems in Kosovo. There is another important issue, however, concerning the 300 000 Hungarians living in the north of Serbia – Vojvodina – whose minority rights are not secured but often abused. The situation is unresolved, with no territory or autonomy assured for them. Will you please include this rule-of-law issue as a precondition in the Serbian accession talks?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Çağlar in accordance with Assembly Resolution 1376 (2004).

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community) – Mr Füle, please enjoy this privileged moment – a Turkish Cypriot parliamentarian is addressing you on a European platform. Despite our yes vote for the Annan Plan in 2004, we are still denied a place in the European Union. The Assembly has been wiser and more favourable in its treatment of Turkish Cypriots, however, and today I can ask you this question thanks to Resolution 1376 allowing us to attend the Assembly, albeit without the right to vote. When do you think that the European Union will follow the precedent set by the Assembly and acknowledge the rightful representation of Turkish Cypriots?

      Mr FÜLE – I am not sure I understood the second question. I will leave it until the end and try to answer it as best I can.

      On the first question, Uzbekistan is not my responsibility, so I am sorry but I will not speak about the state of democracy there.

      On the blocking chapters in the Turkish accession negotiations, the important thing is that we have been able to open 13 chapters and close one preliminary chapter. Interestingly, however, we can negotiate only three more of the 35 chapters. How come? Eight of the remaining chapters have been blocked unanimously by all member States based on the recommendation of the European Commission, which took this step a couple of years ago, reacting to Turkey’s not delivering on its commitment under the additional protocol to the Ankara agreement. Other chapters, however, have been blocked unilaterally.

      It is important to deal with this point. For five presidencies, we have not been able to open any chapters. We have drawn up a positive agenda, however, with the aim of creating the momentum to put the accession negotiations on track. That is important because it will keep the process of enlargement with Turkey alive. We must also change the tide of public support in Turkey. Most importantly, however, this is the only way to keep the European Union as a benchmark for reforms in Turkey.

      I see 2013 as a year of opportunities in respect of member States reflecting on the momentum being created by our positive agenda and reconsidering some of the chapters being blocked, but it is also an opportunity for Turkey to reflect not only on the three chapters open for negotiation – the Commission is ready to start discussions tomorrow – but on the fact that Turkey holds the key to unlocking another eight chapters. The Commission has proposed to European Union member States that they unfreeze those eight chapters the day that Turkey delivers on the additional protocol. In gathering momentum and putting the accession negotiations on track, 2013 is an important year.

      Turkish membership is crucial to the European Union for many reasons, but, unlike some others, I am not in the business of playing games and claiming that the European Union needs Turkey more than Turkey needs the European Union. In this globalised world, where we are subject to ever greater pressure from a globalised financial market and the changing of global powers, it is important that the European Union continues to get not only bigger but stronger. Some say that with each and every member State we weaken the basis of the European Union, but that is not true. The country I know the best – the Czech Republic – joined the European Union in 2004, and I do not think it has weakened the European Union. I said that enlargement has never been part of the problem. On the contrary, it has always been a part of the solution. It is part of the European Union’s DNA. Two processes belong to the history of the European Union and they are not isolated processes but interact with each other: deepening integration and expanding membership. To put the brakes on either would be fatal for the European Union.

      The rule of law is a priority in our discussions with Serbia, and that, of course, covers the rights of minorities and the issues referred to in the fourth question about Vojvodina. I am in regular contact not only with authorities in Belgrade but with the authorities in Vojvodina and, trust me, if I thought that democracy and other values were in danger in Vojvodina, I would intervene. That does not mean, however, that there are not challenges. The last time we discussed this issue, we talked about the budget and how Vojvodina did not have adequate resources. Those are the issues. We are not just monitoring, but those are the issues. Through our contacts with the authorities, using the most powerful instrument we have, which is conditionality, we are making sure that they deliver on the rights of minorities.

It is an honour to listen to the representative of Turkish Cypriots in this august body. I cannot, of course, speak on behalf of my colleagues in the European Parliament, but rest assured that I will convey that message to them.

Did I understand correctly that the second question was about the non-members of the Council of Europe? May I ask for clarification?

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – In the European Parliament Resolution of 7 April 2011 on the revision of the European neighbourhood policy, European institutions are asked to introduce more measures and programmes to strengthen confidence, in particular through consultations and informal contact with unrecognised countries in order to support their civil society. In that context, what is your approach to ensuring that the inhabitants enjoy the same rights as the residents of other parts of Europe?

      Mr FÜLE – I am a little bit puzzled to be confronted by a paragraph that I do not see in the context, because I can think of a couple of issues to which I could attribute that paragraph. May I ask the honourable member to send me that question in writing? I will make sure that, in return, I reply to the benefit of the honourable member and other members of this august body.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Füle, for making that proposal. I call Mr Xuclà.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I would like to raise an issue that might appear to some colleagues to be trivial. Do you not think that it might be possible for “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” once and for all to be given a definitive name, and for this issue not to hold up progress any longer? Do you not think that that would lead to a reduction in tensions between a member State and a future member of the European Union?

      THE PRESIDENT* – I do not see Mr Badea or Mr Villumsen, so the next speaker is Lord Anderson.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Going back to Macedonia, Mr Füle, to what extent, and on what issues, has the name issue blocked or impeded progress? What prospect of a solution do you see in the near future?

      THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Füle, as you rightly mentioned in your speech and in your answers, many countries in the eastern partnership are faced with many challenges and difficulties. One of the challenges that the Republic of Moldova faces is frozen conflicts, such as the Transnistrian conflict. How do you see the involvement of the European Union in helping a country such as the Republic of Moldova to solve such a frozen conflict, so that it will not be an obstacle to our European integration?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. I call Mr Nikoloski.

      Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – Mr Füle, as head of the Macedonian delegation, I will not ask you about the name issue, as Lord Anderson has asked the question. I thank him for doing so. I would like to ask you about two other issues. First of all, you went yesterday to Skopje. How do you judge the situation now? I think, as a member of the governing party, that the opposition should take their part of the responsibility for the country and for the resolution of open questions, including the name.

My second question is how do you judge the high-level accession dialogue between Macedonia and the European Union? Do you think that that is a good format for other countries to implement?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nikoloski. I call Mr Ilić.

      Mr ILIĆ (Serbia) – I would like to ask you a clear question, and therefore I expect a clear answer. How do you assess the efforts made by the Serbian Government during the past six months as regards Serbia’s European Union integration process?

      Mr FÜLE – Let me address those three questions about “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” together. The high-level accession dialogue is a novelty. It is not in the enlargement book. It is a product of creativity. There have been a number of other products of creativity and a number of other aspirant countries and candidate countries. It is a reflection of our concern that the domestic agenda is overshadowing the European agenda – a concern that unless we engage with those countries, we could hardly create or maintain the reform momentum.

The high-level dialogue served its purpose, and it has generated progress. We have put enlargement into the mainstream of the debate in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. We have been able to bring about a number of concrete results, such as the improvement of the electoral framework and the decriminalisation of defamation. Towards the end of this process we also addressed good neighbourhood relations. Also behind the process was the European Commission’s strong opinion that the time had come to break the cycle of each and every year repeating our recommendation for opening accession negotiations, and each and every year the member States not acting on it. Generating momentum in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” has helped us to come up with a non-static language for the recommendations concerning the country in our progress report last year.

I am very much encouraged that the member States that supported the high-level accession dialogue also supported our non-static recommendation. They have agreed what I would call a non-static recommendation on “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, which makes it very clear what is expected from the country in terms of reforms, steps towards good neighbourhood relations and steps towards finding a solution to the name issue. The Commission is expected to report in spring, and if the member States’ assessment is positive, it will allow them to make the decision to open accession negotiations.

I have been greatly encouraged by the changed language and the new dynamism based on the strong reforming spirit in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. That is energising the process under Mr Nimitz, the United Nations Secretary-General’s personal envoy, who is addressing the name issue based on the relevant UN Security Council resolution. His recent trip to the region was encouraging: discussion is ongoing, and both prime ministers are involved in the process.

I hope all parties and other stakeholders, in particular the government and the opposition, will find an appropriate response to the consequences of the event of 24 December that does not derail the political timetable set by the European Council. There is now an opportunity for the accession negotiations to be not only subject to our recommendations, but also to be subject to States’ decisions. That is an opportunity that should not be missed. The responsibility for that must be shared by both government and opposition. I will not comment any further on my discussions of yesterday, except to say they were preparing for the spring report.

