AA13CR22
AS (2013) CR 22
2013 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twenty-second Sitting
Tuesday 25 June 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 Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)
The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.
1. Changes in the membership of committees
The PRESIDENT* – The changes have been published in Document Commissions (2013) 06 Addendum 2.
Are there any objections to the changes in the membership?
The changes are agreed to.
2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
THE PRESIDENT* – I must remind members that the vote is in progress to elect two judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The candidates are from Iceland and Lithuania. The vote is taking place behind the President's Chair and will close at 5 p.m.
I also remind you that the count will occur immediately afterwards in the presence of two tellers. Their names were pulled out of a hat this morning: Mr Dirk Van der Maelen and Mr Christian Bataille. The result will, if possible, be announced before the end of this sitting or at the beginning of the next sitting. To those who have not voted yet, I say please do so.
3. Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary
The PRESIDENT* – We now move to the debate on the report entitled “Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary”, Document 13229, presented by Ms Lundgren, whom I welcome, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
We have a three-minute limit. I ask speakers to stick to the limit scrupulously.
Including the vote, we should finish at 6 p.m. Unfortunately, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at 5.10 p.m. so that we can hear the replies and move to the votes.
I call Ms Lundgren, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate, either to the spokespersons of the groups or afterwards to all the speakers. It is a great pleasure to give you the floor.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – This Assembly has to defend the checks and balances in our common house, the Council of Europe. We as parliamentarians should be the watchdogs, not to bark at our governments, but to guide and challenge them to go for higher standards on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, those values that we voluntarily signed up to when we became members. We should strive to go uphill, not downhill.
I know that some of you will compare the situation in different countries but, remember, every country is unique and must be treated as such, on its own merits. Turning a blind eye to one is not an excuse to do it again. Please make sure that your decision on whether to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary will bring us upwards.
As one of the two co-rapporteurs appointed by the Monitoring Committee, I can assure you that we have invested considerable time and effort to prepare our opinion: a lot of paper, three fact-finding visits and more than 80 dialogues. Of course, we have also looked closely at the 11 opinions prepared by our independent legal and constitutional expert body, the Venice Commission. The latest opinion on the fourth amendment to the constitution clearly vindicates the findings of the Monitoring Committee report.
The Council of Europe has also provided extensive expertise to the authorities on media legislation. Regrettably, most of the fundamental concerns raised by these expert opinions were either not addressed or amendments were limited to technicalities.
Let me briefly sum up our findings. On democracy, since 2010 the current government has used its two-thirds majority to amend the old constitution 12 times and to push through in less than a year a completely new constitution, which has already been amended on four occasions, most recently in March this year, and we hear of more to come. The constant changing of the constitution has turned it into an instrument of political power instead of a framework for the organisation of State and government. This undermines its democratic legitimacy.
In record time, the ruling coalition has passed more than 30 so-called cardinal laws that require a two-thirds majority in order to be adopted or amended. Let me quote the Venice Commission: “This wide use of cardinal laws to cement the economic, social, fiscal, family, educational etc. policies of the current two-thirds majority, is a serious threat to democracy.” The Venice Commission even states that elections “would become meaningless if the legislator would not be able to change important aspects of the legislation that should have been enacted with a simple majority.”
On the rule of law, the current majority seems to wish to exert control over Hungarian society beyond the mandate it has received from the voters. The sheer number of institutions and regulatory bodies that were either newly established or thoroughly reformed by the ruling coalition underscores that intention. Let me just mention a few: the Ombudsman Institution, the Media Council and Media Authority, the National Election Committee, the National Authority for Data Protection and the Budget Council.
Since 2010, the administration of the judiciary has been completely overhauled and brought under control by the ruling majority. More than 300 judges were forced into retirement because of the sudden lowering of the retirement age from 70 to 62. The Supreme Court was replaced by the Curia and the mandate of its president was abruptly terminated before the end of his term. The newly created National Judicial Office gives its president, who is elected for nine years, an excessive number of competences. The office has been confirmed in the Fundamental Law without, as the Venice Commission has stated, any indication of the necessary limitations or checks and balances. The fourth amendment provides the office with additional legitimacy without providing for additional accountability. The supreme body of judicial self-government is not even mentioned in the Fundamental Law.
Nowhere is the erosion of the systems of checks and balances more clear than in the systematic curtailing of the powers and competences of the Constitutional Court: it no longer has jurisdiction over financial and economic matters regulated by cardinal laws; all its decisions from before 1 January 2012 have been declared null and void; and its competence with regard to constitutional amendments is now expressly limited to procedural issues. Let me quote the Venice Commission again: “The limitation of the role of the Constitutional Court leads to a risk that it may negatively affect all three pillars of the Council of Europe: the separation of powers as an essential tenet of democracy, the protection of human rights and the rule of law.”
More importantly, as noted by the Venice Commission, there is a consistent pattern of reacting with constitutional amendments to the rulings of the Constitutional Court. Provisions which were found unconstitutional and annulled by the Constitutional Court were reintroduced on the constitutional level to prevent the court from reviewing them in the future.
The complete removal of the Constitutional Court’s competence to control provisions that should have remained at the level of ordinary legislation is an infringement of democratic checks and balances and the separation of powers, according to the Venice Commission.
On human rights, in our opinion the new constitutional and legal framework in Hungary is in several aspects at variance with European standards or contradicts them, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights. This is particularly the case with regard to cardinal legislation on the judiciary, the elections and the recognition of Churches. The European Court has already found a violation of the Convention in a number of cases, such as the 98% tax on severance pay for civil servants or their dismissal without any reasons given. One hundred and fifty judges have applied to contest their early retirement and about 13 000 law enforcement or security personnel are complaining about the replacement of their early retirement pension by a taxable allowance.
Nobody contests that there were free and fair elections in 2010 or that the ruling coalition got a clear mandate for reform from the voters. However, a two-thirds majority does not mean that the winner takes it all to do what they want.
What we have witnessed in the past two years is a consistent pattern of using the constitution and the cardinal laws as political instruments to cement choices made by the present majority well beyond the mandate given by the voters, while considerably weakening the constitutional system of checks and balances. This raises serious concerns. Our Assembly, and the Council of Europe, would lose all our credibility as the guardians of democracy, the rule of law and human rights if the proposal of the Monitoring Committee to closely monitor developments in Hungary were rejected today.
We have enjoyed excellent co-operation with the Hungarian authorities and we welcome their stated willingness to address any shortcomings and meet the concerns identified by the Assembly. The concerns raised, however, are, taken together, many. We have been hopeful at times, but we have also seen several setbacks. The process should therefore be closely followed by the Assembly, and the monitoring procedure is the only appropriate mechanism to do so.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Lundgren. You have about four minutes left. The next speaker is Mr Walter, on behalf of the Bureau. You have a maximum of five minutes.
Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – At the most recent meeting of the Bureau in Yerevan, the Monitoring Committee’s request to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary was debated. There were a variety of viewpoints, at the conclusion of which it was decided, by 13 votes to seven, that the Assembly should not place Hungary under monitoring. Today I will elaborate on that decision in light of the discussions held.
I want to start by saying that monitoring is a serious matter. When a recommendation is made to place any country under scrutiny, our responsibility as parliamentarians is, in the first instance, to scrutinise the merits of such a recommendation carefully and objectively. We have to reflect on the concerns raised in the context of the country in question. We need an even-handed approach that is free from party political bias. Crucially, we must weigh up the advantages of employing the monitoring procedure against the efficiency of alternative courses of action.
It is important to state – to stress, even – that the concerns expressed by the rapporteur in her written opinion, as well as by those members of the Bureau who spoke out in Yerevan in favour of opening a monitoring procedure, are serious and legitimate. I think we can all agree that Hungary’s adoption of a new constitution and related cardinal laws has raised serious questions about democratic procedures and principles, and that the request to open a monitoring procedure was motivated by positive intentions to help Hungary address those questions.
Our differences lie not so much in the substance of our concerns as in the strategy to deal with those concerns. Looking at the evidence, the Bureau's verdict is that Hungary, for all its internal challenges, does not fall into the monitoring category. As a full member of the European Union, it must demonstrate its democratic credentials and a commitment to the rule of law, but it has no political prisoners. There are no major human rights violations. The most serious setbacks are technical in nature, arising from constitutional change – change which, I should add, received widespread public support following the 2010 elections, which were free and fair, as the rapporteur said.
Hungary faces specific constitutional issues that do warrant closer legal scrutiny, but in the opinion of the Bureau, this does not mean it deserves to be put under full-scale political surveillance on a par with other countries in the monitoring procedure. The Council of Europe has other mechanisms in place to provide robust oversight of the specific challenges that affect Hungary. No body is better placed than the Venice Commission, which has already been engaged in the process, to guide the government through the constitutional issues. Added to that, we have the democratic oversight of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, whose competence should be used to complement the work carried out so far. Surely these bodies have the combined expertise and experience to examine the issues, recommend solutions and work together with the Hungarian Government to achieve a satisfactory result.
In the opinion of the Bureau, it would make more sense to stay with a process that has already started, and is making good progress with the full co-operation of the Hungarian authorities. This latter point is significant: Hungary has at every turn faced up to criticisms and co-operated with the Venice Commission. It has taken on board Venice Commission recommendations and contributed to its recent opinion on the fourth amendment. Despite the disagreements, the government has reiterated its commitment to keep up the dialogue and this should be commended.
If we go down the monitoring route, I fear we would damage the confidence built up so far. And, significantly, we would be misusing the monitoring procedure, which is an important instrument of change for those countries that need bottom-up institutional support and far-reaching reforms, but not a one-size-fits-all solution.
In conclusion, I say again that this is not about turning a blind eye to deficiencies in democratic processes, or absolving a member State of its obligations under Council of Europe conventions. It is about ensuring a proper and proportionate response to emerging challenges. Amendment 2 would have the effect of returning this matter to the Bureau on Friday and it could then be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This is an appropriate and proportionate response to the issues raised in the report.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Chope to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I agree very much with what Bob Walter has said. We need a proportionate response to the issues in Hungary. I have had an interest in Hungary ever since the father of my best friend at school was in the British embassy at the time of the troubles in 1956. Nobody would suggest that what is happening in Hungary today can be compared with what was happening in 1956. We need to bring some reality into this debate.
I fear that much of the concern that has been expressed is a proxy for anguish on the part of a number of colleagues – more in the European Parliament than in this Assembly – about article 1 of the fourth amendment, which states that Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. That has caused much concern in the European Parliament. But the verdict of the Venice Commission was that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman falls within the margin of appreciation of the Hungarian authorities. Much of the concern that has been expressed is because colleagues do not accept that that should be within the margin of appreciation of the Hungarian authorities. Hungary is a democratic, sovereign country. It is entitled to change its laws if it wishes to do so and if those laws are changed in accordance with its constitution by its own democratically elected government.
We are used to bringing countries and their parliaments to book if we think that they are not complying with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights, but to impose a monitoring procedure on a mature democracy as proposed in the resolution would be over the top and disproportionate. That is why I hope that we will opt for what might be described as a more focused and reasonable approach. It is not as though the Hungarian authorities have defied all the recommendations from the Venice Commission: they have been engaging in discussion – a positive, constructive discussion – with the Secretary General of this Assembly, representatives from the European Commission and members of the Committee of Ministers. If the Hungarian Government was being intransigent and sticking two fingers up to us, I could understand the case for monitoring, but that is not the case. We should listen to the Hungarians, respect their point of view and engage with them in constructive dialogue.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Chope. I call Mr Hunko who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – I speak on behalf of my group, but also as one of the first people to put their name to the motion of January 2011 when we called on the Monitoring Committee to consider introducing a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary. I thank the rapporteur for an excellent report and the work that she has done.
In the Monitoring Committee, we have dealt with the situation in Hungary over two and a half years and we have had to wait for a certain number of opinions to be presented by the Venice Commission. As we have just heard, the commission produced 11 opinions, the last of which is only one week old. It deals with the fourth amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law. All the opinions of the Venice Commission were very critical, and the heart of that criticism has to do with the loss of checks and balances between the legislative procedure and the constitutional court.
To give an example – so we are not discussing things in the abstract – in November 2011, a law was enacted to make homelessness a criminal act. If someone is found twice on the streets as a homeless person, they risked ending up in prison or having to pay a €200 fine, which is a lot of money. The constitutional court rejected that law, saying that it violated the rights of the homeless. A constitutional modification or amendment was then produced, which got the necessary two-thirds majority. The existence of the law is a problem in itself, but the way it got into the constitution is an abuse, as the Venice Commission commented.
Various counter-arguments have been advanced, for example, that there are countries where the situation is even worse, with political prisoners, torture and so on. That is true, but surely that cannot be our yardstick. We cannot operate on the basis of the lowest standards of the rule of law or human rights; we should take as our yardstick the highest standard.
It has been said that we should not punish the Government of Hungary, but the monitoring procedure is the appropriate tool. We have given ourselves that tool so we can ensure that countries return to the straight and narrow in terms of democracy. It is not a punishment – that is not how it should be seen – rather, it is an aid or tool that is made available to countries such as Hungary by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Venice Commission.
The vote on the monitoring procedure is also a question of affirming ourselves as a Parliamentary Assembly. If we do not vote in favour, we will not be taken seriously. There are efforts afoot at the level of the European Union to deal with the situation in Hungary. If we do not vote in favour of opening a monitoring procedure, the Parliamentary Assembly will not be given much of a hearing in future. That is an important point. I appeal to you to vote for the monitoring procedure in the interests not only of the future of Hungary, but of the future of the Parliamentary Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Volontč on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – Many years have passed since the monitoring procedure began. I am not anybody’s watchdog, as people have said. I am a member of parliament. I am very much in favour of human rights and want to promote them, but we are not a watchdog that bites companions on the benches with us or that bites countries that are part of the Council of Europe. It has been said that there has been a lot of co-operation on the part of Hungary over the years, and that therefore it might be a good idea to open monitoring. However, there is a limit to such reasoning.
We are not questioning the views of the Venice Commission. If we were, we would have discussed all its reports. Up until January this year, the Commission said not only that Hungary was working very well with it, but that great steps had been made to correct Hungary’s course. We must bear in mind our position. Condemnation in the media, which kicked off the report, happened because of certain forces in the European Parliament that were rightly worried about certain excesses, but what are we discussing now? Are we discussing the fact that Hungary has a two-thirds majority government that won the elections? That is what emerged from the Monitoring Committee debate. If that is a mortal sin for democracy, we should ask our ministers to amend the Convention to say that it is not possible for governments to have more than a two-thirds popular consensus behind them.
Someone mentioned the readiness of the Hungarians to change their constitution. That is fair enough. Up until three years ago, they did not discuss the constitution, because it was dominated by the constitution of the Soviet regime. Nobody questioned that constitution, but it jeopardised the pillars of human rights. Only when Hungary came into the Council of Europe did we have movement. I would like just a minimum amount of objectivity in our debate. Voting against the thrust of the report is not an offence to the Council of Europe; it would be a great statement of our seriousness and objectivity. We forget why some political leaders asked two years ago for an urgent intervention and we should not forget the fact that this vote is being used as a political football. We need to do our duty. We need to take stock of what has happened and of the positive movements that have occurred. That is our duty. We should throw out the Monitoring Committee’s report.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr von Sydow, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr VON SYDOW (Sweden) – This is not a case against Hungary but a request for opening a monitoring procedure in Hungary. We respect the 2010 elections as free and fair, but to transmit votes into seats, we need an electoral system that is mixed between representation and government ability. Two thirds of the constitutional changes are reasonable and it is reasonable to make changes to basic laws. However, the concerns come because that is combined with a one-party majority in Parliament. To reach a true national consensus and democracy, we need the opposition to motivate negotiations and compromises democratically.
Another complementary way in which to obtain checks and balances in such a situation is to make use of international institutions. We have our Court, the Venice Commission and the European Union, with all its sub-institutions. Such self-imposing restrictions can be unattractive, but they can work for a safer national consensus. They can even be important in hard times.
We are not introducing double standards. My country, Sweden, is heavily criticised by GRECO and the Monitoring Committee. We know that it is not easy to adapt and that it takes time, but we are adapting GRECO’s critique on the risks of corruption in political parties. Only the element of losing or lessening power is harmful.
The Socialist Group fully supports the report as outlined by the rapporteur and her views on the amendments. Contrary to what Mr Walter said about the Bureau, there was a tie in the Monitoring Committee on the alternatives of monitoring or Amendment 2. The chair let his vote for Amendment 2 go. It is fair to say that there should be another way. We would like to go for monitoring.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Reps on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms REPS (Estonia) – I thank the rapporteur for her clear, fact-based report. It raises concerns that the new constitutional situation is damaging checks and balances and undermining the main principles of the Council of Europe – democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have reached similar conclusions. The Venice Commission, an independent expert group, confirms point by point the findings of the rapporteur. In particular, in its latest opinion on the fourth amendment, it underlines that the new constitutional situation risks undermining the three pillars of the Council of Europe – democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
The debate in the Monitoring Committee shows how divided the Assembly is. We voted twice to open monitoring, but this morning the result was 26 to 26, and we suddenly weakened our wording. I am strongly against amendments that undermine our work in the Assembly. We must be especially against Amendment 2.