      Creativity is important in this context. We have a high-level accession dialogue with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is a positive agenda with Turkey, while with Kosovo there is structured dialogue on judicial reform and the rule of law. Our partners must understand that what is produced from these creative processes is not an end in itself; rather, it is the means to move the reform agenda forward. They must understand that we cannot recycle the high-level dialogue time and again, and that structured dialogue on one issue or another cannot become a permanent feature of our relationship. They need to understand that those frameworks are intended to move us on to the next stage towards enlargement.

      There are, of course, conditions to be fulfilled; the credibility of enlargement is at stake. I am confident that the high-level and structured dialogues and the positive agenda will serve to strengthen its credibility. They also serve to engage our partner candidate countries with us at a time when – we have to admit – the attractiveness of the European Union is not the same as it was a couple of years ago. We have to admit that there is now new and different competition – that there is competition from beyond our borders that was not there a couple of years ago.

That development is one of the reasons behind the increased strategic co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union. I am happy to see that we are co-operating ever more closely. The European Union is increasingly addressing issues that feature prominently in the Council of Europe’s portfolio. Our two institutions are not in competition with each other; it is just that the European Union cannot become a political union unless we also cover the important issues of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Our co-operation serves to make our policies for our partners stronger, too. It matters that we co-operate.

      Turning to the frozen conflicts, in the new neighbourhood policy of 2010 we made it very clear to the High Representative that as the capacity and experience of the European external action service grows, so our capacity to assist in solving protracted conflicts should grow. The neighbourhood policy makes it clear that we should first put great emphasis on confidence-building measures. That is why we invest so much in supporting places such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria to prepare for, and find, a solution. In Transnistria, we are doing that through the 5 + 2 talks, in which we play an active role. We are trying to help to find a solution, such as by encouraging the authorities in Moldova to propose a vision of the relationship between Transnistria and the rest of the country, and for that vision to be consistent with any European aspirations they might have.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Füle.

      On behalf the Assembly, I thank you most warmly for your communication and for the answers you have given to questions.

(Mr Walter, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

I call Ms Quintanilla on a point of order.

Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain)* – Before we move on to the next debate, I would like to comment on the business this week. On Tuesday, when we were debating Bulgaria, a mistake was made when the amendments tabled by Mr Volontè and the committee were put to the vote. I was in favour of the report on Bulgaria and I would like that to be noted in the record.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have made your point and it will be recorded in the Official Report for others to read.

3. The state of media freedom in Europe

The PRESIDENT – The next business this afternoon is the debate on the report “The state of media freedom in Europe”, Document 13078, presented by Mr Mats Johansson on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

I remind colleagues that speaking times are limited this afternoon to three minutes. If the rapporteur, the chairman of the committee and others could take their places, we can start the debate. In order to finish by 7.30 p.m. and to allow sufficient time for responses to the debate and for voting on quite a number of amendments, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers in the debate at about 7 p.m. Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

I call Mr Johansson, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and the reply to the debate.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – Now we come to the grand finale of the day. It is a pleasure to introduce my report “The state of media freedom in Europe”. This has been exciting work over two years. We have had hearings, conferences, background reports and several committee meetings. This comes at a time when free speech and free media are in decline in many countries. In 2012, more than 100 journalists were killed across the world while thousands were arrested and intimidated.

Our part of the world, Europe, is by no means spared from the strains of the times. The state of media freedom in Europe is deteriorating; Europe is not as free of problems of free speech as it should be in a community of countries guided by the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Article 10, which says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” I am here to defend those universal principles, not to defend any country or national interest, pride or prejudice. If you have seen the yearly ranking done by the think tank Freedom House, you will have noted that too many of our member countries have been degraded over the last few years. Some of that is, of course, reflected in the report.

Free speech and media freedom are especially important in times of crisis in our societies. The people’s right to know is a major pillar of democratic rule. Thomas Jefferson told us more than 200 years ago that he preferred a society of newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers. As politicians we should also constantly remind ourselves of what Voltaire taught us, which is that free speech and media freedom are not only for ourselves and our excellent views but for our opponents and their bad ideas. Therefore, free speech must always be protected against limitation and intimidation.

During this process, I have been approached mainly by representatives of two of the nations mentioned in my report, Hungary and Turkey. These contacts have been of a proper nature, with serious discussions mostly on the general media situation in those countries. My conclusion from those contacts is that, first, it matters what the Council of Europe says and, secondly, sincere efforts are being made in both countries to reform the situation so as to better apply standards of free media. That work is far from finished, however, and the danger is always present that the political majority in any of our member countries will try to interfere with and limit the freedom and independence of the media, not to mention the rights of free speech for all citizens.

Let me conclude my introduction by saying that, since 1970, this Assembly has adopted some 50 resolutions with recommendations about different aspects of media freedom, from Resolution 428 on mass communication, media and human rights in 1970 to the latest resolution, Resolution 1950 of 2011, on the protection of journalists’ sources. I wish that my report could be the last in a perfect Europe with all members of our club applying the same standards and respecting the rules of the club based on shared values, but we are not there yet.

Thank you for your confidence so far, dear colleagues, and a special thanks to my two advisers, Mr William Horsley, who is a media researcher from Great Britain, and Rüdiger Dossow of the secretariat of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Johansson. You have seven minutes and 40 seconds to further intervene in the debate and at the end. In the debate, I will call speakers in the order on the speakers’ list. Three minutes is the time limit. We have 47 speakers. If we are to hear from most of them, I will have to be very firm with the three-minute limit. I will allow you to finish your sentence at three minutes and then I shall cut off the microphone and call the next speaker.

I call Mr Mogens Jensen from Denmark, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank Mr Johansson for this comprehensive and detailed report on the state of media freedom in Europe. Freedom of expression and media freedom are leading principles for the work of the Council of Europe and the Socialist Group welcomes the fact that the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has put greater weight on freedom of expression and the situation of the media by appointing a general rapporteur, Mr Johansson, on the subject.

The report paints an alarming picture of the conditions for journalists and the free press in a number of European countries. Time does not allow me to mention all countries where the situation is unacceptable, so I will concentrate on the major problems.

In Russia, we have unfortunately experienced several murders of active journalists, while other journalists have fallen victim to outrageous violent attacks. Those attacks must come to an end. The Parliamentary Assembly must urge the Russian Government to admit its responsibility to stop violence and murders and to secure safe working conditions for the media and journalists.

There is also reason to be shocked by the high number of journalists who are imprisoned, detained or prosecuted in Turkey for having expressed their political opinions and contributing to the democratic political debate. We must demand effective action from the Turkish Government, including the full implementation, without delay, of the findings of the Commissioner for Human Rights in his report of 12 July 2011.

The Socialist Group fully supports the recommendations to the Committee of Ministers to invite media freedom organisations regularly to report serious violations of media freedom to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to make this information available to the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe. We also support the creation of an Internet-based platform for the processing and dissemination of information provided by media freedom organisations and others. That will allow the Parliamentary Assembly annually to follow and discuss the status of media freedom, as we now are doing through Mr Johansson’s report. It is important that the lack of openness about media ownership in some countries, as demonstrated in the report, should be elaborated in future work on media issues, and that media responsibility, ethical standards and fundamental journalistic principles should be upheld by the European media. I again thank Mr Johansson for his unique work. The Socialist Group fully supports the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Jensen, for sticking to the time limit. I call Mr Kennedy, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr KENNEDY (United Kingdom) – I, too, congratulate Mr Johansson and his secretariat colleagues, and I pay particular and pleasurable tribute to the input from the distinguished former BBC foreign correspondent, independent journalist and acknowledged international expert, Mr William Horsley.

There is a slight irony in any group of politicians discussing the press and particularly journalism. I do not know how this will translate – I apologise to the interpreters if I am making life difficult – but the correct relationship between politicians and the press has sometimes been compared to the relationship between dogs and lamp posts, in that you are never very sure, at any given time, which is the dog and which is the lamp post. As elected practising politicians in our respective democracies, we must bear that in mind, but without the corrective presence of a free press, our task would undoubtedly be undermined, as would the quality of the democracies we represent.