Let me remind you what monitoring is. Monitoring is the mechanism in the Rules of Procedure to follow the situation in a country. It is not about humiliating or punishing a country. If we wished, we could apply sanctions, but that is not what is proposed here. The eyes of the international community should be, and hopefully are, on us today. It is clear that if we decide not to use our mechanism to monitor Hungary and engage in a dialogue with it, others, such as perhaps the European Commission, will feel obliged to do so. That will weaken our Organisation, which cannot be the Assembly’s wish.
Many people have spoken in this debate about double standards. It would be a serious example of double standards if no action were taken when there were serious concerns. How can we defend other countries being subject to a monitoring procedure if we wilfully reject one for Hungary despite all the concerns that exist? Not opening one would seriously damage not only the monitoring procedure as a whole but, above all, the overall credibility of this Organisation. Whatever our loyalties are today when we come to vote – maybe they are political, maybe domestic – they should remain with democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
THE PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur does not wish to respond at this stage, so we shall continue with the general debate.
Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece) – It is true that we are divided. I have followed the process carefully, including the work of the first and second monitoring groups and the report on Hungary. It seems to me that we do not want to accept that the Hungarian people made their decision and elected a two-thirds majority. Electoral law at the time of the election was brought in not by the current government but by the previous one. Some of us would love our own party to have a two-thirds majority, and when there is such a majority, it has the right to make decisions. That is what democracy is about. In Greece, we could change the constitution with a two-thirds majority. No party ever gets one, but if we did, we would love to have private universities, for example, which we cannot have under the Greek constitution.
It is true that we have a lot of concerns about Hungary, and that the Venice Commission made some strong remarks about it. What answer did our Assembly give to that? We waited for the Hungarian Government to comply, and it did. Between the work of the first and last monitoring groups, the Hungarian Government made a lot of changes. Now, we seem to want to open a monitoring process, but if we do that for Hungary, what will we do about Georgia? My Georgian colleague who was here yesterday asked me, “Is anybody dead because of the opposition in Hungary? Does the government put the head of the opposition in jail? Is this really a situation in which we need a monitoring process for a member of the European Union?” I strongly believe that we do not.
It is at least unfair – I do not know the exact English word that I want to use – to suggest that a country for which a monitoring process is opened by the Council of Europe should be delighted about it. Of course it will be an insult to the Hungarians if the Council of Europe opens a monitoring process. Contrary to what Ms Reps said, I believe that Amendment 2 goes in the right direction. We should look into what is happening in Hungary and follow it, but we should not open a monitoring process for a member of the European Union when many other countries need it much more.
Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I am a little disappointed, if not worried, to find that concern for human rights is sometimes considered a trivial matter even in this Assembly. I understand the emotional gut reaction of somebody whose country is being impugned. I was not totally unaffected when my own country was in the firing line over financial matters, but I had to acknowledge that that was right, in spite of certain excesses. As Mr von Sydow said, it is now Hungary’s turn, and that needs to be acknowledged.
Is a monitoring procedure such a problem that the interests of emotion and the national interest – I would not go so far as to say the nationalistic interest – should take pride of place over human rights? Are the criteria to be as excessive as loss of life before we can launch a monitoring procedure? Certain excesses have led to the loss of life in Europe down the years, even in countries with impeccable democratic credentials. What strikes me about the situation in Hungary is that we seem to be trivialising violations of human rights – freedom of expression violations, racism and even anti-Semitism. That is extremely worrying and a bad example for the whole of Europe, which seems to be falling into line on the matter. We must ask ourselves whether we should let national interest take pride of place over our legitimate concerns for human rights, and whether we should just sacrifice human rights when we are speaking on behalf of a member country.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – When the motion to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary was introduced, I was indignant and disappointed. I am sure that Hungary is a democratic country where human rights have prevailed. It is traditionally committed to the freedom and democracy approved by the revolution in 1956, and it has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1990. Amendment 7, supported by the Monitoring Committee, recognises that “the new Hungarian Parliament, for the first time in the history of free and democratic Hungary, amended the former one-party Constitution into a new and modern Fundamental Law through a democratic procedure, after intensive debates in the Parliament and with contributions by Hungarian civil society.” That was necessary because the former constitution declared itself to be a temporary document. It had been the result of a political deal and was not a constitution adopted by a freely elected Parliament.
The result of the election in 2010 – a unique two-thirds majority – and the appearance of new political protest movements were consequences of a deep social frustration. In the past 20 years, Hungarian society has been through several changes that have not been followed by the adjustment of the legal framework. In my view, one of the most important aims behind the monitoring procedure should be to persuade reluctant member States to co-operate with the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe. For the past three years, the Hungarian Government’s intention has been to conduct an open and constructive dialogue with the Council of Europe and all its organs. That dialogue has been much more than a simple act of courtesy and has resulted in several legal acts being modified specifically at the request of the Council of Europe. I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly for their dedication and co-operation. Considering everything that I have said, I ask the distinguished members of the Assembly to vote against the opening of monitoring in respect of Hungary.
Ms CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Germany) – The opening of the monitoring procedure affects many different levels that we must consider, and I would like first to address some matters of substance. The Venice Commission issued its fourth report on Hungary in July, in which Hungary was criticised for passing all sorts of laws that are anchored in its constitution but that had previously been thrown out by the constitutional court as anti-constitutional. Let me give the Assembly two examples. First, what is the point from a constitutional point of view of giving local authorities the possibility of arresting or fining the homeless? Secondly, why should students who are trying to be mobile throughout the European Union be forced to work in their nation State and not allowed to move around the European Union? What is the point of anchoring that in the constitution? The constitution is obviously being misused for political reasons, and that is why the Venice Commission criticised it.
Other points that could be criticised include the speed and number of laws that have been passed, with more than 500 changes in three years. Parliament is churning out laws like a machine but even the Venice Commission is not allowed to criticise that any more because apparently that is politically motivated. In that case, we might as well shut up shop. Colleagues, especially those from the Group of the European People’s Party, please explain to me what interest a Polish constitutional expert or a Finn might have in denigrating Hungary. That is absurd; it is complete nonsense. As Mr von Sydow said, we have created instruments, particularly the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which allow us to take an objective view of the situation. To call such instruments into question means calling into question the entire process of the Council of Europe.
There is also the question of what we will do in the future at European or European Union level, and if we cannot get to grips with the Hungarian problem here, we must look carefully at ourselves. If this procedure should fail for political reasons, we will not be able to bring Hungary back into the line of democracy. The ultimate consequence of that would be that European Union countries would abdicate any kind of oversight, and hand over all such responsibility to the European Union. Colleagues from the Group of the European People’s Party, I am afraid that you will come to regret that course of action.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – When we first discussed whether we should monitor Hungary, at the first meeting of the Monitoring Committee I voted for the process to go ahead – once again it was a very close vote, with just one vote carrying the motion. I had reservations about the report at the time, however, which I expressed when I spoke at the committee, and now I believe that we are doing this the wrong way round. There are 193 paragraphs in the report, but not one explains what the benefits to the Assembly or, more importantly, to Hungary would be if monitoring takes place. I would have thought that a report of this length and magnitude would have warranted some explanation of the perceived benefits. One paragraph – paragraph 1 – mentions the history behind how this procedure came to pass, but that is not good enough.
If we are embarking on what for us is the unique situation of putting a country back into monitoring, surely we are worthy of an explanation of what benefits will accrue from such action. The report, however, fails to expose those benefits to us. What are the benefits that will not already be provided by the work of the Venice Commission, the European Commission, our offices in the Parliamentary Assembly and bodies from the Council of Europe that are working with the Hungarian authorities? What more would monitoring Hungary do to improve the situation?
Our Greek colleague, Ms Bakoyannis, spoke with a great deal of sense about how all of us as politicians should have the ambition to have that sort of majority. I do not know how people would act in my country with such a majority. Our recent governments have had large majorities. One of them took us to war, and another took us to war with our own population by breaking up civil strikes and using the military and police to break up civil demonstrations. Big majorities allow governments to do lots of things. However, there are no widespread demonstrations in the streets of Hungary about this issue, and if there was so much discord among the Hungarian people, surely it would have manifested itself in a way that appeared in the media for us to see.
What we have are politicians who believe they know better than the people of Hungary. There will soon be an election in Hungary that will clearly establish whether the government carries the people with it. At the present time, the overwhelming majority of the Hungarian people are on its side, and it surely behoves this place to protect the democratic rights of the people who voted for that government. We should uphold the rights of people who supported it, not only of those who object to what it is doing. Once again, the report does not address the rights of the people who gave that government a two-thirds majority.
THE PRESIDENT* – Before I give the floor to Sir Edward Leigh, I remind colleagues that the vote for the election of judges to the European Court is still open. Those who have not yet cast their vote can still do so for the next 35 minutes.
Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – As is the right of people in a liberal democracy, the voters threw out the previous government and elected a new one. They gave it a two-thirds majority, and it is not our right to question that. Using that majority, the new government finally replaced Hungary’s communist-era constitution with a new one that I believe is firmly rooted in modern democratic principles. While those on the left have been emitting howls of protest about the new constitution, it is worth getting a second opinion. When interviewed in the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche, and translated into English by the Hungarian Review, the German constitutional expert Rupert Scholz said, “The Hungarian constitution is a wholly exemplary modern European constitution. It is exceptionally modern in the area of basic rights. It conforms to the charter of basic European rights to an extent that I have not yet seen in other European constitutions. It establishes irrefutably the basic principles of democracy, the constitutional State, and the social State.”
When asked about the process of creating a new constitution for Hungary, Viktor Orbán stated, “We're talking about the renewal of Hungary on the basis of European values.” Perhaps we should talk more about those European values. The value of subsidiarity has been enshrined as one of the essential “general principles of European Union law”. How interesting that some of the Hungarian Government’s loudest critics are those such as Monsieur Cohn-Bendit who want to centralise power in Brussels, undermining the European value of subsidiarity while deriding Mr Orbán as a “nationalist”. Mr Orbán himself expressed his discomfort with the word “nationalist” in an interview with French television. He said, “I prefer ‘national greatness’. Or should we call it ‘Gaullism’?” I am sure my French colleagues from the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire will agree that there is a place for Gaullism on the playing field of European politics. Whether the players are from France or Hungary is up to the voters and not up to us.
There are numerous possible models for European co-operation and unity. Viktor Orbán is proposing a Europe of nations in which the peoples of Europe join together without losing their particularity and maintain their popular sovereignty. That is an entirely democratic model to pursue, and the vision of the Hungarian people has many supporters in Great Britain and elsewhere. Democracy is firmly established in the new constitution, and the controversy over the media law shows that the institutions are working. An entrenched elite that was used to enjoying the perks of office offended the voters, who grew tired of it and looked elsewhere for guidance and leadership. As the British novelist Tibor Fischer put it in The Guardian, “Hungary has a system of parliamentary sovereignty, just like ours here in Britain and if citizens don’t like changes, well, they can vote for the opposition and change things back.” If we decide to monitor Hungary, perhaps we should start monitoring ourselves.
Mr GULYÁS (Hungary) – As the Hungarian member of the Monitoring Committee, I thank members for what has been an intellectually challenging and fruitful dialogue, both in the committee and on various occasions inside and outside the Council of Europe. The last two and half years of the pre-monitoring process have shown the strengths and creativity of our community of values. We have witnessed many important testimonies of openness and confidence, although sometimes the debate could not avoid political prejudice. That was why the other rapporteur, a member of the EDG faction, resigned, emphasising that the report was unbalanced and one-sided.
Many Hungarian officials have already underlined the importance of co-operation with the Venice Commission, which, during the drafting of its opinions, accepted the reasoning of the Hungarian side, as the Hungarian authorities adopted a large number of its recommendations. Therefore, in accordance with Amendment 5, which is supported by the monitoring committee, the Hungarian Government is in favour of ongoing dialogue with the Venice Commission. Another amendment, also supported by the Monitoring Committee, states that the provisions of the fundamental law are based on traditional European values.
I declare again the commitment of the governing majority of the Hungarian Parliament to the European Convention on Human Rights and all three pillars of the Council of Europe, taking into consideration the importance in such challenging times of strengthening European solidarity among member States and European consciousness in our societies. It is crucial that our citizens should feel the attention and care of the European institutions and the fraternity of other European citizens. That is why I ask you to accept the common standpoint of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Monitoring Committee and vote against opening monitoring in respect of Hungary. Please support the amendments of the European Democrat Group, the Group of the European People's Party and other factions.
I would also like to comment on something that two of my German colleagues mentioned. There is not one word in the Hungarian Constitution about criminalising the homeless, although you will find a paragraph that guarantees a right of residence for homeless people. So much for the facts.
Ms BOURZAI (France)* – For a long time, Hungary stood as a model in central and eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The modernisation of Hungary’s political and economic structures is seen as a benchmark for its neighbours. Hungary integrated into the Council of Europe and then the European Union as a matter of course. One of those behind the successful transition towards democracy, a market economy and European integration was the current prime minister. However, the economic and political crisis that affected the country in the 2000s seemed to have checked such development. What we see today is a rather worrying gap between the political practice implemented since 2011 and the values defended by this Organisation.
Let me be clear: I am not saying that democracy is being called into question, in the sense that oppositions and majorities simply succeed one another. All I am saying is that if a new majority forms a government, it will have its hands tied by a constitution that implements certain provisions that should be the subject of ordinary legislation. Such excessive constitutionalisation is central to the reservations expressed by European organisations. If a constitution lays down policy, what kind of democratic choices are left open to the electorate? The fourth amendment to the constitution, adopted in March, confirms that trend.
Some of the provisions disputed by the Venice Commission and the European Commission have been reintroduced in Hungary’s Fundamental Law, despite the Hungarian Government saying it was prepared to co-operate with the European authorities with a view to amending them. The new media law adopted in 2010 was significantly amended under the twofold pressure of the constitutional court and European organisations. Negotiations that are deemed positive by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe are still under way, but the fourth amendment, which was adopted in March, constitutionalises an ambiguous provision limiting freedom of expression as soon as it is deemed to violate the dignity of the Hungarian nation – a notion that is still ill defined.
It is true that the European Commission toned down its criticism in mid-June, feeling that it had obtained satisfaction on two points – reform of the judiciary and a provision introducing a special tax levied to fund possible fines imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union – yet certain questions remain in abeyance, such as the impossibility of political parties conducting electoral campaigns through private electronic media and limits on the power of the constitutional court. That is the context in which the request to open the monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary must be situated.
We are not standing as censors over Hungary, nor are we contesting the legitimacy of the current government. Rather, we would like an end to this double-speak on the part of the Hungarian authorities, flagging up the gap between declarations of intent on the one hand and, on the other, the reality of what they are doing on the ground.
Ms CSÖBÖR (Hungary)* – As a new member of the Hungarian delegation and a bit of a novice, not fully au fait with the internal compromises that might be practised by members of the Assembly, I would like to draw your attention to certain points. The vast majority of Hungarian citizens are puzzled by some of the criticisms made of Hungary, because in their daily lives they do not encounter the situations described in the report – something that might have resulted from an erroneous interpretation or political intent. The measures taken by the Hungarian Government – which enjoys democratic legitimacy, with a two-thirds majority in parliament – seem to have been assessed in a biased way in the draft report. Furthermore, we are talking about a country that lived through the trauma of 1956 and was a model of heroism during that revolution.
Every member State of the Council of Europe would do well to reflect on that, because some of the accusations levelled against Hungary could be levelled against every State. Furthermore, the draft report ignores the fact that the Hungarian Government has on several occasions changed its legislation to take into account comments by the experts of the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission. We remain prepared to co-operate. Indeed, the Hungarian Government has already submitted legislative and constitutional amendments to parliament to bring itself in line with the advice of the Venice Commission.
As I understand it, the monitoring mechanism serves to draw attention to certain necessary corrections rather than to provoke a stand-off, yet the current text of the draft decision is biased and imprecise. As such, we cannot accept it without the necessary amendments. I call on you, dear friends, to support our position.
Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent report. It demonstrates in great detail the ways in which the key principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law have been systematically subverted across a wide range of areas by the Hungarian authorities – principles that we in this House have all agreed to respect. Members of the Assembly recently received a letter in which two non-governmental organisations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, urge us to support the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation to place Hungary under the Assembly’s monitoring procedure. Those organisations are right: Hungary’s downward slide on the protection of the rule of law and human rights must be stopped and a strong message sent that dismissing legitimate concerns as factually wrong or politically motivated will not be tolerated.
The Assembly has a crucial role to play in this regard by adding its voice to those speaking out in the defence of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary, and by using the tools available to help to ensure that the Hungarian Government takes the steps needed to bring its laws into line with Council of Europe standards.