More seriously, the report brings into graphic relief the continuing violence that all too often exists in journalism. The year before last, the Council of Europe’s excellent book, “Human rights and a changing media landscape”, made the point that “Threats against one journalist can have the devastating effect of silencing many others.” In a democracy, too much silence is much more ominous than too much noise: the press is there to generate both heat and light in that respect. Indeed, a very good personal friend, Marie Colvin, the war correspondent of The Sunday Times, lost her life in tragic circumstances just last year, and we mourn her passing.

With the rights of journalists, which are essential, must go the responsibilities upon them, and the report is well balanced in its acknowledgment of that fact. As many colleagues will know, the United Kingdom is now in the middle of a major debate on the Leveson inquiry, which is under discussion in both Houses of the Parliament, and we await the final outcome. We must have greater safeguards for the press, because examples of extreme excess have led to current criminal prosecutions, but we must at the same time maintain a free press. That is the signal sent by this report, which my Liberal colleagues and I are only too happy to support.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kennedy. I call Sir Roger Gale, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate Mr Johansson on a customarily thorough report. As he states in his summary, “Freedom of expression and information constitutes a cornerstone of good governance and thriving democracy.” His report indicates some specific shortcomings in some countries, but there is perhaps a greater concern. In the United Kingdom, we have seen how press power without responsibility can lead to calls for greater controls over the media. In the wake of allegations about press and police corruption, Lord Justice Leveson’s report, which was published last year, has pointed to tighter and possibly draconian regulation.

This week has seen the publication of a European Commission document, “A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy”, written by the high level group on media freedom and pluralism. It contains some sound recommendations, but the one stating that the “link between media freedom…and European Union democracy…justifies a more extensive competence of the European Union with respect to these fundamental rights”, is little more than a thinly veiled proposal for European Commission control through what are described in Orwellian terms as national media supervisors.

This creeping attempt by the European Union to extend media control beyond its 27-country remit is highlighted in a letter, dated 23 January, from the Committee of Ministers to my colleague, Mr Chope. In spite of the determination that the Council of Europe should proceed with our review of transfrontier broadcasting, Ambassador Held, the chairperson of the Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation, says that the European Commissioner, Ms Kroes, asserts that the European Union has exclusive competence to enter into agreements in the field covered by the European Convention on Transfrontier Television”, which is the 2011 position. It appears that that intervention is continuing to cause delay to the proper work of the Council of Europe.

All that reaffirms the tensions between the media on the one hand and regulators, governments and potential censors on the other. It underscores why Mr Johansson must be allowed to continue his work and to generate his invaluable series of reports. The twin demands of media freedom and media responsibility continue to face this Assembly with a very great challenge.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Sir Roger. I call Mr Kürkçü, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – We welcome the report, which is timely and accurate. It is based on the major binding documents of the Council of Europe, and refers to indubitable facts and figures pertaining to violations of media freedom in 14 countries. It thus leaves the perpetrators no escape. The rulers criticised in this report have not displayed for investigative journalists even a crumb of the tolerance that they have shown for the murderers of those journalists. May the report embarrass them heavily and equip media rights activists with greater justification in their campaign – without borders – for greater media freedom.

The authorities from the 14 countries referred to in the report have one common characteristic. In spite of their hypocritical declarations about European values in relation to the past practices of single-party dictatorships during the Cold War and notwithstanding which camp they then belonged to, they are now perpetuating the same pattern of relations between the State and society. For them, there exists only one European value, which is not European at all in the context of the 21st century – the unlimited reign of free-market capitalism and the unlimited use of force for the protection of the power and wealth of the new ruling classes. In their Europe, there is no place for human rights, enlightenment, critical thought, labour rights, anti-racism, anti-fascism, feminism or socialism – the genuinely European values for which the best personalities of this continent have sacrificed their lives.

Almost a third of the report rightly refers to violations committed against media freedom in Turkey, which has the largest number of jailed journalists in the world. I regret that deputies from Turkey’s ruling party do not refrain – even here – from charging the victims of violations of media freedom, who are jailed under irrelevant charges, as criminals and/or as terrorists. In the post 9/11 era, “terrorist” replaces “communist” when it comes to stigmatising political opponents and critics. Just yesterday, a Turkish court arrested a 21-year-old newspaper journalist, alongside four others, on charges of terrorism. “Terrorist unarmed” is Turkey’s contribution to European media law in the 21^st century.

      Look at the European Court of Human Rights 2012 balance sheet of applications by individuals against their States, issued today. Unsurprisingly, we see the same countries appearing in the top 10 as are named in the draft resolution. The gold medal goes to Russia, Turkey gets the silver, and Italy the bronze, with 37 others following. Do not blame the journalists, Messieurs, because you have reserved that position for yourselves. We expect the Assembly to display no tolerance for violations of media freedom and to adopt the draft resolution unanimously

.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kürkçü.

      I call Ms Kovács to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – I congratulate the rapporteur on his work. As media freedom and the safety of journalists are necessary conditions for promoting democracy, we must ensure that journalists can work freely and in safety. Unfortunately, however, there is an increase in different forms of violation of media freedom, such as physical attacks on and murders of journalists, misuse of governmental power to influence the media, and threats linked to media ownership. We are strongly against any attempts to exert political influence with the aim of silencing critical media.

The media plays an important role both in the political process and in everyday life. Although it is not an institution of the State, it is often referred to as the “fourth power” due to its influence on public opinion. Media freedom, freedom of expression and journalists’ working conditions – primarily, their safety – are necessary conditions for any democracy. The public must be allowed to be informed on matters of public concern and to receive information through the media. Journalists should be able to provide accurate and reliable information on matters of public interest, so investigative journalism should be supported, protected and promoted.

There are still unprotected journalists, who are often easy targets and victims of violent actions. Despite our willingness to protect them, that is the sad fact. That is why we politicians must seriously consider legislating to ensure their safety. We must guarantee the protection of these people who are doing their jobs properly. Concrete action against violent perpetrators will contribute to promoting media freedom and the protection of journalists. Our aim should be to let journalists do their job adequately, encourage them to investigate as much as possible and motivate them to be active and useful As they allow us to be well informed and to enjoy our basic right to information, we should ensure their safety. I add that the Group of the European People’s Party has decided to support both amendments about the Georgian Public Broadcaster.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Kovács. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but he would like to respond now to the contributions made on behalf of the political groups.

I call Mr Johansson to reply to the speakers from the political groups.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – As a first-time rapporteur, I give special thanks to all five political groups for giving me their support and for the kind words that were said.

Mr Kennedy and Sir Roger Gale spoke about the responsibilities of the media in the light of the Leveson report. It is important that we keep our focus on that, so I have today co-sponsored a motion with Mr Mogens Jensen on the ethics of journalism, which will be dealt with in our April part-session. There is a fine line between criticising the media and over-regulation. We will have that debate in April. I support Sir Roger’s remark about the media report presented to the European Commission. There is a temptation in the European Union, whether in the Commission or the Parliament, to act for new regulation, and we must keep our eyes on that.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Johansson. I call Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – I congratulate Mr Johansson and his team on their important work. The report provides an overview of the most important aspects of the issue, although, as a local politician too, I find that the report does not cover some of the smaller but still very important matters that influence media freedom.

We should not forget that media are first of all economic enterprises. I once asked the chief editor of a newspaper, “How do you manage to harmonise the financial goals stated in the business plan with journalist ethics?” His answer was, “We try to keep ethical rules, but reaching the figures stated by the owner in the business plan is fundamental”. The conclusion was that some media, in order to survive, renounce totally or partially their freedom. That is true also in the case of individual journalists. A journalist is first of all an employee who has responsibilities towards his family. Media freedom is, therefore, influenced not only by politics but by the economic situation of journalists and the media operator. It is difficult and, dare I say it, almost impossible to find a solution to this problem: the financing source influences the freedom we speak about.

My country, Hungary, is also mentioned in the report. The 2010 Acts on media services and the mass media, and on freedom of the press and the basic rules relating to media content, have been criticised at European Union and Council of Europe level. The Hungarian authorities had an intensive dialogue with international bodies on the issue. The Council of Europe made several recommendations to the Hungarian authorities, including the repeal or revision of a number of provisions regarding protection of journalists' sources, registration requirements for a broad range of media and the establishment of subjective criteria relating to the information. In line with European Union law, the Acts have been examined and modified by the Hungarian Parliament. In December 2011 Hungary’s Constitutional Court proclaimed several provisions unconstitutional, and annulled them. In addition, the court obliged parliament to adopt new legislation by the end of May 2012. Parliament adopted the amending law and declared it on 18 June 2012.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. I call Mr Vilmos Szabó.

Mr V. SZABÓ (Hungary)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on his report and agree with its principles and conclusions. Freedom of speech and freedom of information are the cornerstones of our freedom and of good governance, and are among the fundamental duties of membership of the Council of Europe. The report touches on a number of specific cases and names nine member States in which political influence is brought to bear on public service media. Such an accusation is very serious, and the countries concerned must be more mindful of their obligations and cease political interference. There must be proper media rules, rules for journalists, and rules guaranteeing editorial independence and avoiding political influence. Editors must avoid party bias, and government parties should not use the media to pursue their party political goals.

Every day, journalists are subject to attacks on their lives and thrown into jail. We must determinedly tackle such problems.

I am sad to say that my country, Hungary, is one of the nine countries cited in the report in which political influence is brought to bear on the public service media. I am afraid that I can only confirm the allegations. Following the parliamentary elections in 2010, the government passed, with a two-thirds majority, a media law that curtailed press freedom severely. Other new laws, such as a new basic law and a new electoral law, have also led to breaches of basic democratic rights. All that is borne out by the Venice Commission’s opinion on Hungary.

      The Hungarian Government has already amended the media law. The Council of Europe and the European Union had a huge role to play in that. However, the government has not fundamentally overhauled its regulations. That is why more political influence is required. A specific example is Club Radio, which has been under threat continuously since 2010.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Szabó. I call Ms Graham.

      Ms GRAHAM (Norway) – I congratulate Mr Johansson on this comprehensive report. As rapporteur, he directs our attention to the fact that there is poor media freedom in several Council of Europe member States. It is simply unacceptable that journalists are persecuted and killed for doing their job. The press plays a crucial role in the functioning of democracies. Without investigative and conscientious journalists, one of the checks that maintain the balance between those who hold power and those who are subject to it is missing.

The draft resolution points out that several member States face great challenges when it comes to the freedom of the media. However, it is important that all member States of the Council of Europe take a look at their domestic situation. Respecting the right to freedom of speech is fundamental. Without it, the press is not free. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom to threaten or freedom to deliver hate speech.

If we allow threats to be made against journalists, it limits their freedom of speech. In Norway, we are proud that all our citizens are free to speak their mind. However, when that very freedom was used last autumn to launch threats against individual journalists, it was important to take a stand and to declare firmly that threatening journalists is not acceptable. The journalists in question reported the threats to the police and the individual who launched the threats was taken into custody. Media representatives use that as an example of where the system has worked properly to protect them in their work. Others have argued that it is an example of freedom of speech being limited. The debate launched by that incident is important. I am convinced that the debate over how media freedom can be guaranteed alongside freedom of speech is relevant beyond Norway. We need to find that balance.

I underline the importance of ensuring that there is a good working climate for the press in order to preserve the freedom of the media. The pressure on journalists to produce what will sell and what will create sensation is a threat to the media’s ability to fulfil their role. This is a challenge that is faced throughout Europe. The News of the World case in the United Kingdom is an example of how the situation can get out of hand and become a threat to democracy.

Freedom of speech and media freedom must be championed by our Assembly and the Council of Europe. That is why Mr Johansson’s report is so important and why other reports must follow.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Ms Graham. I call Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I, too, thank and congratulate the rapporteur. I am pleased and satisfied that we in this Chamber are resoundingly denouncing any limitations on freedom of expression, especially freedom of expression by the media.

      Beyond the obvious problem, which we must combat, there are more insidious underlying problems. As Mr Kalmár suggested, there is an economic problem within the media. Many media organisations are finding it difficult to be profitable. The problem goes beyond that into the issue of the concentration of media outlets. Even in a long-standing democracy such as Italy, the concentration of the media has contaminated the political debate and has probably affected the results of elections. We underestimate the magnitude of that problem.

      If I may, I will address a small, friendly criticism to the rapporteur. In paragraph 2.2 of the draft recommendation, we might say more clearly that among the serious violations that we should worry about are those that result from excessive concentration of the media. That meaning could be interpreted from the current wording, so I have not tabled an amendment, but I do believe that this is a serious problem. My country, Switzerland, is experiencing it at the moment.

Something that we need to explore, because we have not yet done so, is the new area of electronic, internet-based media. Those media make it possible for pure players who do not have an economic stake to speak freely. Not only in Europe, but elsewhere in the world, for example in China, where would we be if such media were not available? We should take advantage of them to the greatest possible extent. We may not be able to provide direct assistance, because governments would want to have influence over what was being said on such electronic, internet-based media. However, Edwy Plenel’s Mediapart is an example of how such media can be profitably used.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Recordon. I call Ms Schuster.

      Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Johansson, for this good report and for his work as a general rapporteur on this important subject.

      When looking at press freedom, it is good to consider the information provided by non-governmental organisations. The website of Reporters Without Borders states that so far this year six journalists have been killed, 195 journalists have been imprisoned and 148 online activists have been arrested. The report for 2011 mentions Belarus on the last page, place 168, Turkey on place 148, Russia on place 142 and Azerbaijan on place 162. We spoke in great detail about Azerbaijan yesterday in the debate on the monitoring report and the report by Mr Christoph Strässer. To my great regret, the second report was not accepted.

The rapporteur, Mr Johansson, is therefore right that we have to look at the state of press freedom in Council of Europe countries. We are not satisfied with it, because of the threats made to journalists and their families and the pressure for them to engage in self-censorship. Attempts are being made to silence critical journalists. I ask that the States mentioned in the report be dealt with. Journalists there should be protected from violence and criminal proceedings brought against those who threaten them. It should be a major concern for us. The protection of sources should be guaranteed.

      The report recommends that we work with non-governmental organisations on the matter. NGOs should have access to the Secretary General and the Human Rights Commissioner, and their reports should go directly to those two bodies so that the Council of Europe can produce an opinion. Mr Hammarberg said after his visit to Turkey that the conditions in that country worried him, and OSCE also referred to the conditions in its report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Gündeş Bakir.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Freedom of the media and of expression are crucial in a functioning democracy. In order for democracy to flourish, it is essential that citizens have access to numerous different sources of information and to appropriate media for open and fair discussion.

      The report fails to account for the basic fact that the journalists convicted and detained in Turkey have not been imprisoned for their journalistic activities, as the report states, but in connection with offences such as murder, armed robbery, forgery of official documents, terrorism, attempted military coups, bombing, causing damage to property and placing explosives in public places. Mr Johansson’s report uses the phrase “alleged Ergenekon conspiracy”, but the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tuncay Özkan v. Turkey states that Ergenekon is a criminal organisation thought to be engaged in activities aimed at the violent overthrow of the government, with members from every profession, including the media. Those are not my words, but the words of the European Court of Human Rights.

      There are other factual problems with the report. The rapporteur claims that the 2008 legislative revision of article 301 of the Turkish penal code has not resolved the problems, but that is incorrect. On the contrary, after the revision of article 301, there was a 97% decrease in the number of cases; moreover, at present, there are no pre-trial detainees charged under article 301. Contrary to what Mr Johansson’s report states, there is no sentence in the June 2011 election observers’ report stating that the Turkish elections took place in a biased media environment. That is also a mistake. The election observers’ report states that the ad hoc committee concluded that the 12 June 2011 parliamentary elections in Turkey were well-managed and democratic and demonstrated pluralism.

      In my country, 40 000 people have lost their lives to terrorism in the last 30 years, and there have been four military coups in the last 50 years. The rule of law and order is crucial to a country with a past like Turkey’s. Nobody can be immune from the rule of law and order, including journalists. Media impunity should not encourage criminals to hide behind it; media freedom cannot be used as a shield to cover crimes. The media has substantial power, and must be accountable to the public in implementing that power. Although it is an accountability tool for powerful institutions, it must itself be accountable as well. A deficiency in media accountability would be an important failure in a democracy. A deficiency in regulating the media would cause a privatisation of democracy as a result of the control of information flows by big companies, and the limiting of the right of entry to those who can pay for it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Bilgehan.