Faced with such overwhelming evidence, it is hard to understand how anyone can seriously argue that the monitoring procedure should not be opened. This is an issue of standards that we have agreed in this House – again, the standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is not a political or national issue or even an issue of a minority of people voting for a specific party. In my opinion and that of the NGOs, a failure to open the procedure would amount to a serious abdication of responsibility by this Assembly and gravely undermine its credibility.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – In a sense, todays’ debate has to be seen as a sombre chapter in the process of European integration. Like many others, I never would have imagined that we would conceive of opening a monitoring procedure against Hungary. It was, after all, not that long ago, in the time of the Iron Curtain, that we admired Hungary’s ability to sashay from compromise to compromise but towards more and more democracy. However, we have to face up to the fact that the report contains all manner of worrying information when it comes to the democratic evolution of Hungarian political society. The adoption in quick order of a new constitution, and the multiplication, which in itself is suspicious, of cardinal laws deemed necessary to implement the Fundamental Law give rise to criticism and are reasons for concern.
The Monitoring Committee reminds us that the electoral system has increased the spoils, as it were, in the first past the post system, spoils that would fall to the current government coalition. Our rapporteur is right to say that the situation does not authorise a coalition to turn the existing law on its head in a way that is contrary in whole or in part to the fundamental principles of human rights. I deplore the fact that legitimate national pride on the part of the Hungarian people has been hijacked by the government to exacerbate nationalist sentiments, isolating it dangerously within the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Monitoring Committee, quite rightly, had to concentrate on examining constitutional provisions and new organic legislation in terms of its conformity with the obligations that flow from membership of the Council of Europe, and there is sufficient subject matter at hand for an in-depth study.
I confess, though, that in reading the report I better understand why the Government of Hungary, without too much heartache, felt able last August to release the Azeri criminal Safarov, known to be guilty of an abject and gratuitous crime against an Armenian officer, flying in the face of the pain of a family and a whole people and indeed in the face of the case law of its own courts. In reading the report and the reactions of the government, I was aware of the kind of headlong rush in the face of criticism that we deplored at the time of the Safarov case. However, we should not confuse criticism of the government with criticism of the Hungarian people. The attitude adopted by the government during the Safarov affair gave rise to considerable reservations on the part of moral and religious authorities, first and foremost among which are Cardinal Erdő, Archbishop of Budapest, and representatives of the Protestant Churches. In the dialogue that is to follow this debate, I hope that the government and the majority supporting it in the Hungarian parliament can be led to understand that the short-term profit that they hope to gain from the current attitude is excessively costly in terms of the long-term interests of the Hungarian people.
4. Prolongation of the deadline for the tabling of amendments in respect of the urgent procedure debate
THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, which was the lead committee for our debate under the urgent procedure for Thursday morning, will adopt its report only after its Wednesday afternoon meeting, so the deadline for amendments on that text, which was to have been 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, is now going to be 7 p.m. tomorrow. That will allow members to read the report and have enough time to table amendments. The urgent debate will be on Thursday morning.
5. Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary
THE PRESIDENT* – We will continue with our debate. In 15 minutes, the election for the judges will close. The two tellers should then come to the area behind the President’s chair, but we might try to find some solution to allow them to stay in the Chamber so that they can be present during the debate and the vote, if the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly agrees. We will warn you nearer the time.
Ms SCHUSTER (Germany)* – I, too, thank our rapporteur, Kerstin Lundgren, most warmly. She has done a difficult job extremely well, and I can only congratulate her on her very factual report. I say straight away that I am in favour of opening the monitoring procedure because the facts speak in favour of that. Kerstin Lundgren has put the facts together very impressively but I remind everyone that the European Parliament has also taken up this issue, as have the LIBE Committee, the European Commission, many foreign ministers and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who said that “it perpetuates the problematic position of the President of the National Judicial Office… and endangers the constitutional system of checks and balances.” That is exactly what Ms Lundgren has said – the system of checks and balances is being wrecked.
We also have the opinion from the Venice Commission. That commission is not a political body but a body of highly qualified constitutional lawyers who gave us pause for thought because they said that the constitution contains things that the Hungarian Constitutional Court had previously declared to be unconstitutional. With the help of the two-thirds majority, things are being brought into the constitution that could just have been passed as normal laws. This means that it will be difficult for subsequent governments to change anything. It is not that we have anything against two-thirds majorities or indeed that we feel they did not have a democratic election in Hungary – they did. However, even if you have a two-thirds majority, you still have a responsibility for the constitution and you have to shoulder that responsibility very carefully. It boils down to the fact that through this change the powers of the Constitutional Court have been curtailed, and it can now decide only on procedural points rather than on substance.
We have received a joint letter from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that urges us to open the monitoring procedure. The facts are very clear. Monitoring is, after all, our core business. We should see this as an opportunity, and not as an insult, as some colleagues do. Monitoring is part of our make-up. It is an important instrument and a core job of the Council of Europe; it is not interference in domestic affairs. I call on all colleagues to shoulder this responsibility. We cannot just look away or delegate this to others. Please do not be guided by party politics; be guided by the values of this Assembly.
Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I agree with the view expressed on behalf of the Bureau by Mr Walter. Whatever the intentions behind the report, adopting it and placing Hungary into monitoring would set a very dangerous precedent for this Assembly. We may not agree with everything that the Hungarian Government has done, and I personally might not have used a two-thirds majority to introduce some of the measures that it has, but we have to remember that it has done what it has on the back of a mandate that it obtained in a free and fair election. It is not for us to second-guess how a member State that has, in other respects, a good history of complying with its international obligations will carry out the mandate that the electorate have given it.
The Assembly has an important role, and human rights is an important issue for us, but in exercising our power, we should be restrained, just as it is suggested that sometimes governments should be restrained in the exercise of their power. It is not our function to act as a sort of court of appeal once the electors in any particular member State have given their verdict.
In the report, there are criticisms of what Hungary has done, which I understand, and the Venice Commission has made criticisms. I regret to say that whatever the intentions behind the report, it is highly selective in its use of evidence from the Venice Commission. Some of the amendments to the report endeavour to correct that selectiveness, and I for one will support them. Although there is criticism in the Venice Commission’s report, there are also a number of very positive comments about the changes in the new constitution. The Venice Commission’s report on the fourth constitutional amendment is much more balanced than the report that is before us. The report before us does not, for example, pick up on the introduction of the valuable constitutional initiative of a constitutional complaint, based on the German model. It does not reflect the fact that a number of amendments were made to the constitution in response to the observations of the Venice Commission, so Hungary is complying. Yes, there are a number of cardinal laws – more than in some countries – but under the new constitution, there will be 26, whereas under the old communist constitution, there were 28. It is inaccurate to present this as a material and sinister change.
At the end of the day, just as we expect restraint and consensus in the actions of national governments, so should we show restraint. To place a mature democracy that is in good standing in the European Union into monitoring would be a disproportionate, unwise and damaging use of the Assembly’s powers.
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – This discussion, and the decision that we will take in a short while, is not just one of many in this Assembly. This is about the future and the legitimacy of the Council of Europe and this Assembly. Do we protect and defend the core values of our European institution, or do we turn a blind eye to facts when it suits our party political or national interests? We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to developments in Hungary. Our credibility will disappear, and respect for the Council of Europe will fade away, if we do not stick to our core purpose – the defence of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – despite party political and national interests.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the Venice Commission, which, together with other reputable expert assessments and domestic and international court decisions, has stated clearly that Hungary’s new constitutional framework in several respects directly contravenes European standards, including those in the European Convention on Human Rights, case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and European Union law.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Hungary’s ruling coalition’s constant changes to the constitutional framework have turned it into an instrument of political power, instead of a framework for the organisation of the State and government. The excessive use of cardinal laws and provisions can only be seen as an unacceptable attempt by the ruling majority to cement their policy preferences in the constitutional framework, which allows them to define national policy far beyond the term of the mandate that they were given by the Hungarian people in the elections. This Assembly cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that new legislation has brought a number of State institutions and regulatory bodies, including the media regulator, the central bank, the budgetary council, the judiciary, ombudsmen and the constitutional court, very much under political control.
Dear friends, do not turn a blind eye to developments in Hungary. Do not follow narrow party political interests. Follow the interests of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If you do, you will see that, unfortunately, we have no option but to start monitoring in Hungary. I urge you to vote against Amendment 2, which would prohibit the starting of the monitoring procedure.
Mr ALLAVENA (Monaco)* – A number of speakers have said that the developments regarding the Hungarian Constitution are worrying, and the Council of Europe is right to want to follow the situation closely and to recommend vigilance. That is exemplified by the intervention of the Venice Commission. It has sometimes been critical, and sometimes reassuring, but it has never issued an imperative. Hungary’s Parliament – let us not forget that parliament is the foundation of any democracy – was elected, the coalition has a sizeable majority and has not been rejected to date by the Hungarian people, so the best approach would be for us to continue our dialogue with the Hungarian authorities through the structures that have been put in place, thanks to the efforts of the Secretary General of the Assembly. Nothing suggests that the Hungarian authorities would reject such a dialogue.
Opening monitoring proceedings straight away is not necessary because the situation is not urgent. I am afraid that such a move could rebound on us and result in tense relations with the Council of Europe. We had a similar situation last year in Monaco when the Venice Commission was appealed to in the context of a post-monitoring exercise. When something like this is imposed on a country, it gives rise to a sense of mistrust, or to a suspicious attitude towards the Council of Europe, as Mr Hancock said. Let us put an end to these dogmatic positions, and stop giving the impression that we know everything, want to lecture people, and want to impose what is “right” on the country. We need to be constructive in our dialogue with Hungary, and we need to be vigilant, but we should not prompt the rejection of this institution by taking premature and disproportionate action, as we could not then have any influence over further developments in Hungary.
Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I thank Ms Lundgren for a very good report. This Assembly is based on three fundamental values: democracy, the rule of law and human rights. I urge colleagues to remember those values when they vote today. This vote is not just about the action of the governing majority in Hungary; the vote will show if this Assembly and its parliamentarians – you, dear colleagues – take themselves seriously. It will show whether we respect the obligations of this Assembly or whether we are here simply to wash the dirty hands of our political allies. Each one of you has to think this through. Monitoring is a means to help the citizens of member State countries; it is not a sanction, and it should not be seen as such. It is the Assembly’s duty to make member States aware that they are obliged to honour democracy, the rule of law and human rights because they all ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.
In front of us we have a good report, which clearly states that the Hungarian Government is not honouring those principles. The Venice Commission report asked us to start monitoring, but a majority in the Bureau, and this afternoon in the Monitoring Committee, have overruled the suggestion. They have done so not with good arguments, but because they want to help political allies. I am sorry to say, dear colleagues, that it is not a beautiful sight. I ask each of you to reconsider your stand. Reconsider whether you want to address the problems that surround human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Hungary, or whether you will simply go with the flow in your political group. I hope that you will stick with the values of the Assembly – with human rights – and vote in favour of monitoring.
Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – Why now, why Hungary and why this way? It is not difficult to find similarities between the processes of the European Union and the Council of Europe when it comes to Hungary. A parallel process is under way against Hungary in the European Union. In the absence of necessary substantive and procedural rules, a similar unjust report is being prepared in the European Parliament, which the institution wants to adopt next week. These reports seem to be prepared in one centre.
As one of the most active members of the Hungarian Parliament, I belong to one of the opposition party factions, so I represent not the government’s position but the opinion of the freedom-loving people of Hungary and Europe as a human rights lawyer. I kindly ask you to support Hungary and vote no to the draft resolution, to hinder an unjust and illegal monitoring process against Hungary. Between 2002 and 2010, during the eight-year rule of the socialist-liberal government, there was a human rights crisis in Hungary and political opposition was systematically hunted down and oppressed. This period resulted in deep economic and social problems. I ensured legal aid for many people who were arbitrarily detained or injured by the police at demonstrations. In the autumn of 2006, hundreds of people were attacked by the police, more than 10 people were shot in the eyes, and hundreds of arbitrary processes were performed against demonstrators and innocent victims. Where was Europe’s watchdog? The Council of Europe did not even remark on the situation.
During the past three years many crucial institutional reforms have been made in the Hungarian legal system, which have all resulted in a change to the system that had not been made after the fall of communism. Hungary’s historical constitution was not restored, but who would blame the United Kingdom, for example, when it comes to a historical constitution? I am not fully satisfied with the operation of the new government and the new constitution, or with some of the cardinal laws, but I am totally convinced that this report and the extraordinary intention to start a monitoring process against Hungary are deeply politically motivated and have no legal basis. This is a perfect example of double standards. Why is only Hungary to be monitored, and why now? Next year there will be elections, and the socialists want Hungary to be condemned because that will help them to gain back power. God save Hungary from that. Who was the main figure behind the arguments in the first debate in 2011? It was Mr Mátyás Eörsi, the leader of the liberal faction here in the Council of Europe.
The report is full of factual mistakes. It criticises Hungary for adopting laws “against the explicit advice of Hungary’s international partners.” The report calls on Hungary to amend many laws, but it does so without any grounds in law. Hungary is a law-abiding country, and the attempt to open a monitoring procedure without any legal basis undermines the credibility of the Council of Europe and may endanger the operation of our Assembly. That is why it is so important to say no to the monitoring of Hungary.
THE PRESIDENT* – The voting for judges to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed. As announced previously, the votes will be counted after we have finished voting on the resolution that we are examining. The ballot box will now be placed in full public view so that everyone knows that no one is dipping into it.
Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – I want to express my deep disappointment with the report that we are debating. Hungary has been a collaborative and co-operative member of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The country pursues its foreign policy within the framework of Euro-Atlantic integration and within the context of more progress and active collaboration in this direction.
Before giving this speech, I carefully read the Venice Commission report on Hungary. The report discusses topics such as legislation on the protection of marriage and family, how Hungary deals with its communist past, the recognition of Churches, media access for political parties, autonomy of institutions of higher education, financial support to students and homelessness. I can assure you that nothing that I found in the report constitutes strong evidence to support the opening of a monitoring procedure for Hungary.
Legislation on marriage and the family is within the margin of appreciation of the Hungarian authorities. Regarding Hungary’s communist past, I firmly believe that every democratic country is free to require a minimum amount of loyalty from its citizens. Regarding the recognition of Churches, the exercise of freedom of religion is not constrained by law in Hungary and any organisation can call itself a Church. Regarding the freedom of the media, Internet, print media and cinema, political advertising is not constrained by law. Political propaganda on posters, fliers and billboards remains free. Commercial radio and television political talk shows, news programmes and analysis are by no means restricted.
On homelessness, the new implementing legislative framework creates a system that is substantially different from that annulled by the constitutional court. Paragraph 1 calls for the provision of decent housing for all, and paragraph 2 obliges central and local government to co-operate with a view to creating necessary conditions to provide shelter for all homeless persons. The governmental responsibility for the finances of state-run universities is merely a consequence of the fact that those institutions are financed from the State budget. The new rules have nothing to do with the autonomy of higher education.
The fourth amendment did address matters that had previously been judged by the constitutional court, but none of the new provisions can be considered as a reintroduction of legal rules that had been annulled. I emphasise the important distinction between overruling the constitutional court's decisions, and re-examining the subject matter of certain decisions. There is absolutely no evidence that the Hungarian Government systematically overruled previous decisions of the constitutional court. Hungary has no political prisoners, and there are no human rights violations in Hungary. Besides, Hungary is a democratic sovereign country and it has the right to make any changes that it wants to its laws or constitution. The intention to start a monitoring process against Hungary is deeply politically motivated and has no legal basis. In conclusion, I declare clearly that I am wholly against the opening of the monitoring procedure for Hungary.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – This debate shows us to what extent this is a divisive subject for the Parliamentary Assembly. There seems to be a clear split on political lines. We should consider to what extent the arguments being advanced are political. The instrument of monitoring is perhaps being abused for the purpose of achieving other ends. Is it really a question of protecting democracy? We are talking about a democracy that functions. There is pluralism. What are the limits on this?
We should not reproach a democracy that functions as such. The rule of the majority does, of course, require respect for the minority, but when there have been free and fair elections, it is normal and natural for the party that has come to power to change certain aspects of the legal system. There is a requirement that there be a register of printed media and online media, but for what reason should the Media Council be separated from the Media Authority? That too could be challenged. On the way in which electoral districts are set out, should that be done administratively or legislatively? I do not think that it is up to the Council of Europe or the Venice Commission to decide on that. On whether some laws are unconstitutional, my question is on the same lines.
In other countries, one could point to some aspects that are not fully in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission. Here we are talking about subjecting to monitoring a country that has always been open to dialogue and prepared to openly discuss certain issues. That is the dialogue that should be promoted by the Council of Europe and by the Assembly. We should not use the bludgeon of the monitoring procedure to achieve certain ends and put into question the results of democratic and free elections. Therefore, I am not in favour of opening the monitoring procedure.