Ms BILGEHAN (Turkey)* – I am the daughter of a journalist. My father used to tell me that his was the most beautiful profession in the world, but he paid dearly for his profession: he went to prison for two years for daring to criticise the government of the time. That was 50 years ago. It is extremely depressing to note that according to Mr Johansson’s report, that kind of situation still prevails in many of the so-called civilised member States of the Council of Europe. The leaders of some countries close their eyes to violations of journalists’ freedom to exercise their profession properly.

I am not thinking only of the arrest of some hundreds of journalists and their detention without trial; the trials are under way, with no judgment yet, so the principle of “innocent until proved guilty” is not being applied. They are being convicted or arrested on the basis of supposed terrorist acts after long investigation, but there is no proof. It is a question of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, although that is another issue. Media freedom is also being violated in other ways. Self-censorship is frequently employed, as is the intimidation of journalists. Tax pressure is placed on owners of media bodies, or they are threatened with closure.

Public service radio and television broadcasters should be protected from government interference in their editorial activities, but that is not the case everywhere. I will give an example that is actually a little amusing. There is bad news for the viewers of a Turkish television series that is very popular in the Balkans and other European countries as well as in the Russian Federation; apparently 150 million Russians watch it. At the personal request of the Prime Minister, the story will be changed. That is how far political interference can go. From now on, the series, about a sultan, will be much more modest.

January is a dark month. Uğur Mumcu, a well-known journalist, was killed almost exactly 20 years ago today, and the ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was also killed in January. I was in Strasbourg for the Parliamentary Assembly when it happened. The perpetrator in the first case was never found, and light has not been shed fully on the assassination of Mr Dink, although the direct perpetrator was found.

Mr Johansson’s report is important for all countries, and it even needs a follow-up.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – I thank and congratulate Mr Johansson. This kind of discussion and report is our core business; we must regularly consider media freedom in member States. I thank you for including Belarus. What is going on there, despite the fact that it does not belong to our Organisation, is going on in the middle of Europe, and it is important.

I support Amendments 7 and 15, which I highlight. They deal with public service broadcasting in Georgia, which must be protected and cannot be in the hands of any Prime Minister, especially one who threatens it or plans to merge it with private broadcasting. In a previous discussion on the same topic when Mr McIntosh was rapporteur, I remember proposing that we have a continuous file in our hands on journalists in our member States who are imprisoned, murdered or intimidated, with basic facts about the status of investigations and other circumstances. I find something similar in the explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 4.1, entitled “Deadly attacks against journalists”, which shows that between 2010 and 2012 there were more than 10 cases. We should not forget earlier cases. In the follow-up to earlier reports, there is a description of the Politkovskaya case and that of Stanislas Markelov, who represented her. They are the most famous cases, but there are several others, and we must keep up the fight.

      The draft recommendation is cleverly drafted, particularly point 2.2., in which “The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers…address an open invitation to the European Federation of Journalists…Reporters without Borders” and several other organisations “to regularly report serious violations of media freedom to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe”. Then we would have even better files and we would deal not only with the most important and well known cases but with all cases.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Pylypenko.

      Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – I thank Mr Johansson for his work and his report, the subject of which should be one of the priorities of our Assembly. Freedom of the media and the protection of journalists are vital elements of any functioning democracy. European States and, in particular, our national parliaments must do more to protect media freedom and our journalists.

      The situation of the media in Europe varies from one country to the other. Problems are more acute in some countries but that does not mean that we should forget about the others. I hope that in future we will extend the geography of the research. I should also like to draw your attention to the principles of preparation of such reports. The issues mentioned are very sensitive and important, so we need to use only reliable and objective information.

      Personally, I support the draft resolution, but I believe that we should not adopt amendments that contain subjective and controversial information, especially if it has not been researched and could be subject to different interpretations. For example, how can we, as one amendment proposes, refer in the resolution to a record number of violations against journalists recorded in Ukraine during the last parliamentary elections, if the report of the election observers makes no mention of such violations being recorded during the elections? We would be contradicting ourselves. How can we amend the report to refer to such violations if it does not even cover the period of the last parliamentary elections in Ukraine? The report covers the period up to June 2012, and the elections took place in October. If that amendment were accepted, some of my colleagues and I could not support the document.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Thank you, Mr Johansson, for your excellent report on the horrible situation of freedom of speech and protection of journalists in many countries of Europe. I want, of course, to describe the situation in Ukraine, and I thank you for the just, direct and very concrete information on the situation during the presidential elections.

I shall present some facts, for my colleague from Ukraine and for all of the members here. A very popular television channel was prevented from broadcasting in two thirds of the regions of Ukraine just for the period of the elections because its views were in opposition to those of the government. Three channels in the Kharkiv region were closed just for the period of the elections. I could describe many such experiences. Of course, things are not done like they were 12 years ago when Gongadze died; they are done more cleanly, using other methods. For example, six months ago, to close opposition television and radio channels, Yanukovych’s majority tried to pass in our parliament a special criminal law imposing sentences of up to five years if a journalist reports information that is not true. Who will investigate such cases? Our judges? You know the situation with judges in Ukraine. The government could silence each journalist for five years.

Amendments 1 and 2 have been tabled by colleagues from all over Europe concerning the situation in Ukraine. If we want to improve the situation in Ukraine, we need to adopt each of them. I thank the committee for supporting the amendments, which now need the support of the entire Parliamentary Assembly.

Last but not least, I point out that all court proceedings in the Gongadze case are closed. Hearings on that horrible case, which has been known all over the world for twelve and a half years, are closed so that no one can have information about the process. The references to the case in the report are very important to us.

We need real freedom of speech. We need real protection for journalists in their work. Of course, that is not only true in Ukraine. When we analyse all the facts in the report, we see that we need regulations in our national parliaments and in the Council of Europe. If we do not protect journalists in their work, we will never protect freedom of speech, democracy or our efforts to achieve democratic development.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Media freedom is a loaded topic within which there are many issues. It is also an essential element of democracy. The recent advances in digital and mobile technologies have rapidly changed the media landscape. Old-school journalists face huge cuts and unemployment. Media ownership and disguised media ownership need to be scrutinised. The fine line between freedom of expression and defamation has become even narrower and needs studying thoroughly. The ethics, rights and responsibilities of journalists must be revisited.

One would expect a report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with the title “The state of media freedom in Europe” to offer answers on at least some of those issues. A high-quality report would have been an invaluable document, offering vision and suggesting guidelines to all member States for the creation of a free and vibrant media environment in their countries. Instead, what we find here is the naming and shaming of three countries based on unsubstantiated information and rumours. Had the rapporteur done a better job of researching and listening, he would have a better understanding of the controversial issues and be able to distinguish right from wrong.

The report has been a huge disappointment for me. What was even more disappointing was Mr Johansson’s attitude. Members of my delegation attempted to contact him to provide information and correct some of the factual mistakes. They invited him to Turkey to see the situation on the ground. He has closed himself to any communication with our members.

We should be co-operative in our work here. A little courtesy would not hurt while we go about our business. We are all equal members of this Assembly and should duly respect each other. I am confident that the Assembly will soon produce the much-needed, genuine report on media freedom by another rapporteur.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Gafarova.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Freedom of speech and information and pluralism of opinion are fundamental parameters of the democratic development of model societies. Freedom of expression and information help society to reach objective truths and establish full democratic governance. All States that acknowledge the importance of those principles create favourable conditions for mass media, the key data medium. However, some governments, anxious about their own future and worried about what the development of democratic values means for their existence, are not keen on citizens having free access to information, and impede and limit independent activity by the mass media.

It is with great satisfaction that I mention that the Republic of Azerbaijan, a young democratic country and a State that is determined to uphold democratic values, has declared that ensuring freedom of speech and information is a priority, as well as the development of an independent press.

In compliance with freedom of speech and expression, vested in the constitution of the country, every citizen has a legal right to free search of and access to information, and to forward and distribute it. Mass media freedom is guaranteed. State censorship of mass media, including the press, is prohibited. At the same time, the State undertakes effective measures for ensuring the material and technical basis of mass media, implementing measured checks. In this way, serious steps are taken.

Taking all these things into consideration, a concept of State support for mass media was adopted. Proceeding from this concept, a State fund for support of mass media was established. As a result of establishing a positive atmosphere and conditions, more than 4 500 mass media and 3 600 non-governmental organisations have been registered in Azerbaijan. Within the past two years, the Government of Azerbaijan has allocated more than $15 million to support these organisations, promote their activity and improve their material and technical basis. I underline that this support is being allocated for all media, including opposition newspapers.

Thus today, all the conditions for a free, independent mass media have been created and established in Azerbaijan, and liberty of speech and freedom of expression and information are vested and guaranteed in the constitution of our country.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gafarova. I call Mr Geraint Davies.

Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – The guiding principles of our Council of Europe – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – imply and require that freedom of expression, offline and online, is a fundamental human right and that the rule of law should be guided by human rights and democracy. Debate and dissent should lead to reform, not repression, unless – exceptionally – where they promote child abuse, murder, and so on.

Freedom of expression always trumps the government’s interests and is the life blood of a healthy, stable democracy, into the future. Yet in the last year alone the number of journalists imprisoned has increased by 30%. There is abuse in Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and in Europe – here in this Chamber – we should be a beacon of hope for freedom across the world.

In the United Kingdom, the Leveson report into hacking by the News of the World, and beyond, has shown that self-regulation has failed and that independent regulation is required, but that State regulation should be avoided. We have seen the concentration of power, with Rupert Murdoch having his greedy fingers in too many political pies. His power needs to be broken up. We have seen cosy relationships, where his editor of the News of the World has become the press secretary of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.

We need transparency and freedom of information should prevail. Meanwhile, there is private sector censorship on the Internet, with big companies such as Atos who decide whether disabled people in the United Kingdom lose their benefits, intimidating servers into removing criticism of it or mention of suicides that follow its action.

Government censorship should be resisted. In my country, the Welsh Government even tried to stop a soap opera, “Pobol y Cwm”, because it criticised the government for not culling badgers. This natural instinct of defensive politicians underlines how risky it is for the United Kingdom government to be empowered to intercept all e-mails and texts, for example. That sends the wrong messages to repressive regimes, saying that they can strangle freedom of expression at birth, as security is always used as the pretext to suppress freedom.

The Council of Europe should be one voice for many voices, to ensure that every citizen has an equal right to be heard and media freedom should be championed to guarantee that right.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – I confess that I am not a member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, so I have not been deeply involved in this discussion. Nevertheless, I am surprised that, in paragraph 19 of the draft resolution, Spain is apparently included in the list of countries in which political pressure is brought to bear on public service broadcasters, along with other Council of Europe member States. This is patently wrong. It is outrageous. I do not know where that information was received from. I have my suspicions. I can well imagine where it was received from: there is one party in the government and two in opposition. I am sure that one of the opposition parties has been telling lies to this Assembly.

Of course, we are one of the countries that affords the highest guarantees to journalists, in both public and private media outfits. There have been many rulings from Spanish courts defending journalists’ rights to disseminate information. I assure members that there are no problems on this level. We have all sorts of other problems – all kinds of economic difficulties; I make no secret of that – but certainly there is no problem in respect of media freedom and public service broadcasting. It is simply not true.

Under the committee’s Amendment 6, a number of countries would be excluded from paragraph 19. In the English version, Spain has been taken out, but it still appears in the French version. If Spain stays in there, I will need to table an oral amendment, to say that it should be removed from paragraph 19, leaving three countries – Hungary, Italy and Romania – as in the English version. If Spain’s name disappears, I will not have to do that. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.

THE PRESIDENT – That will be checked, Mr Agramunt.

I call Mr Belyakov to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr BELYAKOV (Russian Federation)* – Colleagues, unfortunately I have to say that I am disappointed by the report that we are discussing. Why? No one doubts the growth in importance of the mass media in the world. That is clear. But unfortunately, in some larger countries where the mass media are growing, they end up being monopolised. The largest broadcasters form public opinion, so people end up with pseudo-democratic values and the minor media become victims and end up disappearing.

It seems that the rapporteur has written the report under the influence of these large media that form public opinion. Many speakers have said that the facts as set out in the report do not reflect the real situation on the ground in their countries. The rapporteur has, in many cases, simply taken statements from the mass media and put them into the report, without being able to demonstrate their validity.

As a member of the opposition in the Russian Federation, I have tried to understand what really happened in the Magnitsky case. Despite a parliamentary investigation, however, I have never seen any proof that he was tortured in a Russian prison. The report says it has been demonstrated, but that is not the case. Representatives from Turkey, Moldova and Ukraine have claimed that supposed facts about their countries have not been proven either. The report is formalistic and based on information provided by the mass media and NGOs. We need a more objective report.

I am interested in the work in France and Germany by a certain journalist to describe violations of human rights in Germany, but the information cannot be disseminated. We would be pleased to provide the distinguished rapporteur with information about how Russian journalists, political scientists and religious specialists are trying to describe the situation in Latvia but cannot even get visas because, as you know, a very different ideal is predominant there, one that is not dear to our hearts – namely fascist ideas. We would like to see a new report on media freedom that would be truly objective and of a higher quality.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. The last speaker will be Mr Rivard, Observer from Canada.

      Mr RIVARD (Canada)* – I am pleased to speak about an issue of such importance to democratic societies. Unquestionably, the freedom of expression, media freedom and the importance of journalists in keeping democracies transparent and dynamic are enshrined in our democratic traditions. Europe and Canada have a shared tradition of protecting the freedom of expression, including of the media, in their fundamental constitutional law. In Canada, sub-paragraph 2B of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of expression and the media, while in Europe the member countries of the Council of Europe are bound to respect media freedom by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and by the freedom of expression in general.

      The Canadian charter and the European Convention, along with judgments handed down by the courts which interpret these documents, are based on international conventions on the rights of persons and have followed up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As Mr Johansson reminds us in his excellent report, in many places journalists and the media continue to be subjected to manipulation, intimidation, harassment, criminal prosecution, detention and sometimes murder by the authorities simply because they do what we consider important and therefore what we expect from them – to hold governments accountable for their actions and to inform society about them.

      Although we might consider some of the countries mentioned in the report as emerging democracies – countries whose practices and democratic traditions differ from the dominant democratic model in the west – we must not cease trying to protect journalists or to set up the institutional and legal changes necessary to guarantee the freedom and independence of the media. It is up to the media to ensure that the rule of law obtains in those countries aspiring to greater transparency and to hold public institutions to account.

It is deplorable that despite the importance attributed to the rights of the person and despite the rule of law and democracy being considered cornerstones of progress in civilised societies, we continue to witness an erosion of the freedom of the press and expression. We must continue to highlight those practices and laws that are anti-democratic and to denounce any undermining of media freedom. We need the sustained efforts of parliamentarians to reveal abuses by governments of constitutional guarantees of media freedom.

      THE PRESIDENT – It is 7.05 p.m. and 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, in typescript only, to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

      I call Mr Johansson. You have four and a half minutes in which to reply.

      Mr JOHANSSON. (Sweden) – I shall focus on the amendments.

Mr Recordon raised two important issues: the concentration of media ownership and the Internet. I am sure that problems arising from them will be dealt with in future reports – indeed, the Assembly has already started three reports on the Internet, although we need to do some timetabling work so that we can deal with them one after the other, rather than at the same time.

      I shall turn to the amendments on Ukraine and Georgia, among whose delegations I notice there are different opinions. We included their – very late – amendments in our report as an investment for the future. If the Ukrainian and Georgian Governments do not want to appear in future reports, however, the solution lies in their own hands.

      That goes for Turkey as well. The report of my attitude towards the Turkish problems is not entirely correct. I have been to Turkey twice – not on the invitation of the government, but with other delegations – and I have talked to your ambassador in Sweden. Furthermore, I belong to a Turkish network of MPs in the Swedish Parliament that regularly discusses the situation in Turkey and listens to many voices from the country. We have discussed your amendments three times now: in October and in committee on Tuesday and Thursday morning – and by the way, you lost the votes. We have all noticed that the Turkish delegation itself is divided over the situation in Turkey. As the diplomats say, I simply suggest that we agree to disagree – although I am sure that the debate will continue.