Mr V. SZABÓ (Hungary)* – Member States of the Council of Europe agree to respect the rule of law and basic human rights. The violation of those commitments has certain consequences. In Hungary, after the 2010 elections, the Fidesz party had a two-thirds majority. It has continued to gain power up until today, step by step. It has introduced legislation to curb and to undermine basic human rights.
The Venice Commission and Monitoring Committee reports have listed the most important elements: the restriction of the competence of the constitutional court and of the independence of the judiciary, the retrospective legislation, the undermining of parliamentary work and the restriction of the freedom of the press. A new one-party basic law has been passed. The opposition parties in Hungary include the Socialist party, which has been deemed a criminal organisation. There have also been unilateral changes in electoral law, restrictions on religious freedom, restrictions on the right to strike, the initiative of popular referendums, political cleansing of the State’s administration and the appointment of people who are true to the party. I could continue with the list. In Hungary in the past three years, there has been a considerable concentration of power, which has led to anti-democratic undermining of the rule of law. That has led to the strengthening of the power of the parties that make up the government.
If we look at the reports, we see there have been restrictions on the rule of law, on the checks and balances and on the activities of democratic institutions. The Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the European Commission have explained their concerns and criticisms. The government has made some changes but without changing the main substance of the reforms. We would like a restoration of democracy in Hungary when the next elections take place in 2014, when we hope that the Socialist party will be elected.
Mr Michael Aastrup JENSEN (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteur for her hard work in providing us with a clear and precise report. Let me remind you of this Organisation’s aims, which are publicly available for all our citizens to read on our website: “A common democratic and legal area throughout the whole of the continent, ensuring respect for its fundamental values, human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” That is the reason why the Council of Europe was founded. Luckily its core values have not changed since then. We still say that we fight for basic democratic rights, individual freedom and the liberty to speak one’s mind without fear of prosecution.
Denmark was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. We still firmly believe in its basic principles. Democracy is vital for the preservation of civilisation and human welfare. With roots in those beliefs, I find it necessary to support the close monitoring of the development of Hungary’s constitutional framework. There have been a number of questionable events and actions within that framework. Monitoring is a progressive, necessary step to secure the rights of the people of Hungary, including judicial rights, individual freedom and respect for human rights for all, not just a select few.
The Council of Europe has been made aware of a number of great concerns regarding Hungary. It is clear in the report. I find that deeply problematic but it is even more problematic that apparently some members of the Council of Europe do not find that of grave concern. We should not forget that membership of the Council of Europe is an expression of a devotion to beliefs in individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law. Those are the principles that form the basis of all genuine democracies. It is the duty of the Council of Europe to maintain and help those principles along and, in that regard, to respond to the needs of the citizens of member States.
Therefore, with this Organisation’s core values in mind, I strongly believe that a helping hand to Hungary is the best possible solution. I strongly urge all members to vote to open the monitoring procedure and to vote against Amendment 2. It is important that we do not just talk about our core values, but follow them up with clear and precise action. I hope that everyone will vote yes.
The PRESIDENT* – I am sorry that we will have to close the list of speakers shortly. The last speaker is Mr József Nagy.
Mr József NAGY (Slovak Republic) – To start monitoring Hungary, a European Union member State, for non-compliance with our democratic principles is a serious step. Points have been made about not only the content of but the methods used to introduce constitutional changes. It is important to pay attention if someone is applying political power in unconstitutional ways. Therefore, various international institutions, including the Council of Europe, have the right to ask for the facts. The application of democratic principles is not only an internal matter for the State. Slovakia, 15 years ago, under Mečiar, even as a European Union candidate country, received some criticism from Europe. Démarches from Brussels were, unfortunately, objected to, but that was no reason to monitor our country. Strong international attention helped Slovakia, too.
Monitoring is a very serious step that could injure the country rather than help its citizens, especially if Hungary decides to react co-operatively to the critical international voices. Monitoring would be disgraceful for not only the government, but the entire nation. I ask colleagues to support amendments to the draft report and not to open the monitoring procedure.
THE PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office in Room 1083 for publication in the Official Report.
I call Ms Lundgren to reply. You have four minutes left.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I have put on my glasses and have listened closely to everyone who has spoken. Thank you for your contributions. It is interesting to hear Europe speaking.
I will start by quoting Lord Acton, who said in the 19th century: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That is a crucial reminder for all of us. A lot of questions have been asked about the two-thirds majority. The Venice Commission says that it is important to keep the “system of checks and balances which defines a constitutional democracy” and that the approach of the two-thirds majority “can only be justified in particular cases, based on thorough preparatory work, wide public debate and large political consensus – as in general is necessary for constitutional amendments.” That is not a political statement, but a statement by the Venice Commission, our own expert body.
We have to develop our democracies in a way that ensures that the winner does not take it all. If not, we will go back to the days of old. It is ironic that we have heard today about the historic one-party constitution. That was how they used to do it, but they should not do it like that again, even if people have voted for a two-thirds majority. There should be another way forward that includes people.
The Venice Commission stresses “that the Hungarian Fundamental Law should not be seen as a political instrument. The crucial distinction between ordinary and constitutional politics and the subordination of the former to the latter should not be disregarded, lest democracy and the rule of law be undermined in Hungary.” That is not a political position, but the position of our expert body, the Venice Commission. It has now adopted its 12th opinion – the number is increasing all the time – on Hungary’s law packages.
It has been said that many changes have taken place and that there is ongoing dialogue. The Venice Commission’s opinion, however, stresses once again that in several areas there has been no dialogue and that the changes it has asked for have not been made. The situation remains the same.
Finally, a question was asked about the second amendment, which we will return to. Remember that the Monitoring Committee – no one else – is responsible for ensuring that member States fulfil their obligations under the terms of the statute of the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other conventions to which we are party, and it has reached its conclusion. The broad spectrum of issues with which we are dealing means that the Monitoring Committee should be given responsibility for not punishing, but closely following things, helping out and ensuring that higher standards are met. Our yardstick should be one of higher standards and that is what we should vote for. Please vote for opening monitoring.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Herkel, wish to speak? You have two minutes.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – On behalf of the committee, I thank the rapporteur Ms Lundgren and the secretariat. This work was undertaken over a long period and we were criticised at times for not finishing the report and bringing it to the Chamber, but I think that the time taken was necessary. As has been said, the Venice Commission has adopted 12 opinions, all of them comprehensive and important documents.
I disliked the use of the phrase “politically motivated” during the debate. Our rapporteur consistently fulfilled her work with honesty and conviction. Sometimes our convictions differ, but that difference is often one of strategy and not so much of substance. The work is important and we must now choose our strategy.
THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.
The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 22 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 3, 4 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.10.
Is that so Mr Herkel?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Yes.
MR PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?
As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 3, 4 and 1 to the draft resolution have been agreed.
The following amendments have been adopted:
Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Agramunt, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Badea, Mr David Davies, Mr Halicki and Mr Gulyás, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the word “welcomes” with the following words: “takes note of”.
Amendment 4, tabled by Mr David Davies, Mr Agramunt, Mr Mariani, Mr Vitali, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Fischer, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea and Ms Gündeş Bakir, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, after the first sentence, insert the following sentence:
“The Assembly takes note of the opinion of the Bureau of the Assembly which did not support the opening of the monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary.”
Amendment 1, tabled by Ms Lundgren, Ms Schuster, Mr Hunko, Mr Villumsen and Ms Reps, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly takes note of the opinion of the Venice Commission on the 4th constitutional amendment, the conclusions and findings of which confirm the concerns of the Assembly expressed in this resolution and in the report of the Monitoring Committee. It urges the Hungarian authorities, in close co-operation with the Venice Commission, to fully address the concerns and implement the recommendations contained in the opinion.”
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.
We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Agramunt, Mr Vitali, Ms Dervoz, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea, Ms Gündeş Bakir and Mr David Davies, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:
“In this regard the Assembly supports the fact that the on-going dialogue continues between the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Hungarian Government.”
I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment 5.
Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – This is simply a question of recognising the reality that there is ongoing dialogue between the Venice Commission and the Hungarian Government.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I will not go into the question of an ongoing dialogue, because I have already commented on it. The first paragraph of the draft resolution states that we should stick to the Venice Commission’s findings and the questions that we have asked of it. It also asks the Hungarian authorities to fulfil their work. This is not about dialogue. We should stick with the first paragraph as it is, so I oppose the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee was in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 5 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Braun, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fischer, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea, Ms Gündeş Bakir and Mr David Davies, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, insert the following sentence:
“As a result of the 2010 election one party alliance gained a more than two-thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament which represents, according to common European standards, sufficient legitimacy for amending the constitution”.
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 6.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – It is against our common values to question the political will of the voters. The basic rule of democracy is that everyone respects the result of democratic elections. Since the change of the regime, it has been the aim of each Hungarian Government to develop the constitution. Please vote for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – It is a question of whether we want the winner to take it all. I do not think that we should go down that path: we should stick to the report as it stands.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Sasi, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Puche, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea, Ms Gündeş Bakir and Mr David Davies, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 3 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly notes that the new Hungarian Parliament, for the first time in the history of free and democratic Hungary, amended the former one-party Constitution into a new and modern Fundamental Law through a democratic procedure, after intensive debates in the Parliament and with contributions by Hungarian civil society.”
I call Mr Sasi to support Amendment 7.
Mr SASI (Finland) – It is fine that we pay tribute to Hungary. It has had an old constitution from communist times, and now it has been reformed. After more than 20 years, it was time to change the constitution.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I have tried to outline in my opinion how the debate has been taken care of in Hungarian society. There were 12 questions and two weeks, and during the same time we had the debate on the constitution in the Assembly. That is not an intensive debate or bringing civil society into the discussion. The amendment does not reflect that, so I am against it.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 7 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Braun, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fischer, Mr Fritz and Mr Badea, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly supports the opinion of the Venice Commission by taking note that the number of subjects regulated by two thirds majority have not increased since the adoption of the new Fundamental law. In order to implement these laws with the widest possible support of the civil society, the Assembly calls upon the governing majority and all opposition parties to further cooperate on these topics.”
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 8.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – I ask colleagues to note the facts. The Fundamental Law regulates 26 cardinal subjects, where the former constitution regulated 28. We decreased the number of cardinal laws, as the amendment states.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The control of the national policy regulatory framework far beyond the current mandate of the authorities raises important questions about the compatibility of the new constitutional framework with the basic tenets of Article 3. That is the opinion of the Venice Commission. Will we deny that or uphold it? That is what this paragraph is about: it is not about working together in the parliament in the future.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 8 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Fritz, Mr Fischer, Mr Braun, Ms Csöbör, Mr Gulyás, Mr Badea, Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr David Davies and Mr Gábor Tamás Nagy, which is, in the draft resolution, in paragraph 5, replace the second sentence with the following sentence:
“The Assembly notes that several provisions are a concern to a part of Hungarian society. These provisions however are based on traditional European values, are noted in the Constitutions of many other European countries and were adopted by a democratic two-thirds majority in the Hungarian Parliament.”
I call Mr Volontč to support Amendment 9.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – We would like to add this paragraph, because the truth is that you cannot simply be concerned by the fact that the newly adopted constitutional framework includes several declarations. Italy has been asked for several reforms, but they will not necessarily be approved by a two-thirds majority. We should look at the situation.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I keep to the paragraph in the report. We have to make sure that the provisions that codify norms and values are not divisive to a society. We should have constitutions that bring us together on a common basis. The situation under communist rule has been mentioned – let us not go there again.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 9 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Braun, Ms Bakoyannis, Mr Taliadouros, Mr Palacios, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fischer, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea and Ms Gündeş Bakir, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 6.
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 10.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – I suggest the deletion of paragraph 6 because it is unbalanced. While the draft resolution criticises the minor and temporary limitation of the constitutional court’s powers, it forgets to mention the introduction of the new institution of constitutional complaint following the German model which was requested by the constitutional court. This competence allows the court to examine the judgments of normal courts.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Once again, the issue is checks and balances, and their erosion. This new framework has concentrated powers excessively, increased discretion and reduced accountability and legal oversight of numerous government institutions. That is what it is all about. If we delete paragraph 6, there will be a free ride for everyone.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 10 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr David Davies, Mr Braun, Ms Bakoyannis, Mr Taliadouros, Mr Palacios, Ms Dervoz, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fischer, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea and Ms Gündeş Bakir, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 7 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly, confirming the opinion of the Venice Commission, takes the view that the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law creates the possibility for the Constitutional Court to examine the Fundamental Law and its amendments from procedural aspects. At the same time the Assembly calls upon the Hungarian authorities to ensure all safeguards in respect of the constitutional examination of budgetary regulation.”
I call Mr Davies to support Amendment 11.
Mr DAVIES (United Kingdom) – I am happy simply to move the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – This is not a correct reference to the Venice Commission. We have tried to follow the Venice Commission’s lead in the report, so I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 11 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Braun, Mr Gulyás, Mr Halicki and Mr Girzyński, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 8 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly closely followed the debates in respect of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law and takes note that the Venice Commission in its opinion identified positive elements, but criticized some parts of it. In this regard, the Assembly welcomes the intention of the Hungarian Government to modify the Fundamental Law and thereby eliminate the legal institution of transfer of court cases and the issue of special tax in case of international court judgments leading to payment obligations.”
I call Mr Volontč to support Amendment 12.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy) – We want to change paragraph 8 to make it simpler. There is an attempt by the ruling coalition in Hungary to use its unique two-thirds majority. The Venice Commission had positive and negative things to say and we congratulate the Hungarian Government on continuing to work with us. We cannot accept paragraph 8, which calls on Hungary to change the constitution.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – There are positive remarks in our opinion and we have already adopted a positive amendment – Amendment 1 – which takes care of some of the issues mentioned by Mr Volontč. On the other hand, we should not take out the other issues mentioned, because they are key issues and have been raised throughout – they have also been raised by the Venice Commission. I hope we keep paragraph 8. I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 12 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 21, tabled by Ms Čigāne, Ms Lībiņa-Egnere, Mr Bērzinš, Mr Sasi and Mr Jakavonis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:
“The attempt of the ruling coalition in Hungary to use its unique two-thirds majority to push through arbitrary reforms has been in contravention of these democratic principles.”I
I call Ms Čigāne to support Amendment 21.
Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – The current sentence in the resolution implies that there is something wrong with using a two thirds majority to push through important reforms. The amendment offers a more nuanced version that is more relevant to Hungary.
THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Ms Lundgren wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:
In Amendment 21 to delete the word “arbitrary”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case.
I call Ms Lundgren to support the oral sub-amendment.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I am in favour. I want to make it clear that pushing through reforms is a contravention. I hope the oral sub-amendment is carried.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?
Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – The word “arbitrary” is applicable. We do not mean just any reforms, but arbitrary ones. The oral sub-amendment should therefore not be supported.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the Committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 21, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 21, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr David Davies, Mr Braun, Mr Mariani, Mr Vitali, Ms Bakoyannis, Mr Taliadouros, Mr Palacios, Ms Dervoz, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea and Ms Gündeş Bakir, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 9.
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 13.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – I am sorry to say that paragraph 9 contains one-sided statements. Some experts say that the fourth amendment is a positive act while others have formulated criticisms. The Venice Commission’s opinion represents a more balance view compared with the draft resolution. The Hungarian Government has already declared its intention to modify the Fundamental Law. The new modification was tabled in June.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The report is taken from the Venice Commission’s opinion on the fourth amendment. I remind Mr Braun that the Venice Commission was critical of experts who were paid and selected by the Hungarian authorities to deliver the verdict on the constitution. We do not want to refer to that opinion; we want to refer to our own constitutional expert body. Please keep paragraph 9 as it is.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 13 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Mr Gaudi Nagy, Ms Gündeş Bakir, Mr Kayatürk, Mr Van Dijk and Mr Ghiletchi, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9 with the following paragraph:
“The Assembly welcomes the provisions (Clause U) in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution that could serve as a legal guarantee to punish the perpetrators of crimes against humanity during the communist times and – in the absence of effective execution of these provisions – urges the Hungarian authorities to start these processes in order to cease the impunity of perpetrators of such crimes.”I
I call Mr Gaudi Nagy to support Amendment 22.
Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – The advantage of the fourth amendment is the provision that creates a legal basis on which to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against humanity committed in communist times. It is important to stress that in the resolution.
THE PRESIDENT* – You have also tabled sub-amendment 1. Do you wish to support it?
Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – The sub-amendment is to insert the following sentences to Amendment 22:
"The Assembly stresses that between 2002-2010, during the 8 year-long rule of the socialist-liberal governments, there was a human rights crisis in Hungary, especially in the autumn of 2006, when hundreds of people were attacked by the police, more than a dozen people were shot in the eye and hundreds of arbitrary processes were performed against demonstrators and innocent victims. Reports of human rights organisations, judgments and official reports of the Hungarian Parliament all confirmed these serious breaches of human rights. It is not compatible with the values of the Council of Europe that punishment of the perpetrators – inter alia the former prime-minister – still has not happened. The Hungarian authorities should take the necessary legal steps in order to cease their impunity."