      To conclude the Turkish issue, let me quote a friend of mine, the chairman of the International PEN club, who recently returned from a fact-finding mission in Turkey: “What we heard from writer after writer, publisher after publisher, from a wide variety of political backgrounds, was that they were trying to operate in an atmosphere of deep uncertainty, not knowing whether the words they wrote would produce charges or not. What they did know was that if they were charged in any way, it would mean years of their lives eaten up by the obscure legal system, the probable destruction of their careers and a financial disaster. This uncertainty leads to self-censorship in Turkey. That is why we say in the PEN club that freedom of expression in Turkey is being limited by self-censorship.”

I stop there, because my time is running out. I could give you many more quotes from tons of documents, studies, reports and witnesses when it comes to Turkey. For those of you who want to receive an update, the latest I have found on the situation in Turkey is a paper put out by the Carnegie Institute, “Press Freedom in Turkey.” My point is that it is written by Mr Marc Pierini, who is not a journalist, a politician or a diplomat; he is the former European Union ambassador to Turkey, but in his present position he is free to speak out about the situation in Turkey. He is much tougher than anything I have said in my report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much indeed, Mr Johansson. I call Mr Wach to speak on behalf of the Committee. You have two minutes.

      Mr WACH (Poland) – I thank our rapporteur, Mr Johansson, very much for this well substantiated report, which comes not only from research but from professional experience. I have a few things that I wanted to say, but the most important is to clear up the situation about amendments, especially Amendment 6. In the committee, the amendment that is now Amendment 6 was as follows: “delete Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovak Republic.” In English, it is equivalent. In French, it may not be; I do not know because I have the English text. Spain was not debated at all during the committee meeting. I have to clear that up, because I think it is an important subject. Many people have spoken in support, so I count on the fact that you will support it by voting with few exceptions.

I would like also to say that the report covers a very important but narrow field, which is the protection of sources and the protection of journalists. Many other important subjects were raised during the debate, but it is a never-ending story and we look forward to the next report on this important subject.

THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution, to which 15 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled. A draft recommendation has also been presented, to which no amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that Amendment 11 was agreed unanimously by the Committee. However, it cannot be dealt with under Rule 33.11 because it impacts on a later amendment, so it must be taken separately.

      We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş and Mr Fazil Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.

      I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 12.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – As I mentioned in my speech, the convicted and detained journalists in Turkey are not in prison because of their journalist activities or because of their political opinions, but because of their connection to offences such as murder, armed robbery, forgery of official documents, terrorism, attempted military coup, bombing, causing damage to property and placing explosives in public places. Therefore, we want this paragraph to be deleted.

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

      I call Mr Johansson.

      Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – I am not prepared to sell out the conclusions of our own Human Rights Commissioner. Neither am I prepared to sell out the conclusions on the situation in Turkey reached by OSCE, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the dozens of NGOs that put out reports, or the findings of our own hearings.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Ms Nursuna Memecan, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Mr Rovshan Rzayev, Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, Mr Şaban Dişli and Mr Fazil Mustafa, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words “has not resolved the problem that this article can be applied unduly against journalists and others, as stated by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Altuğ Taner Akçam v. Turkey on 25 October 2011” with the following words: “has resolved certain difficulties arising from its implementation, thereby decreasing 97.3% of cases opened on the basis of the said article”.

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 13.

       Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – After the revision of Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, there was a 97% decrease in the number of cases. Moreover, there are no pre-trial detainees charged under Article 301 of the penal code at present, so this is a factual correction.

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

      I call Mr Johansson.

      Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – To cut it short, my argument is the same as before. I am against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, replace the first sentence by the following sentence:

“It is rather difficult for the Assembly to comprehend the large number of criminal investigations which have been initiated against journalists under Articles 285 and 288 of the Turkish Penal Code, Article 6 of the Turkish Anti-Terror Law and related legal provisions, in particular for having reported on the massive court trials concerning the Ergenekon criminal organisation.”

      I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 3.

      Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – In an act of good will, and with the desire to compromise with the original Turkish amendment, we are in favour of Amendment 3 to call Ergenekon a criminal organisation.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Arpine Hovhannisyan, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Ms Naira Karapetyan, Ms Dangutė Mikutienė and Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, replace the words “Armenia, Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova” with the following words: “Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova. The Assembly, while welcoming the efforts of Armenia to address the issues with regards to the libel suit, encourages the Armenian authorities to continue the work in this direction.”

      If Amendment 10 is adopted, Amendment 9 falls.

      I call Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan to support Amendment 10.

Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – This amendment is to bring paragraph 15 into compliance with recent developments and changes in my country, which are also reflected in the background report prepared and presented by Mr William Horsley. I hope that colleagues will support the amendment.

We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, tabled by Ms Corina Fusu, Ms Liliana Palihovici, Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi, Mr Viorel Riceard Badea, Mr Ionuţ-Marian Stroe, Mr Traian Constantin Igaş and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in amendment 10, replace the words “Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova. The Assembly” with the following words: “Bulgaria. The Assembly”.

      I call Ms Fusu to support the sub-amendment.

      Ms FUSU (Republic of Moldova)* – In the Republic of Moldova, the law has already been changed to decriminalise slander. We have adopted the law on freedom of expression, which criminalises the obstruction of journalists and witnesses by public servants or by the directors of public audio-visual institutions. I do not agree that the Republic of Moldova should be mentioned in paragraph 15.

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

      I call Mr Petrenco.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova)* – I am categorically opposed to the sub-amendment. In Moldova there are a whole series of scandalous cases involving defamation, so I think it would be premature to delete the country from a text on media freedom.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I think the rapporteur will decide. I support my amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is rejected.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 10? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is adopted.

Amendment 9 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Volodymyr Ariev, Mr Serhiy Sobolev, Ms Lesia Orobets, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris and Mr Luca Volontè, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 15, add the following sentence: “The Assembly expresses its concern regarding attempts to restore criminal prosecution for defamation in the Ukrainian legislation.”

I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 1.

Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Last year the Ukraine Parliament attempted to change the criminal code to criminalise defamation. Under the current Ukraine judicial system, which is not independent and is highly corrupt, this would lead to the persecution of independent journalists and media organisations. After a protest campaign, the ruling party backed away from that initiative, but some threatened to return to it later. This amendment would help prevent that.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pylypenko.

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – There was an attempt to introduce a similar measure last year, but it was foiled. The topic of the criminalisation of defamation is not on the agenda in either the Ukrainian Parliament or Ukrainian society. The amendment is therefore outdated.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 1 is adopted.

       We come to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 15, add the following words: “Referring to the recent 14-month prison sentence imposed on Alessandro Sallusti in Italy, the Assembly asks the Venice Commission to prepare an opinion on whether the Italian laws on defamation are in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 4, on behalf of the committee.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – The amendment was originally introduced by Ms Bergamini of Italy, to draw our attention to an extraordinary case of a publisher being imprisoned. I personally would not have published the article he printed, as it had to do with the death penalty. However, we still think this issue should be on the agenda.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 4 is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan, Mr Davit Harutyunyan, Ms Naira Karapetyan, Ms Dangutė Mikutienė and Mr Volodymyr Pylypenko, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 16, replace the second sentence with the following sentence: “The Assembly therefore calls in particular on Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine to take steps to remedy shortcomings identified in recent election observation reports.”

      If Amendment 11 is adopted, Amendment 14 falls.

I call Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan to support Amendment 11.

Ms A. HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – The amendment would put paragraph 16 in line with the original report on Armenian parliamentary elections of 6 May 2012.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour unanimously.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 11 is adopted.

Amendment 14 therefore falls.

We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Volodymyr Ariev, Mr Serhiy Sobolev, Ms Lesia Orobets, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris and Mr Luca Volontè, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 16, add the following sentence: “The Assembly expresses its concern about a record number of violations against journalists recorded in Ukraine for the last 10 years, especially during the 2012 parliamentary elections."

I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 2.

Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Last year there was a record number of violations against Ukrainian journalists. There were some 329 cases, which is 3 to 5 times more than last year and even double the figure for 2004.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Pylypenko.

Mr PYLYPENKO (Ukraine) – If adopted, this amendment would cause great controversy as it contradicts the findings of recent observation mission reports on Ukrainian elections; there is no mention in them of a record number of violations against journalists.

THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open

Amendment 2 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17, add the following words: “The Assembly welcomes the report on transparency of media ownership in Europe prepared by Access Info Europe (Madrid) and the Open Society Media Programme (London) in October 2012 and invites the European Audiovisual Observatory (Strasbourg) to develop further its MAVISE database on media ownership and to provide assistance to its members in establishing transparency of media ownership.”

I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 5, on behalf of the committee.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – This is a pure act of courtesy, thanking certain organisations.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anybody wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Vilmos Szabó.

MR V. SZABÓ (Hungary) – I do not think this is at all relevant for media freedom in Europe and I do not think there is any point in adopting such an amendment. There are some much more relevant points that are not mentioned in the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour of the amendment.

The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Agramunt: “In the draft resolution, in paragraph 19, delete ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Serbia, Spain and Ukraine’ and replace with “Hungary, Italy, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and provided there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment does not meet the criteria of Rule 33.7.a and therefore cannot be debated.

We come to Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 19, replace the words “Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Romania, the Slovak Republic” with the following words: “Hungary, Italy, Romania”.

I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the committee.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – This is just an update of the situation. The amendment refers to Balkan States, but the provision is based on sources that are a bit old, which is why we support the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) – The English text makes no reference to Spain. I do not know what is happening. Spain was originally included in paragraph 19. This is outrageous. I really do not know where we are at.

The PRESIDENT – I understand that, on the question of the paragraphs in both the English and the French texts, even after the amendment reference to Spain will remain.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee is in favour of the amendment. The English text is correct.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 19, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly regrets that governments in some member states have replaced senior staff in their public service broadcasters after a change in government in order to influence the political orientation of those broadcasters. In this regard, it is particularly alarming that the Georgian Prime Minister suggested merging the Georgian public service broadcaster with the private broadcaster TV9 owned by his wife and amending the Georgian law on broadcasting.”

I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 7 on behalf of the committee.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – This is the same argument as the one that applies to Ukraine. The situation is so extraordinary that we want to put it on the Council of Europe’s media agenda to be followed up.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Berdzenishvili.

Mr BERDZENISHVILI (Georgia) – I am against the amendment because Georgia was not even mentioned in the report. The situation of the Georgian media has not been appropriately studied by the rapporteur. The amendment would affect the resolution’s credibility, which would be regrettable, given that this is an important issue.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr WACH (Poland) – We are in favour.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, Ms Marietta De Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Lolita Čigāne, Ms Inese Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Mr Jordi Xuclà and Mr Björn Von Sydow, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 19, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly expresses concern over a series of surprise financial inspections of the Georgian Public Broadcaster, followed by aggressive political statements by senior government officials in parallel with the introduction of controversial amendments to the Law on Broadcasting. These steps preceded statements by Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili on the desirability of the GPB’s merger with TV9, owned by his wife, as well as of ownership shifts in the private Georgian media.”

I call Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 15.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I ask colleagues to support the amendment, as they supported the previous one, because it details the situation of the public broadcaster in Georgia. This reference is necessary, as we know that public broadcasters can often be vulnerable to political pressures. To avoid any such situation, the amendment, which the committee has supported, is necessary.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Berdzenishvili.

Mr BERDZENISHVILI (Georgia) – I am against the amendment. It says that there was a shift of ownership in the Georgian free media. The ownership was shifted because what had forcibly been taken away in 2007, when the police raided the television station, was returned to the family of Imedi TV. Is the amendment against that? I strongly advise the Assembly not to support the amendment.

The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee? It is obviously in favour.

Mr WACH (Poland) – The committee voted in favour.

The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

Amendment 15 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 20, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly welcomes the successful organisation of the inter-parliamentary seminar on the independence and financing of public service broadcasting, which was hosted by the Croatian Parliament in Zagreb on 15 October 2012 with the financial support by the Open Society Media Programme. It invites national parliaments and partner organisations to collaborate in future similar projects.”

I call Mr Johansson to support Amendment 8 on behalf of the committee.

Mr JOHANSSON (Sweden) – This is another act of courtesy to thank the sponsors of important activity.

The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Belyakov.

Mr BELYAKOV (Russian Federation) – The amendment is, like the rest of the report, tendentious. Neither I nor many other colleagues have participated in this process. We cannot support something like this. What is said has not been demonstrated and is based on dubious facts and subjective assessment by the rapporteur.

The PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13078, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution contained in Document 13078, as amended, is adopted, with 52 votes for, 28 votes against and 3 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13078. A two-thirds majority is needed.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation contained in Document 13078 is rejected, with 52 votes for, 29 votes against and 3 abstentions.

The draft recommendation failed to achieve a two-thirds majority

.

I thank the chairman of the committee and the rapporteur for all their work.

4. Written declaration

The PRESIDENT – The following written declaration, No. 534 (Doc. 13109), has been tabled. It is entitled, “To facilitate a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Kurdish issue in Turkey, Abdullah Öcalan should be released”. It has been signed by 21 members. Any member, substitute, observer or partner for democracy may add his or her signature to the written declaration in the Table Office, Room 1083.

5. Next public sitting

The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda that was agreed yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 7.40 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Urgent debate: recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region (resumed debate)

Speakers:

Mr Bockel (France)

Mr Salles (France)

Mr Loncle (France)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Mr Beneyto (Spain)

Mr Yatim (Morocco)

Mr Ameur (Morocco)

Replies:

Ms Woldseth (Norway)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Amendments 4, 5, 13, 17, 2, 15, 8, 16, as amended, 14, as amended, Oral Amendment 1, 7, as amended, Oral Amendment 2 and Amendment 9 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13107, as amended, adopted

2.        Address by Mr Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy

Questions:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Ms Vučković (Serbia)

Ms Fusu (Republic of Moldova)

Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Petrenco (Republic Of Moldova)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey)

Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

Mr Çağlar (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community)

Mr Xuclà (Spain)

Lord Anderson (United Kingdom)

Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

Mr Nikoloski (“The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Ilić (Serbia)

3.        The state of media freedom in Europe

Presentation of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media by Mr Mats Johansson, Document 13078.

Speakers:

Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark)

Mr Kennedy (United Kingdom)

Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom)

Mr Kürkçü (Turkey)

Ms Kovács (Serbia)

Mr Johansson (Sweden)

Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Mr v. Szabó (Hungary)

Ms Graham (Norway)

Mr Recordon (Switzerland)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey)

Ms Bilgehan (Turkey)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Pylypenko (Ukraine)

Mr Sobolev (Ukraine)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Mr G. Davies (United Kingdom)

Mr Agramunt (Spain)

Mr Belyakov (Russian Federation)

Mr Rivard (Canada)

Replies:

Mr Johansson (Sweden)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Amendments 3, 10, 1, 4, 11, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15 and 8 adopted

Draft resolution contained in Document 13078, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation contained in Document 13078 rejected

4.        Written declaration

5.        Next public sitting

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Mörður ÁRNASON*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS/Maria Giannakaki

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO*

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Tina Acketoft

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN/Ingjerd Schou

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Stanislav Ivanov

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS*

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA/Carmen Quintanilla

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU/Bernadette Bourzai

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA/Raphaël Comte

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Erich Georg FRITZ

Sir Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Paolo GIARETTA*

Jean GLAVANY/Christian Bataille

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Anton Belyakov

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU/Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG*

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Vahe Hovhannisyan

Håkon HAUGLI*

Norbert HAUPERT

Alfred HEER*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD/Joe Benton

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO*

Susanna HUOVINEN*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIČ

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Roman JAKIČ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Jordi Xuclà

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA*

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE

Jean-Louis LORRAIN*

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Younal LOUTFI*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET*

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Luc Recordon

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Marie-Jo Zimmermann

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV*

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANES

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH/Félix Braz

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Charles Kennedy

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Olga Kazakova

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE/Geraint Davies

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT/Michael Connarty

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/Rudy Salles

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA/Ana Catarina Mendonça

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER

Damir ŠEHOVIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/David Crausby

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Yury Solonin

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Remigijus Ačas

Ladislav SKOPAL*

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Robert Shlegel

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov

Viktor USPASKICH/Egidijus Vareikis

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Konstantinos Triantafyllos

Ljubica VASIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Varujan VOSGANIAN*

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND*

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Svetlana ZHUROVA/Guennady Gorbunov

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Algis Kašėta

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Anvar Makhmutov

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Montenegro*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

---

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Ahmet ETI

Observers

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Michel RIVARD

Partners for Democracy

Bernard SABELLA