The sub-amendment is about human rights violations during the period between 2002 and 2010. The provision urges the prosecution of the perpetrators of crimes against Hungary and the people who demonstrated against the government. It is important to validate the values of the Council of Europe in the resolution.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment?
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The sub-amendment has not been considered by the committee. The criminalisation of the opposition could raise questions of compatibility with European human rights standards, as outlined by the Venice Commission. It goes even further than rejected amendments, and I therefore hope we reject it, because it is along the same lines.
THE PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur is opposed to sub-amendment 1, which I understand was not taken up by the committee. We therefore do not have the committee’s opinion, but know the opinion of the rapporteur.
I will now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is rejected.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 22? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I have already argued that we should not go down the line of such criminalisation, because it could be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 22 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Braun, Mr Gulyás, Mr Gruber and Mr Vejkey, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, to replace the second sentence with the following sentence:
“The Assembly calls upon the Hungarian authorities to continue the open and constructive dialogue with the Venice Commission and all other European institutions.”
I call Mr Volontč to support Amendment 14.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – Whether or not we want monitoring, the Assembly should call upon the Hungarian authorities to do what the amendment states.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The amendment would replace the wording of the draft resolution, which is not acceptable. I could have accepted it if it had been an addition, but we must mention what the Venice Commission has said and what has been referred to the European Court of Human Rights.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 14 is adopted.
We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Braun, Ms Quintanilla, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Badea, Ms Gündeş Bakir and Mr David Davies, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, to insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly welcomes the fact that as a result of the dialogue with the Venice Commission and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Hungarian Parliament amended the media law twice, changed the acts on judiciary, the law on freedom of information, the transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law and put forward the proposal for the Fifth Amendment of the Fundamental Law. The Assembly notes that, by the adoption of the act on the election of the members of Parliament, the Hungarian government responded to the previous recommendation of the Venice Commission and terminated the disproportionality of the constituencies. The Assembly notes that the decision of the Parliament meets the request of the Constitutional Court according to which the electoral boundaries have to be regulated by law.”
I understand that Mr Braun wishes not to press the amendment, so that an alternative oral amendment may be proposed by the committee. Is that correct?
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT* – Amendment 15 is not moved.
I have received an oral amendment from Mr Herkel, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, which is to add, at the end of paragraph 11.2.2, the words
“The Assembly notes that with the adoption of the law on the members of the parliament, the authorities responded to the recommendation of the Venice Commission and the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the disproportionality of the election districts;”.
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?
That is not the case. I call Mr Herkel to support the oral amendment.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee was in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – Yes, but do you wish to support it further? No, Mr Herkel has limited himself to sharing with us the opinion of the committee. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?
That is not the case.
We already know the opinion of the committee – it is in favour.
The vote is open.
The oral amendment is adopted.
We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Braun, Ms Quintanilla, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fritz and Mr Badea, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 11.3.3 with the following paragraph:
“introduce a mandatory 'cooling-down' period in respect of members of parliament, which already exists for members of the government, leading officials of a political party or State leaders, between the end of their political mandates and before the start of their new function, in the case they are elected as judge of the Constitutional Court;”
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 16.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – There is already a mandatory cooling-down period in Hungarian law, applying to members of the government, leading party officials and State leaders. That should be completed by applying it to members of parliament.
THE PRESIDENT* – An oral sub-amendment to Amendment 16 has been tabled by Mr Herkel, which is, in Amendment 16, to replace the words “in the case that they are elected” with “before they can be elected”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I call Mr Herkel to support the oral sub-amendment.
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – It is simply a correction of the wording.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 16 on the oral sub-amendment?
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – I am in favour of it.
THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 16, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 16, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Braun, Ms Quintanilla, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fritz and Mr Badea, which is, in the draft resolution, to delete paragraph 11.4.
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 17.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – The paragraph refers to the Council of Europe. The Hungarian Government has submitted the draft of the fifth amendment to the Fundamental Law, under which the institutional transfer of cases and the possibility of levying a special tax will be eliminated. After the second opinion of the Venice Commission on the judiciary and the government, which criticised the regulations, the constitutional court annulled several rules, such as the one making it possible for the president of the National Judicial Office to annul the outcome of a competition for the appointment of judges. The recent Hungarian moves in support of the Venice Commission’s suggestions should be recognised.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Ensuring that the judiciary complies with the standards set out for it is one of the crucial issues for this Assembly on the rule of law. We have heard about the next amendment to the Fundamental Law, but that has not been voted in or scrutinised yet. We should stick to the issue of making the judiciary compliant with the Venice Commission’s remarks, so we should keep paragraph 11.4.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 17 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Braun, Ms Quintanilla, Mr Puche, Mr Conde, Mr Agramunt, Mr Fritz, Mr Badea and Mr David Davies, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 11.5 with the following paragraph: “media legislation, to further comply with ECHR case-law, notwithstanding the improvements made to the relevant laws, in cooperation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.”
I call Mr Braun to support Amendment 18.
Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – The report gives the false impression that the Hungarian authorities ignored the criticism and that some Hungarian acts do not comply with the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, Hungary has undergone extremely strict examination. During the whole process, Hungary has always acted in a co-operative manner. Please support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – We are not talking about case law, but referring to points that have been noted by Council of Europe media experts. If we take out paragraph 11.5 and replace it with Mr Braun’s amendment, the report will not be factual with regard to what has been said by those with such an opinion. I am against Amendment 18.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 18 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Braun, Mr Gulyás, Mr Mularczyk, Mr Czelej and Mr Clappison, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 12.
I call Mr Volontč to support Amendment 19.
Mr VOLONTČ* (Italy) – We are asking for paragraph 12 to be deleted because it looks as if nothing has happened with regard to reform and changes in Hungary as a result of collaboration with the Council of Europe Secretary General and the European Union. There was a reason for paragraph 12, but today there is no need for such a measure, thanks to the efforts made by the Council of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Once again, taken separately, every paragraph could be of concern for this body. Taken together, however, we feel that they raise big concerns. We are remarking on that in this crucial paragraph: we must see things through a broad spectrum and not just the positive steps that have been taken because surely there are a lot more to come. I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 19 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Gulyás, Mr Braun, Mr Nagy, Ms Csöbör, Mr Gruber, Mr Vejkey and Mr Kalmár, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the second and the third sentences with the following sentences: “New constitutional provisions have raised legal questions about the extent to which the country is complying with these obligations. The Assembly however decides not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary, as such a decision is disproportionate in view of their current open and constructive dialogue with the European Commission, the Venice Commission and all relevant bodies of the Council of Europe.”
If Amendment 20 is adopted, Amendment 2 falls.
I understand, Mr Gulyás, that you do not wish to move Amendment 20. Is that correct?
Mr GULYÁS (Hungary) – Yes, I do not want to move Amendment 20. The original amendment concerned not opening the monitoring procedure against Hungary, but Amendment 2 contains another solution that we can accept.
THE PRESIDENT* – I note that you are not moving Amendment 20, but I am duty bound to ask whether anyone wants to support Amendment 20 and insist on a vote. That is not the case, so Amendment 20 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Rouquet, Mr Henriksen, Mr Hancock, Mr Agramunt, Ms Woldseth and Mr Hörster, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the final sentence with the following sentence: “The Assembly, however, decides not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary but resolves to closely follow the situation in Hungary and to take stock of the progress achieved in the implementation of this resolution.”
I call Mr Hancock to support Amendment 2.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – If we have learned anything from this afternoon’s debate it is that, sometime in the near future, the Council of Europe must clearly establish and revisit the whole structure of how it monitors countries, and how the procedure can be brought into play when necessary. There must be specific guidelines. I recommend to the Assembly that Amendment 2, which stands in my name and that of others, is worthy of support. I have listened to everyone who has spoken this afternoon, and I have not yet heard a single contribution that said what benefits would accrue to the people of Hungary if they were placed under the monitoring procedure. That alone provides sufficient reasons for the Assembly to support my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.
Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – This is one of the crucial points that we were asked to consider: whether to recommend that monitoring for Hungary be opened. The rules for the Monitoring Committee have been overlooked, yet dealing with the European Convention on Human Rights, other conventions and Council of Europe statute are issues for that committee. Dear friends and colleagues, look up “to follow closely” in the dictionary. It means monitoring. I urge you not to support the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment 2 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13229, as amended. I remind you that a simple majority is required for it to be adopted.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 13229, as amended, is adopted with 149 votes for, 38 against and 24 abstentions.
Dear colleagues, please remain seated. We have not come to the end of the order of business. Mr Dirk Van der Maelen and Christian Bataille are called on to count the votes in our ballot for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I appeal to you to remain seated so that we can continue our consideration of the order of business, preferably in silence.
6. Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco
THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco”, Document 13230, presented by Mr Volontč on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. We will also have an opinion presented by Mr Xuclŕ on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13244, and an opinion presented by Ms Gafarova on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13245.
After we have heard the rapporteurs, we will hear from Mr Karim Ghellab, Speaker of the House of Representatives in Morocco, who has just joined us and whom I welcome. Thank you for being with us.
Let me remind you that each speaker has a maximum speaking time of three minutes and that we must finish our consideration of the text, including the vote, by 8 p.m. We shall therefore interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.20 p.m. to allow time for the reply by the rapporteurs and the vote.
Mr Volontč, Mr Xuclŕ and Ms Gafarova, I can assure you that it is much easier when we have the rapporteurs – we could do it without them, but it is better if they are here. Mr Volontč is pressing his way through the crowd with his knapsack on his back. We are still missing Mr Xuclŕ, although I believe he is present. If Ms Gafarova could also join us, that would be ideal.
Mr Luca Volontč, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and replying to the spokespersons of the political groups or replying at the end of the debate.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – I do not want to take long. I want to spend just a few minutes saying what an honour it has been over the last few years to work on the Parliamentary Assembly’s first partnership for democracy. I thank Mr Marcenaro, Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, for giving me this honour. We have done intelligent, important work and we can now see tremendous developments. The work done with the authorities in Morocco has been outstanding. There have been some difficult moments, with differences and, sometimes, clashes of opinion, but much has been achieved in Morocco.
As has been said in various missions of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy – and in other missions – over the years, we have faced various issues with the authorities in Morocco, including members of the government and parliament, but we note with great pleasure the tremendous reform that has taken place, namely the constitution, which is due to be implemented through the cardinal laws. I invite the Moroccan authorities to implement the cardinal laws as soon as possible. They are very similar to European constitutions and European norms and laws. In fact, sometimes they adopt identical wording. In addition to taking note of the difficulties and the tremendous obstacles in our path, we would like to work together. We have a joint commitment to this work and we are committed over the next two years of the Parliamentary Assembly to working with Morocco, which is how we started this process.
The partnership for democracy does not mean that Council of Europe is pointing its finger at Morocco, or at Palestine or other countries. We are not teaching you lessons, preaching to you or expecting you to sit at the desk and take notes. This is a dynamic process for the country that receives it and for the Council of Europe, which learns a great deal in discussion with others. This is a dynamic of promoting and defending human rights, about which we have learned a great deal in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, thanks to the partnership with Morocco, Palestine and other countries. We hope to establish such partnerships with other countries in the years to come.
This is the latest report – the latest, but not the last – from our partnership with Morocco. I am proud to have been entrusted with this task for the first time by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. This was a new step for the Council of Europe and the authorities in Morocco. I am proud of the work we did, which was significant and brought about important changes. Of course there are difficulties and obstacles along the way. We did not reach complete agreement on certain points – there were differences of interpretation of some laws – but we are starting from a positive viewpoint. That was our commitment and our task, and this is what we have been able to do over the last few years. The resolution highlights the positive aspects and the work ahead for the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Moroccan authorities. As was the case two years ago, today is the opening of a more positive chapter in the great book of our partnership for democracy with Morocco, with greater respect on both sides, both sides learning from the process and the Moroccan authorities promoting human rights not just with words, but with facts.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Volontč. You have eight minutes remaining. You said that this was probably your last report, but political life is uncertain. Many parliamentarians have left us but ended up coming back, so we hope we will see you again.
I call Mr Xuclŕ to present the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have three minutes.
Mr XUCLŔ (Spain)* – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights decided to draft an opinion on what is a new experience for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: the partnership for democracy. We are not talking about a country that is submitting its candidacy to become a member State of the Council of Europe. Rather, we are talking about a country that wishes to take on board and fully implement the standards and values of the Council of Europe in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The reforms implemented in Morocco have been very positive in this regard, and are related to the process that has been referred to as the Arab Spring. In some countries, the spring turned into winter, but the Arab Spring never got to Morocco because it was already reforming. There was a positive and constructive dialogue between us and the Moroccan authorities. There are some aspects on which we believe that Morocco, as a friend and partner, could further improve. I refer in particular to Amendment 12, which could perhaps be improved further by an oral sub-amendment.
We have discussed European standards with Morocco. We want to be a faithful and useful partner for Morocco, given the 60-odd years of the Council of Europe’s existence. We are opening up and we have a new policy of neighbourhood relations. That can be important for countries beyond Europe, in Asia and North Africa.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Gafarova to present the opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. You have three minutes.
Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate Mr Volontč on producing an excellent report. I was happy to complement the information provided by the report on the balanced representation of women and men in public life, as the rapporteur asked me to. However, I also deemed it appropriate to deal with a few other issues that are relevant to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination’s remit.
When the Moroccan Parliament applied for the status of partner for democracy in February 2010, the political commitments it made were ambitious, and rightly so. Resolution 1818 in 2011 also set some important objectives for the Moroccan authorities. I took the resolution as a benchmark to contribute to the evaluation of our partnership.
As for women’s political representation, the numbers in the parliament have almost doubled. This reflects the reform of the electoral system, which now reserves 60 seats for women. The Parliamentary Assembly has consistently recommended gender quotas as a necessary measure, albeit a temporary one, to increase the political representation of women. Therefore we cannot but approve of this aspect of the Moroccan system. However, I hope that the share of women elected in general lists will increase in future.
Both public opinion and the authorities are increasingly aware of the issue of violence against women in Morocco. I hope that this will be reflected in substantial changes in legislation and the adoption of effective policies. Today, protection from such violence can be found mostly in the penal code, which dates back to 1962 and is completely outdated. I particularly appreciate that the draft resolution calls on the Moroccan authorities to consider accession to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The Istanbul Convention offers a complete set of tools to prevent violence, protect the victims and prosecute the perpetrators.
Human trafficking seems to be underestimated by the Moroccan authorities. We should encourage them to strengthen international co-operation on criminality, especially with European countries, as Morocco is an important country of origin, transit and destination for victims of trafficking. It is necessary to bridge the gap between some innovative laws that have been passed in Morocco in the past few years and their enforcement. This could substantially improve, among other things, the situation of women. The family code, for instance, was reformed almost 10 years ago but has yet to be applied in a more uniform way throughout the country, in large cities just as much as in rural areas.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity should be tackled in Morocco. Racism is an issue as well, in that country as in many others. I have suggested that activities be carried out to counter this scourge, including awareness-raising campaigns for the general public and training for law enforcement officials. I hope that our Moroccan friends will consider these indications as a respectful, constructive contribution to a partnership that has proved fruitful and which I think should become even deeper and stronger.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Villumsen, on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.
Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark) – I thank the rapporteur. Here, fortunately, we have a country that is actually going in the right direction, and this should be noticed by the Assembly. The situation in Morocco is very different from the one described in the report on Hungary that we have just discussed, where this Assembly simply did not follow our own values when we refused to act on the clear human rights problems in the country.
I visited Morocco with the Danish delegation in February this year and we met the Parliamentary Assembly delegation from Morocco, the prime minister and representatives from civil society. The report reflects some of the problems in the country that we need to address. The new constitution in Morocco has been a positive step, but the laws are not there yet; they need to be implemented for the constitution to come into force but have still not been passed. Furthermore, the power of the king is huge and, unfortunately, is not going to be challenged in the country’s political debate. That stands in the way of the creation of a living democracy in Morocco.
Morocco still refuses to take part in a solution to its illegal occupation of Western Sahara within the framework of the United Nations. We in the UEL support Amendment 1, which recalls the former decision of this Assembly that stressed the urgent need for a solution to the conflict in Western Sahara. We need to address the violations of human rights, democracy and international law that are still happening in Morocco.
Our partners in Morocco have made progress and this should be noted, but there are obvious problems. There is a Danish saying that you need to hear the truth from your friends. I think Morocco needs to hear the truth from its friends here in the Council of Europe. I therefore hope that our partners in Morocco will listen to the statements made in the report that point out that there is progress but there are also clear problems concerning human rights, democracy and international law.
The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Ghiletchi, on behalf of the European People’s Party.
Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Luca Volontč, for this update on the situation in Morocco and for briefing us on the dynamics of co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Morocco. Knowing that this is his last report, I express my sincere gratitude for his passionate commitment and tireless work in the Assembly. I do not know what providence has in store for you, Mr Volontč, and it is a sad moment now that you are leaving us, but please continue your good fight for the fundamental values of the Council of Europe.
Two years ago, Morocco became the first partner tor democracy with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is worth praising the hard work that that country has put into taking significant steps towards creating an authentically democratic State. History has shown us that this is not an easy path but one that pays off greatly in the end. Going forward, I stress the necessity of the strong involvement of the Moroccan Parliament in reform, which must continuously strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country.
One of the essential issues for strengthening fundamental rights is ensuring full respect for freedom of conscience, religion and belief, including the right to change one’s religion and guaranteeing freedom of association and peaceful assembly. During the last constitutional reform, Moroccan leaders rejected the adoption of an article on freedom of belief on the ground that it would be a threat to Moroccan identity. Islam and Judaism are the two recognised religions in Morocco but, according to one of Morocco's most popular dailies, Al-Massae, due to the large number of converts, Christianity has in fact become the second largest religion in the country.
Despite an increasing number of Christians in the country, it appears that authorities are unyielding in not granting them full rights. In fact, many Christians fear for their lives after a fatwa that called for the execution of those who leave Islam was issued last year. According to the Arabic language daily Akhbar al-Youm, “the governmental High Council of Ulemas, the highest religious authority in Morocco, issued the ruling last year, but only released it in April upon request of the government’s Delegation for Human Rights of Morocco”. Christian converts in Morocco and some advocacy groups believe that even if the ruling never becomes law, it sets a dangerous precedent for how converts and Christians in general will be treated in Morocco. For a State aspiring to achieve a genuine democracy, such things are unacceptable.
In conclusion, I call on the Moroccan Parliament to be open and to address all the issues that I have mentioned in addition to those listed in the draft resolution to ensure the full implementation of the assumed political commitments, especially the areas mentioned in paragraph 8 of Resolution 1818 in 2011. The Assembly should continue to review the progress of the partnership and offer its full support and assistance to the Moroccan Parliament.
The PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Strik, on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Two years ago, the Parliament of Morocco was granted partner for democracy status by the Parliamentary Assembly. The social democrats warmly welcomed that step and still support the partnership as well as the resolution. Morocco has taken important steps forward on its democratic path, including the adoption of a new constitution. We congratulate Morocco on that, but the time has now come for practical implementation.
On its democratic path, Morocco has to face many new challenges, not least in relation to migration and asylum. Morocco is now not only a country of origin for migrants but, increasingly, a destination country too. It faces responsibility for migrants, and has to deal with issues such as discrimination and access to services, housing and social rights.
The increasing number of asylum seekers requires new steps to be taken. The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons has visited Morocco, and although many efforts are being made in this area, we have a number of concerns. Asylum seekers cannot easily access an asylum procedure, and even when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognises a person as a refugee, they still run the risk of being expelled. Sub-Saharan migrants can be arrested and subjected to violence and discrimination. Europe shares responsibility in this area; it urges Morocco to strengthen its border controls and makes it difficult for migrants to enter Europe, so more and more migrants turn to the Moroccan authorities for protection and help. We should not leave Morocco to police its borders, but should respond to requests, and help it to make sure that migrants get any protection that they need and are treated with dignity and respect for their human rights. After all, the partnership relates not only to Moroccan citizens, but all inhabitants of Morocco. With that in mind, I have tabled some amendments to the resolution.
Partnership is a two-way process, and we can learn from Moroccan criticism of the way that we treat Moroccan citizens in our countries. We need to improve our integration policy in many respects, so a mutual exchange on this subject could help both sides.
Although there are a number of active and courageous non-governmental organisations in Morocco that help vulnerable people and promote their human rights, they sometimes experience difficulties in their work. There are obstacles to getting permission for their organisations, and they face problems in expressing their opinion. However, a democracy cannot function well without a strong civil society. We therefore ask the Moroccan Parliament to look at what steps can be taken to reduce possible obstacles, and at how co-operation with civil society can be strengthened. We would like to encourage more exchanges between European and Moroccan NGOs to further fuel the democratic reforms; if what is said is taken on board, there could be benefits from our partnership.
We fully support the proposal to continue to review the implementation of political reforms in Morocco. In this phase, we are looking forward to more practical measures for improvement of the democratic process and the human rights of everyone living in Morocco.
THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I call Mr Hancock to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I am delighted to talk on behalf of my group on this very important issue. First, I pay special tribute to the two rapporteurs for opinion, because their opinion and amendments have improved the report wondrously. I then move on to Mr Volontč. Love him or hate him, you cannot ignore him, and today he demonstrated very well his ability to see the wood for the trees when he eloquently accepted the amendments before the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. By doing so, he has improved his report immeasurably, and the Assembly owes him a big debt of thanks for being so open-minded and so willing to take on board those amendments. I am proud that I was there to see it happen.
I want to address our Moroccan colleagues. I have a great affection for Morocco because I have spent many happy days, weeks and months in your country over the past almost 50 years and I have grown to love and appreciate it. Nobody who has ever been to Morocco, breathed the air in Marrakesh, or enjoyed visiting Fez or Tangier, has gone away without feeling that they have a forever bond with your country.
The report talks about where you are going as a country. Any democracy that has a monarch – a king, in the case of Morocco – at its head, as mine does, has to work out a system in which there is representation of the three sides of the triangle that make up the country: the head of State, the parliament and the people. The move towards a constitutional monarchy is a path that Morocco has accepted, I believe. I think that the king is instrumental in wanting those developments. The Assembly must nurture that and work with the Moroccan Parliament to make sure that those things can come about.
The democratic process in Morocco will be fraught with difficulties. The report does not ignore the fact that there are still some major issues. The contributions today have clearly established that concerns need to be addressed, but you are now part of the family, and part of our responsibility, as your family, is to make that a better journey than it would be if you undertook it alone. We have done it with other countries, and we are doing it now with yours. With your co-operation and our help, movement towards what we would all like to see – a constitutional monarchy with a government that responds fully to the needs of the people – will happen sooner rather than later.
The report is a stepping stone in that process. This will not be the Assembly’s last report on Morocco, but it is a fundamental building block, and it needs to be taken on board by your government, parliament and head of State. If you do that, you will not go far wrong. There will be obstacles, but they will be lessened with our co-operation. I wish you well for the future.
THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I call Mr Liddell-Grainger, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom) – I agree with every word that my colleague from the British Parliament, Mike Hancock, said. We have a long history with Morocco that goes back more than 800 years. We have a constitutional monarch as well, so we of all people understand the way that Morocco has gone, and the pace at which it has done so. Unlike the rest of North Africa, Morocco did not go through the Arab Spring. One has to ask why that is. It is because it is open to and understands change, and the king has driven change.
Mike Hancock is right: Morocco was able to say, “No, we can make our country work.” I was out there recently, and I was most impressed by the way that both chambers worked. I was equally impressed to see that the Moroccan system is based on the British one, which I can only say is a good idea. It is important that we understand that Morocco has moved massively. This report, unlike most reports in the Council of Europe, is actually rather good. It shows that people are prepared to listen, and the rapporteur has made a good fist of it.
We have to support Morocco. It is part of what we are. We should be proud of what the Moroccans have achieved in a very short time. And they have done it peacefully; there has been no bloodshed, no riots, and nobody has been murdered. They have done it because they feel that it is the right way to go, and they must be applauded. The ambassador in London has made enormous strides to understand what is important to both Morocco and Europe. She has made sure that we understand, not only as a Parliament, but as a group of nations, that this matters greatly to Morocco.
Of course, the report shows that there are areas where Morocco can improve, but I wonder how many other countries could say that they had moved so fast towards democracy. How many Warsaw Pact countries can say that they moved at that speed? Not many. That includes us; it even takes us years to make decisions on certain things.
We should be proud of Morocco’s aspirations. I know that change in Morocco will continue. It understands, as we do, that this is a partnership, and that is what the report brings out. It shows that there is an understanding that we all must work together to help each other. Mike Hancock said that Morocco was part of the family; he is absolutely right. This is a family of nations who understand, appreciate and stand up for democracy. We should all be proud of our achievements, but we should be more proud of countries that come into our family determined to embrace what we all believe in. I am absolutely delighted, as a British member of parliament and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to say that I applaud Morocco and what it has done at such a fast pace, and I applaud the way that it has done it. It is a lesson to us all. We can all achieve what we want by working together, sticking together and understanding each other’s dependencies.
THE PRESIDENT⃰ – Mr Ghellab, before giving you the floor, I would like to say on behalf of all my colleagues, present and absent, that we are very touched by the fact that you have chosen freely to come here and participate in this debate, which has been of a very high standard, as you know. I am sure that you have understood that people are speaking from the heart. In fact, when talking of Morocco, one can only speak about the heart. It is a country that makes our hearts beat. The partnership for democracy is something new for us, and it was initiated by my two predecessors. Mr de Puig, who sadly left us a few months ago, was really the originator of the idea. The work was taken forward by his successor Mr Çavuşoğlu, and I have now taken up the baton.
We are touched by your willingness to come and participate in the work of the committee headed by our friend Mr Marcenaro. We were inspired by the fact that you wanted to understand more about how we work. I was present when you participated in our work in Turin, and I was very involved in what you did. When you asked if you could be present at our meeting here, I was more than happy to say yes, because it is very gratifying when someone is so willing to get involved. We have applauded your efforts, but I do not think it is an effort for you because it comes naturally to you. Morocco is a great country, and, after all, what country does not need to improve? You have some room for improvement, as do we all, but we also see you as a real pioneer and a ground breaker. We hope that the status of partner for democracy will be followed by others.
Representatives are here from the Palestinian Legislative Council, and we are discussing their status with them. Kyrgyzstan has also recently indicated its wish to change its status. I have visited the Maghreb twice, I have been to Tunisia and Algeria, and, of course, I came to see you. I would like to thank you most warmly for the cordial welcome that you extended to me. I hope that countries such as Tunisia and Algeria might one day come and knock at our door, and that they might become part of this great family, as Mr Liddell-Grainger described us. We all hope that an Arab Maghreb union will emerge in the future. We need countries such as Morocco to work with us as we seek to stabilise that part of the world, in which a great deal has happened in recent months. There is a lot more that I would like to tell you. I think we can consider ourselves to be good friends, and you have done us a great honour by coming here to speak to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Mr GHELLAB (Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco)* – President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Secretary General and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, it is a real honour for me to take part in this session. I would like to take this opportunity to say how pleased I am with our fruitful co-operation. I lead a sizeable delegation from the two chambers of the Moroccan Parliament, and we have two messages for you. First, we signal the importance that we attach to this relationship in defending the values by which we set great store: respect for pluralism, political diversity, parity between men and women, democracy and cultural diversity. When we were granted partner for democracy status, the Moroccan people approved a constitution that enshrined those values, and the partnership allows us to implement them on a daily basis. Secondly, the Moroccan Parliament will endeavour to continue along the path to reform, and we will work harder than ever to implement the resolution and the accompanying letter. We will build on what we have achieved so far, and we will try to capitalise on everything that was done before the conclusion of the agreement. We will also seek to implement the provisions of the report that we are debating.
I would like to dwell on some particularly important points. We recently created a body to investigate several breaches of human rights and to compensate victims. Morocco has ensured that all the recommendations have become law, which enables us to ensure that human rights and the rule of law are respected. We respect international law, and we have to align domestic legislation with the international conventions that we adopt. National human rights defenders in Morocco include the National Human Rights Council, the ombudsman, other related bodies and voluntary organisations established by the United Nations.
I emphasise the importance of women’s rights. Since we overhauled the family code in 2004, one of our main priorities has been equality between men and women, a principle enshrined in the new constitution. As in all developed countries, there is now parity between men and women. We also seek to strengthen democratic institutions. We will reform the judiciary and ensure its independence, and we will ensure that our institutions are genuinely independent of the government. We will try to maintain the separation of powers and ensure that there is a proper balance between them, and the parliament will properly scrutinise the executive. We have set in motion a strategic plan, which we have communicated to the Parliamentary Assembly, and we hope that it will be one of the main points of reference for our partnership in future.
Morocco will be unsparing in its efforts to reach an agreement on the Western Sahara region, in conformity with United Nations resolutions. I remind you that the region is the result of the Madrid Agreement of 1975, and that the Moroccan presence stems from decolonisation and a desire for territorial integrity. Morocco fully intends to ensure that the area has the largest possible degree of self-government under Moroccan sovereignty, so that the people in the region can govern their public affairs independently and democratically. We are looking at rolling out the process of decentralisation and regionalisation, which is one of the key planks of constitutional reform.
Six of the 19 constitutional laws have been adopted and 13 remain. We are aware of the need to speed up the process, and we firmly undertake to do so. We hope to wrap it up by the end of 2016. Our efforts are not confined to the implementation of the constitutional laws, and we are aware of the fact that constitutional laws are not the same as reform. Constitutional powers are exercised by the government, which has executive powers, but constitutional laws are required to allow the government to exercise those powers. We seek to maintain the separation of powers. Our constitution comprises several different reforms, which are in the pipeline.
We are a constitutional monarchy. The government exercises executive power, and the parliament exercises legislative power. The king is the head of State and the supreme leader of the armed forces. We also have religious authority in Morocco. We are a Muslim country, a Muslim State, but the article that states that Morocco is a Muslim country also requires the country to safeguard the practice of other religions, notably the Jewish and Christian faiths, so there are many churches and synagogues in Morocco and there is no problem whatever in religious matters – quite the opposite. We have a system whereby our religious authorities will see to it that the practices of other faiths are safeguarded.
The head of State, the King of Morocco, is the supreme arbiter, if you like, between institutions. That is why the report says that the constitution is balanced and in keeping with democratic principles. Allow me to underscore again our determination to continue our efforts to implement the reforms by means of constitutional laws. Thank you, Jean-Claude Mignon, the President of the Assembly, for all your help in bringing about the partnership. I also thank Mr Marcenaro, the chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, for all his efforts. Today is the culmination of many years of effort. I also thank Mr Volontč for all his hard work in monitoring all the work.
With regard to Western Sahara, I pay tribute to what Ms Maury Pasquier has done. She is the chair of the parliamentary committee that we will be glad to host in attempting to find a solution that is universally acceptable. Our parliamentary delegation will continue to participate in all your work and will attend here assiduously. Thank you for listening.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much for that statement. We shall now continue the debate. I call Mr Beneyto.
Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work that has been done on a subject that is of enormous importance to us all. I thank him for the detail, the balanced presentation and the conclusions in the report. I pay tribute to Mr Volontč for his contribution to the Council of Europe and his support for European values. I thank him on behalf of the whole Spanish delegation for all the work he has done in his time here. To a very great extent, you embody the values of the Council of Europe. Thank you for that.
The report sets out the relevance of the partnership for democracy. Morocco is a benchmark for North Africa, the Maghreb countries and other neighbouring countries with which we have close relations. Day to day, they are aware of the extent to which Morocco has been able to modernise, to move towards democracy, to overhaul its institutions and to enshrine a constitutional monarchy. We have many centuries of shared history, as you all know. It is enormously satisfying to be able to reach out in a fraternal embrace from the Council of Europe. We look forward to continuing to work with our Moroccan parliamentarian counterparts to support the European values that we all embrace.
All the member States of the Council of Europe followed the same process. We support fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy. When it comes to human rights, we work against the death penalty and try to improve electoral processes. We also try to promote the conventions of the Council of Europe, including the conventions on the prevention of torture, against domestic violence and on human trafficking, which are particularly important.
When we consider the co-operation that has taken place between 2012 and 2014, we look forward to great progress being made in Moroccan-European relations. I congratulate both Morocco and the rapporteur on the excellent work done.
Mr ROUQUET (France)* – I, too, applaud the rapporteur for the excellent work that has been done. I highly commend his latest report.
Through the partnership for democracy with Morocco, the Parliamentary Assembly became involved in something that took place within a particular context: the Arab Spring. Looking back at the last two years, we can say that we have enjoyed two fruitful years of co-operation. Despite the fact that the situation in the region with regard to democracy is ever more alarming, Morocco has proved to us that the commitments entered into in 2011 with the Council of Europe were not a dead letter.
The report recalls progress made thanks to the 2011 constitution. I would like to highlight three points. The first is the rebalancing of powers: the extension of the powers of the parliament is of great importance to all of us. The second is the assertion of human rights, which indicates Morocco’s willingness to become a State genuinely based on the rule of law. The third is a key element of the constitution: article 110. That enshrines an essential principle of the rule of law: impartial application of the law and respect for judicial decisions.
Overall, the constitution has struck the right balance between assertion of a strong Moroccan identity, faithfulness to Islam and a willingness to foster dialogue among different components in Moroccan society. The text of the constitution is exemplary. The report refers to the fact that one article guarantees the rights of the parliamentary opposition, but we must remain vigilant when it comes to the implementation of the constitution. The democratic transition in Morocco will be judged by how well it succeeds in applying all the rights and reforms that are enshrined in the constitution. If we are vigorously committed to that, I am convinced that the partnership for democracy with the Moroccan Parliament can be an instrument to make a success of all this.
I have had the chance to go to Morocco several times for different committee meetings and seminars. I have seen how fruitful and constructive all the discussion with our Moroccan colleagues has been on all issues relating to the partnership. Like our rapporteur, I am convinced that those meetings have made it possible for the partnership to take upon itself a whole new dimension. As many of us know, when it comes to democratic transition, political will on the part of decision makers is crucial.
Let us be clear. Morocco still has some way to go, particularly with regard to freedom of expression, the independence of the judiciary and the abolition of the death penalty, which has to be a priority. We are demanding with your country because we believe that there can be a successful, democratic transition in Morocco. I have every confidence in your country’s ability to become a beacon for the whole region.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Yatim from Morocco, Partner for Democracy.
Mr YATIM (Morocco)* – I congratulate Mr Volontč on his extremely professional and well balanced report. It was put together after a long period of study and visits on the ground. I thank the rapporteur for his words about our delegation, and I thank the Assembly and its committees for their active participation.
As you know, the report has identified progress in the long process of reform in Morocco, but also shortcomings and omissions, of which we are only too well aware. On behalf of the elected representatives of our country, I recommit us to further working to make good any such shortfall.
We are aware that the path of reform is long. Producing results that will affect our individual citizens is not something to be committed to for just a few months or even a few years. The partnership for democracy supports us in making progress and enables us to compare ourselves with democratic models, rather than being, perhaps, the best of a bad bunch, which is not a position that we want to be in.
Priority has to be given to major institutional and legal reforms, without which it would be impossible to move on to the second-tier reforms. Historically and constitutionally we are an Islamic country, which is compatible with the human rights standards embraced by the Council of Europe. We recognise the place of individual freedom and would not wish to undermine the position of those working for democracy and recognition of basic human rights. We wish to avoid triggering any move towards fundamentalism.
Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – If colleagues think back to 2011, when we discussed granting the Moroccan Parliament the status of partner for democracy, I am sure they will remember that I drafted a report on the resolution to the Western Sahara conflict. Indeed, I am still working on that subject, in accordance with the mandate I was given at the time. I will not go into that report in detail today, but I will have a chance in future to submit it and describe the situation in the Western Sahara.
Given that my Moroccan colleagues are present, I want to talk about my recent visit to Rabat and Laayoune, where I gathered information that referred not solely to the Western Sahara – as I have said, I am not going to go into that – but to Morocco in general.
Like previous speakers, I congratulate my Moroccan colleagues on the progress that their country has made. I also want to draw attention, however, to comments made by Mr Juan Mendez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, and by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In the light of those comments, I ask my Moroccan colleagues to go faster and further and to become a driving force for significant progress in combating torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, improving conditions of detention and allowing fundamental freedoms, such as those of expression, belief and association, to flourish. There is still a long way to go in all those areas. I urge my Moroccan colleagues to do their utmost to bring about the necessary reform of the justice and judicial systems that is hoped for in Morocco.
I am not in any way trying to preach, hand down lessons or judge any country; my simple hope is that we can all work together in word and in deed, while facing up to the facts on the ground, so that we can uphold the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We have a great deal of work to do. I say “we” because we all have to do this work together. Without any feeling of superiority whatsoever, I want to be involved in that work. Looking around the Chamber today, I have sometimes felt like crying rather than smiling, but I am willing to join hands with all people of good will who seek to promote and uphold the fundamental values of the Council of Europe.
Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – President Mignon reminded us a few moments ago of what preceded this partnership for democracy and I am proud of the Council of Europe for making it possible. Members could have said that we should just carry on as we were and work on promoting democracy in our own countries and leave others to get on with it themselves, but they did not. When working on and trying to develop democracy, it is important to remember that it can never be taken for granted and that it is certainly not something that shudders to a halt at our borders; rather, we should extend our efforts beyond the frontiers of Europe. We are, therefore, very pleased to welcome Morocco into the democratic fold.
It was man who rendered democracy both necessary and possible. I think that that attests to the duality of human nature. It is important to realise that democracy is necessary for human development. A few weeks ago, I took part in a seminar in Rabat on the evolution of democracy and we had some first-class exchanges with our counterparts in the Moroccan Parliament. There was genuine willingness to make progress.
It has been said that democracy is not a particularly good system; it is just that nobody has thought of a better one. We have to be untiring in our efforts to improve the democratic balance in our countries. Democracy guarantees freedom of thought and of religion, as well as equality between human beings and the primacy of law and of human rights.
How much time is needed to install democracy – five, 10, 50 or 100 years? It does not really matter, because it took a long time when it first started. That is certainly true of Switzerland. It takes time – many hundreds of years – to put in place the instruments of democracy. There is no need, however, to reinvent the wheel, which is why we are in a position to talk about all of the benefits of democracy.
Democracy does not wipe out a country’s traditions or history. Somebody said earlier that European countries still have constitutional monarchies. Monarchies and kingdoms have been maintained at the same time as the implementation of human rights. I appreciated it when you said, Mr President, that it was the Moroccan people who had embraced the new constitution. The same is true of my own country: we do not change a single comma of our constitution without consulting the people, because it belongs to them. Morocco showed great foresight in getting the people to accept the constitution and I wish it every success in the future.
Ms WOLDSETH (Norway) – I congratulate Mr Volontč on his report and commend the two other rapporteurs on their opinions. It is very important that Morocco, as a key country in North Africa, has the status of partner for democracy with our Assembly. I am also very happy that Morocco has adopted a new constitution that has increased the role of its democratic institutions, both the parliament and political parties.
We are impressed, but it is now very important for Morocco to get the necessary help to reform the courts. As recently as February this year, 24 Sahrawis were convicted in a military court. In other democratic countries, civilians are judged by civil courts, and they get fair trials. This is one of the main pillars in the Council of Europe's platform on the rule of law. It should be the next step for Morocco on the way to becoming a more democratic State.
Not only were these Sahrawis judged by a military court, the human rights situation for the Sahrawis in general is very bad in Western Sahara. There is no freedom of speech, and random arrests and disappearances happen. That is not acceptable for any country closely connected to the Council of Europe. There are 165 000 Sahrawi refugees in Algeria. They are completely dependent on humanitarian help, and four out of 10 children are malnourished.
I hope that the Moroccan Government will find a solution on the issue of Western Sahara as soon as possible. Until it does, and until it allows European politicians to visit the occupied areas, we need to follow the developments in Morocco closely. Human rights are the same for everybody – men, women and children – regardless of whether you are Sahrawi or Moroccan. People are suffering, and that is unacceptable to the Council of Europe. So I was very happy to hear Mr Ghellab’s speech, and I look forward to Morocco’s work in the future to improve the situation in Western Sahara and for the Sahrawi people.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Bouhriz, Partner for Democracy from Morocco.
Mr BOUHRIZ (Morocco)* – When Morocco became independent, it made several significant choices, one of which was to open up the kingdom to the outside world. That openness had several results, one of which was a particular status granted by the European Union, and another, more recently, was the status of partner for democracy with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The fact that we opened up to Europe has committed us to reform, and in recent decades we have been fully committed to that. We have had to follow what happens outside the borders of our own country, and that goes back to our constitution in 1962 as well as all that we have done in seeking to consolidate democracy in recent years within Morocco.
Despite all that, our European colleagues are entitled to ask “What is the value of this partnership today?” I certainly think that the partnership with the Council of Europe has proven its worth and brought many valuable fruits to us all. Despite everything that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is doing for the Arab world, with the Arab Spring and so on, it has none the less remained rather in the background when compared with the European Parliament and the European Union, and that is a pity, because the issues that the Council of Europe deals with are truly humanitarian – democracy, human rights, immigration, equality.
We are talking about a country with a 15% economic growth rate, and that country needs human values if it is to flourish as it should. That is why this partnership is so important and why we very much hope that it can show the world the role that the Council of Europe can play. It can illustrate what this Parliamentary Assembly can do. We are a very stable partner for the Council of Europe, and we can be an ambassador, an envoy, for you. We also hope that, by participating in your work, Morocco can open up more to Europe – to Nordic countries and eastern European countries – and also consolidate democracy.
Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I welcome the Moroccan delegation. I am delighted that Morocco is a partner for democracy, because I was the very first rapporteur who took the initiative on rapprochement with Morocco back in 2003. You will have sensed, from all the warm words that have been addressed to you, that we are delighted to see Morocco moving swiftly towards democracy. Morocco has a constitutional monarchy, as you have reminded us, and it is making steady progress towards a parliamentary system of democracy. You talked about certain balances that you still need to find, but I can assure you that we have every confidence in you.
In recent years, Morocco has shown that it knows what to do, and it may be a benchmark in the region. You continue your law making, but there is of course much to be done. As we are friends, and can speak freely and frankly, I shall go further than some have done and say that despite the moratorium on the death penalty back in 1993, certain courts are still handing down capital punishments, and you need to abolish the death penalty. That is crucial.
I am also in no doubt that you will quickly come forward with the political and social responses to some serious social problems in your country, such as illiteracy and the plight of qualified young people. I know Morocco is on the right track.
Earlier, we talked about the Maghreb countries of North Africa. I will travel to Morocco on behalf of the French foreign affairs Committee next week; Morocco’s geostrategic location is important. Africa is set to be the continent of the 21st century, and Morocco is the interface between the North and the South. It is the link between the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, and therefore has a key role to play. This will be a trump card for you as well as for us, and that is why reason must prevail.
I do not have time to talk about the forgotten frozen conflict in Western Sahara, but a solution must be found. We very much hope to see regional integration, and we are sure that it will come to pass for you.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal)* – I congratulate Mr Volontč on his report and evaluation of the partner for democracy status of the Parliament of Morocco. I also thank the Parliament of Morocco and congratulate its Speaker, who has made a point of coming to Strasbourg to speak in this debate. A friendly and warm welcome must be extended to the Moroccan parliamentary delegation to the Assembly. The parliament has become a genuine and effective partner in plenary and committee meetings.
The status of partner for democracy was established to facilitate dialogue and co-operation within an institutional framework with the parliaments of the countries of our Mediterranean neighbourhood. Morocco was the first to apply for the status, which was granted with a great deal of conviction on our part.
That was in the euphoric phase of the Arab Spring. The Kingdom of Morocco gave clear signals that it wished to position itself at the forefront of democratic change. The new constitution was produced and approved by popular referendum, with a convincing turnout of citizens on the electoral roll. The Moroccan Parliament is committed to the effort to approve organic laws to apply the major democratic principles enshrined in the constitution. Moroccan parliamentarians are engaged in a serious effort to follow through the new machinery of democratic scrutiny of the executive, as set out in the constitution.
Morocco has also asked for its attachment to the values of democracy to be reflected in its co-operation with the Council of Europe’s North-South Centre, which is based in Lisbon. A major strategic issue faces us, and Morocco is committed to the initiatives of the centre. Transition to democracy is never an easy path. It takes time. Above all, it involves a change in the mind-set within institutions and the population. It is therefore necessary to proceed resolutely and prudently. The report on the developments in Morocco is positive. Indeed, it bolsters our confidence in the future of democracy and human rights in our neighbouring country, which we consider to be a friend.
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Exactly two years have elapsed since our Assembly adopted the resolution that granted partner for democracy status to the bicameral Parliament of Morocco. The status was introduced four years ago with the aim of developing institutional co-operation with the legislative bodies of Council of Europe neighbouring States. Such status is also enjoyed by the Palestinian Legislative Council. I hope it will soon be granted to the Kyrgyz Parliament and perhaps to the Majilis and Senate of Kazakhstan.
I had the chance to get acquainted with Morocco years ago, from Oujda to Marrakesh. However, during two short visits this year, I almost could not recognise the country – I mean that in a positive way. Reforms began well before the partnership. I remember Mr Yatim told us in Rabat that the reforms were a response to the hopes of young people. In 2011, the new constitution adopted by referendum enshrines a bunch of fundamental principles. Eighteen political parties are represented in the new parliament. Some 17% of MPs are women, even if there are fewer women in the cabinet than previously. However, it is still a long way to Tipperary: the death penalty has not been abolished; more needs to be done in the field of gender equality, particularly in the provinces; cases of human rights violations must be eradicated; and the Western Sahara problem awaits a final political settlement.
Allow me to emphasise the great activities of our Moroccan colleagues during both plenary session and committee meetings. Our expectation has undoubtedly been matched, even if we can do more together. I would like to say in Arabic, “Shukran jazīlan!”
To my mind, the partnership is an opportunity for Moroccans to assess national politics through the prism of European experience. For us, the partnership creates the chance for better dialogue with both Arab and African civilisations.
I am grateful to Luca Volontč for the excellent report, which is the last he will present here. I also congratulate Giacomo Santini, the Chairman of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, on his successful leadership of the inter-parliamentary conference held in April in Rabat, titled, “How Morocco and Europe face up to the challenges and opportunities of south-north migration.” Last but not least, my warm words go to Pietro Marcenaro. Not only is he the rapporteur on the Middle East, but he headed an important session of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in the Moroccan capital a few weeks ago. That Italian troika is bidding farewell to our Assembly. To them I say congratulations. Hopefully we will see you once more in Strasbourg.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Bensaid, Partner for Democracy from Morocco.
Mr BENSAID (Morocco)* – We are here to consider the evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco. I would like to raise a number of points. First, with reference to what has been said about the death penalty in Morocco, and in order to allay the fears of Ms Durrieu, I am a member of the Moroccan opposition, and we are fighting to obtain the abolition of the death penalty. We will have a debate on that in the Parliament, which will be attended by virtually all the political groups. It is true that we have not yet won the fight, but we must recognise that, for the first time, we have a network of parliamentarians in Morocco – there are more than 200 senators and representatives – who are committed to the abolition of the death penalty. That itself is progress.
My second point is on gender equality. We have two competing views in Morocco. We have the idea of men and women as equal, and the vision of women being supplementary to men. Resolution 1818, which granted the status of partner for democracy, refers to the need for joint work to be undertaken to explain and further develop the concept of gender equality, not just for the welfare of women, but for the economic development of the country. That is clearly a fundamental value, and it is one we share with the Council of Europe.
Universality is another value we share. We recognise that there is just one human race – people are different, but they are part of one race. Europe cannot have different human rights from the rest of the world, including Africa. We must fight against the enslavement of women, illiteracy and anything that thwarts and flouts human rights, wherever it occurs. We must recognise the universality of human rights. The Kingdom of Morocco is very much committed to that, as we were 20 years before the Arab spring.
Mr SALLES (France)* – I, too, welcome the speaker of the Chamber of Representatives of Morocco and commend Luca Volontč on his excellent report.
Two years on from the Arab Spring, the concerns that people had when Islamist governments took office have unfortunately proved justified. There have been breaches of women’s rights and freedom of expression. We have seen the proliferation of violence, and arbitrary and disproportionate sentences. The spring has now become the autumn of democracy.
Against that backdrop, the first evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco appears to give hope for all democrats in the Arab world. A number of speakers have reminded us of the strides that have been made. Clearly, the 2011 constitution is in line contemporary constitutional law and has triggered a process of political change.
It is telling to compare the constitution of Morocco with that of Egypt or Tunisia, at least on the rights of women. The new Moroccan constitution not only proclaims equality but provides for the setting up of a body to ensure that there is parity and to fight against discrimination. We should also welcome the fact that Morocco is planning to sign up to certain optional protocols to international conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The optional protocol will make it possible for the complaints of women who have exhausted all their national remedies to be recorded, so that they can enjoy their rights. It is to be hoped that the parliament will quickly adopt that law.
Tahar Ben Jelloun said, “Freedom is nothing if not breathing in the body and mind of man, all men without distinction ethnic, religious or geographic.” Fifteen years on, the draft statute on the status of the Amazigh language and the affirmation of a Moroccan identity echo that plea of the Moroccan winner of the Prix Goncourt.
Of course, Morocco is not yet a democracy and progress has to be made, particularly on ensuring that human rights become a reality for all Moroccans regardless of their gender. I believe that the partner for democracy status, which is a tool for promoting democracy and the rule of law, has proved its worth. Let us rejoice in that success and hope that Morocco can serve as an example for all those who have departed from the values and ideals promoted by those who took part in the Arab revolutions.
Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – I have learned with great satisfaction of the significant progress in human rights in Morocco, and I echo the congratulations and encouragement that I have heard. However, I must say to my Moroccan colleagues that they need to hear a few home truths from their friends, and I would like to flag up the issue of human rights breaches in the Sahrawi region, Western Sahara. There will obviously be further information about that in due course, but it casts a significant shadow on the otherwise rather positive picture that has been painted.
I fear that our Moroccan friends tend to fall into the same traps as us – when national interests are at stake, those interests tend to prevail over scrupulous respect for human rights. I remind the Assembly of a conference organised in Fez, to which I was invited along with Swiss parliamentary colleagues. It was impossible to explain to the organisers that we were not content merely to discuss human rights breaches committed by Polisario and that we were concerned also to discuss those on the other side. Now the league of human rights, and some major authors, have expressed a degree of criticism about the Western Sahara issue. I await the outcome of the special report on that subject.
Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain)* – I congratulate the leader of the Group of the European People’s Party, Mr Volontč, on his report and on his capacity for hard work over a long time. We commend his tenacity in defending human rights, democracy and freedom. I am absolutely convinced that colleagues not only from the EPP but from throughout the Parliamentary Assembly will miss him. I also congratulate the Speaker of the Moroccan Parliament, who is here with us this evening. I thank him for his commitment to democracy and freedom, and for the debate that is ongoing in the Moroccan Parliament on putting democracy into practice on a daily basis.
There are a number of international agreements in place. On 2 March 2011, Mr Volontč met the president of the senate to set in motion what has now become a reality here in the Council of Europe – the partner for democracy status of the Moroccan Parliament. It became the first parliament from North Africa, the Middle East or Central Asia to be awarded that status, which the Council of Europe created in 2009. It therefore serves as a beacon of democracy in the Maghreb.
For the first time in its history, Morocco has a constitution that enshrines democracy and freedom as well as equality. I say to the Speaker of the Moroccan Parliament, and to his accompanying delegation that it is important that we in the Council of Europe welcome you with open arms. Morocco is a neighbouring country with which we have very good relations, and ties of culture and friendship and relationships among men and women bind us together. It is important that we eliminate domestic violence from the lives of Moroccan women. Countries in the Maghreb and North Africa need to ensure that democracy is written in capital letters. I am certain that the words “democracy” and “freedom” are already part of the Moroccan spirit, which is why you are set to transform your country into a beacon of democracy and freedom for all Arab countries and across North Africa. We have every faith in you.
THE PRESIDENT* – The next speaker is Mr Sabella from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.
Mr SABELLA (Palestine) – Mr Volontč rightly argued that reporting on partnership is not pointing fingers and does not reflect a teacher-student relationship. We need to understand the dynamics of the social, cultural and historical traditions and structures that have slowed attempts at comprehensive constitutional reforms aimed at providing more equality, democracy and respect for the rule of law in Morocco. Those structures, along with the realities of a young population and their economic and social aspirations, mean that the Moroccan experience of reform and democratisation cannot be strictly modelled on European democracies, even when universal and European values are shared through partnership and even when we can learn from Europe’s rich heritage and experience of democracy’s development.
We in Palestine, along with people in other Arab and Muslim countries, look up to Morocco as an example of reform, and of the reflection of that reform in the constitution. Equal opportunities and life chances for the population must be promoted, but that is a formidable challenge not only for Morocco but for all its southern neighbours. It will eventually be met, with the help of partnership and accompaniment. An open, frank and goal-oriented exchange can help southern neighbours, particularly partners for democracy, reach objectives that are in keeping with universal and Council of Europe values.
The road forward is not easy, which is why partnership is an essential component of promoting a future that offers hope for social and economic development, for the benefit of Moroccans as well as other citizens of the southern Mediterranean. Partnership for democracy is essential and necessary to achieve such a future, and although there are demands on the southern partners, we should always remember that the partnership also places demands on the Council of Europe and its member States. That mutuality should be sustained and followed up thoroughly, and I commend Mr Volontč on his report, which reinforces mutuality and going forward together in that spirit. Thank you, Mr Volontč.
Mr FRÉCON (France)* – Involving the Moroccan Parliament more closely in the work of our Assembly, thanks to the partnership for democracy, represents the culmination of a decade of efforts by the Moroccan authorities in seeking to promote freedom and the rule of law. This has been a virtuous circle, so to speak, the high point of which was the 2011 constitutional reform that made it possible to clarify the organisation of political power in that country by enhancing the role of the house of representatives and the senate. The government is now clearly responsible to the parliament, which has legislative authority and the power of legislative initiative, as we just heard about that from you, Mr Speaker.
That political liberalisation has gone alongside undeniable economic progress and a genuine willingness to improve social conditions. The Moroccan authorities have fully accepted and taken on board the idea that democracy can take root only if socio-economic conditions are created that allow moderate and forward-looking forces to emerge, and work has been done in accordance with that two-pronged approach. You referred to decentralisation at political level, Mr Speaker, and I am aware that work has been done to promote development in shanty towns, and of the urgent programme for education. In that context, it is not surprising that the Arab Spring did not reduce the country to turmoil. After all, it appears that the authorities had anticipated that popular movement to a large extent. I note in passing that some of the difficulties encountered by some of your neighbouring countries have not occurred in Morocco. We see no democratic autumn or indeed winter in Morocco; spring is still with us there.
The partnership for democracy must be commended. It reflects a favourable trend and I certainly encourage the ongoing nature of the reforms. None the less, the picture is not idyllic and Morocco must still face a number of challenges. More than 28% of Moroccans still live below the poverty line, according to statistics from a United Nations Development Programme study. Morocco has one of the highest rates of illiteracy in the Arab world and is only 114th globally when one considers literacy rates.
I note that a number of values are difficult to reconcile with democratic principles. For instance, gender equality still has to take root in Moroccan society, and you told us a little about that earlier, Mr Speaker. A further point, which I will not go into, concerns the situation in the Western Sahara, and such things present challenges. Our Assembly will remain vigilant on all those issues, but I have no doubt that the partnership for democracy will make it possible for the reform that still needs to be undertaken in Morocco to proceed at a faster pace than would otherwise have been the case. I am French, and over many centuries France and Morocco have lived together. That being so, we have trusted one another and now enjoy real friendship, respect and love. We love one another.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Frécon, for ending on that amorous note. Mr Díaz Tejera will pick up where you left off and he will be the last speaker.
Mr DÍAZ TEJERA* (Spain) – Mr Frécon was speaking about relations between the French and Moroccans, but imagine the links between those of us from the Canaries and Morocco. We share roots, I believe. We certainly breathe the air that blows off the Moroccan desert when we are in the Canaries. If we compare your constitution with the one we debated earlier today when the Chamber was pretty full, it seems to me that you are aware that we are considering constitutionalism of the 21st century, which is an ongoing process.
We are talking about good governance, Mr Speaker, and your constitution has taken a great deal from a variety of constitutions without being a carbon copy of any one. You have taken the best of other constitutions and put them together. You heard a United Kingdom colleague refer to a constitutional monarchy, but you cannot make a direct comparison with other constitutions because everything has to be adapted. I think you have the right constitution for your country. You have an appropriate judiciary and categories of norms, and I also refer to article 14 of the constitution, which makes participative democracy a genuine reality.
I express such views to all colleagues present, because it seems to me that there are people who have driven forward the reforms. Obviously some schools of thought embrace fundamentalism and do not want to see progress made in this way. Some want a lot of reforms and others do not, but we must not take our eyes off the main goal. It is all very well being human, but you would have to be superhuman to take absolute account of each and every place where one needs to make a distinction between the better option and the perfect option. As the Speaker said, we recognise that sometimes there are difficulties with the organisation of seminars, but if it is possible to ensure that the agenda will not upset too many parliamentarians, that will be fine and we will be able to share our views with our Moroccan colleagues on an equal footing.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Díaz Tejera. I think you have a little of the Pavarotti about you when you express yourself in such rotund terms.
We are in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and this is an unusual note to strike, but I apologise to all those at the end of the speakers’ list whom I will not be able to allow to take the floor. I am afraid we have already overstepped the time allotted for this debate, but if you are in the Chamber you have the opportunity to submit your typed statements to the Table Office, and they will be appended to the Official Report. We will now hear one minute from Mr Xuclŕ, and then the rapporteur, Luca Volontč, has eight minutes left.
Mr XUCLŔ (Spain)* – We have the Speaker from the House of Representatives, Mr Ghellab, and I say to you, and to my parliamentarian colleagues, that we are looking at the practical implementation of rules under Morocco’s new constitution. Certain areas concerning human rights are reflected in Amendment 12, and other amendments. What is particularly important for us in the Council of Europe is that we have a proper definition and understanding of the Council of Europe. This is a region of the world where the death penalty does not exist. Our partners are invited to take serious account of that fact.
We have been working on this issue with a number of colleagues. We would like to express our great friendship with them. Obviously Italy has played a key role in this debate and this whole process. We will hear from two eminent Italians at the end of this debate: Mr Luca Volontč, representing the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, and Mr Marcenaro, also from that committee. You are convinced Europeans and convinced democrats. I believe you have both become great friends of many of us here. Your work will not only stand as a milestone, but beam in some light from Marrakesh.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Volontč.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – I want to respond very briefly. Let me start by thanking all who took part in today’s debate, making suggestions and proposals. I also thank them for their kind words about the work done with the Moroccan authorities.
I thank everyone who has been kind enough to take part in the committee’s meetings in recent weeks. Gradually we have come up with a form of words and amended the report. Step by step, slowly but surely, we have managed to arrive at the final result. As I have said, we have done that in co-operation with our Moroccan friends. We know that we have a huge responsibility, because Morocco is the first partner for democracy. We are very grateful indeed to the Speaker of the Moroccan Parliament, as well as the authorities and colleagues who have taken an active part in all meetings and made their contribution to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as well as other committees. That attests to the fact that it is not just one partner telling another what to do. Rather, we are involved in genuinely shared work, which makes possible this mutual exchange on our great passion: championing human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
I also thank all the staff in the secretariat, particularly Pavel, who has been by my side throughout this innovative experience. It is always exciting to embark on something new. We have done some terrific work. I would like to thank all the staff who have supported us over the years. I do not want to say “Farewell”; I hope I can follow you on your way.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call the chairman, Mr Marcenaro.
Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Briefly, I would like to thank the speaker of the Moroccan Parliament. For the last 20 years, I have been envious of countries with young leaders. My compliments to you – it would be nice if you could visit with me. The members of parliament who visited us here have been an example of thoroughness, seriousness – Karim Ghellab, Mohamed Yatim, Hassan Bouhriz, Mohammed Mehdi Bensaid and other colleagues.
I have met some of you in previous years. People have prospered in political life in Morocco. It was not that people had no option other than to participate in the government of the country; rather, I think people have worked extremely hard to attain their current positions. That bears witness to your political commitment. Looked at from my political experience, that is a positive example and augurs well for the future, because in future we will have to look to friendship with others.
THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.
The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 14 amendments and three sub-amendments have been tabled.
I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 11, 13, 5, 1, 8, 9, 14 and 10 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so, Mr Marcenaro?
Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
The following amendments have been adopted:
Amendment 11, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6, insert the following sentence:
“However, the Assembly deplores the fact that so far only a few constitutional laws have been adopted to implement certain provisions of the constitution.”Am
Amendment 13, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.2, second sentence, after the words “an in-depth analysis of the organisation of these elections” insert the following words: “, taking into account the need to address the reported irregularities,”.
Amendment 5, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Korun, Ms Acketoft, Mr Cederbratt, Ms Wurm, Ms Groth, Mr Hunko and Ms Werner, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.7, insert the following paragraph:
“calls on the parliament to safeguard the human rights of refugees and other migrants by adopting legislation on asylum and on social rights for migrants and monitoring its implementation.”
Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Marcenaro, Mr Von Sydow, Mr Iwiński, Mr Popescu, Lord Tomlinson and Ms Maury Pasquier, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly recalls paragraph 11 of Resolution 1818 and stresses the urgent need for all parties involved, as well as the international community, to step up efforts aiming at reaching a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution, within the framework of the United Nations, to the Western Sahara problem.”Am
Amendment 8, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:
“Reiterating that the recommendations set out in paragraph 8 of its Resolution 1818 (2011) are essential to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Morocco, the Assembly calls on the Moroccan authorities to make greater efforts in order to achieve decisive progress in these areas, and invites them to rely on the Council of Europe expertise to facilitate this process, be it at the level of technical expertise, exchange of good practice, and/or parliamentary support”.Am
Amendment 9, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly expresses serious concern that the Penal Code criminalises consensual sexual relations between persons of the same sex, with penalties of between six months and three years in prison. It notes that there are recent reports of persons being imprisoned under this legislation, and calls on the Moroccan Parliament to initiate its repeal at the earliest opportunity.”Am
Amendment 14, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, replace the words “its primary aim” with the following words: “progress in taking forward reforms”.
Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 14, after the words “in line with the political commitments entered into under the partnership, insert the following words: “and the recommendations laid down in Assembly Resolution 1818 (2011).”
We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Korun, Ms Acketoft, Mr Cederbratt, Ms Wurm, Ms Groth, Mr Hunko, and Ms Werner, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph:
“The Assembly notes that Morocco has become a country of destination for migrants, which requires an adequate asylum procedure in line with the European Convention on Human Rights as well as an integration policy meeting human rights standards, including non-discrimination, the right to family reunion and social rights.”I
I call Ms Strik to support Amendment 3.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – As I said in my contribution, Morocco faces an increasing number of asylum seekers and migrants. The amendment acknowledges that and says that having such migrants and refugees requires an adequate asylum procedure, in line with human rights standards.
THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that there is a sub-amendment to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Marcenaro, Mr Popescu, Mr Agramunt and Lord Tomlinson, which is, in Amendment 3, delete the words “in line with the European Convention on Human Rights”.
I call Mr Volontč to support the sub-amendment.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – This is a very straightforward amendment concerning the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and all these important bodies. We have asked Ms Strik to delete the words “in line with the European Convention on Human Rights” – because of course Morocco is not a member – and instead to refer to human rights standards.
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?
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – I agree.
THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3, as amended?
That is not the case. I presume the committee is in favour, so we shall proceed to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 3, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 12, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7, insert the following paragraph:
“However, the Assembly is concerned about the human rights situation in Morocco, in particular in relation to the use of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, poor conditions of detention, violations of the freedoms of religion and expression, the independence of the media, and the freedoms of association and of peaceful assembly. Thus, it stresses the importance for Morocco to take all necessary measures to address the specific issues referred to in paragraph 8 of Resolution 1818 (2011) in order to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights.”
I call Mr Xuclŕ to support Amendment 12 on behalf of the committee.
Mr XUCLŔ (Spain)* – A number of speakers have referred specifically to Amendment 12. We are trying to improve human rights and point to areas that Morocco has to pay special attention to. I do not have time to emphasise what all those areas are, but I underscore the importance of the amendment. I believe that we have support for the sub-amendment to the amendment.
The PRESIDENT* – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Marcenaro, Mr Popescu, Mr Agramunt and Lord Tomlinson, which is, before the words “use of torture”, insert the following word: “reported”. I call Mr Volontč to support the sub-amendment.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – This amendment was approved unanimously, so obviously we want to retain its whole context. We want to talk about violations, torture and the like, and we are not denying that those things might exist, but we want to refer to reported torture. That is why we want to insert the word “reported”, in order to be more complete.
The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the view of the mover of the amendment?
Mr XUCLŔ (Spain)* – I am in favour.
The PRESIDENT* – The committee is clearly in favour. The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 12, 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 12, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Mogens Jensen, Mr Villumsen, Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen, Ms Loklindt, Mr Martin Henriksen, Mr Gunnarsson, Ms Ohlsson, Mr Axelsson, Ms Hägg and Mr von Sydow, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.3, insert the following paragraph:
“expresses grave concern that the Penal Code criminalises consensual sexual relations between persons of the same sex, with penalties of between six months and three years in prison, notes that there are recent reports of persons being imprisoned under this legislation, and calls on the Moroccan Parliament to initiate its repeal at the earliest opportunity;”.
Mr Jensen does not wish to move Amendment 2. Does anyone else wish to take up Amendment 2? That is not the case.
Amendment 2 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Korun, Ms Acketoft, Mr Cederbratt, Ms Wurm, Ms Groth, Mr Hunko and Ms Werner, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 8.7, insert the following paragraph:
“calls on the parliament to ensure the rights of association and freedom of expression for NGOs who advocate the improvement of human rights standards in Morocco.”
I call Ms Strik to speak in support of Amendment 4.
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – As I said in my contribution, the democratic process cannot do without an active civil society. During our visit we noticed some of the obstacles that NGOs meet if they want to take the initiative or get permission to be creative. I urge the parliament to take steps to strengthen the NGOs and civil society in order to remove possible obstacles to their operations.
The PRESIDENT* – We come to the sub-amendment to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Volontč, Mr Marcenaro, Mr Popescu, Mr Agramunt and Lord Tomlinson, which is, in Amendment 4, replace the words “NGOs who advocate the improvement of human rights standards in Morocco” with the following words: “civil society organisations”.
I call Mr Volontč to support the sub-amendment.
Mr VOLONTČ (Italy)* – This is a sub-amendment to replace certain words. We understand the purpose of the amendment, which is why we want to replace the word “NGOs” with “civil society organisations” because that would broaden the whole scope of the organisations covered. That is extremely important for the development of democracy.
The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the view of the mover of the amendment?
Ms STRIK (Netherlands)* – I can agree.
The PRESIDENT* – Ms Strik is clearly in favour of the sub-amendment, as is the committee. The vote is open.
The sub-amendment is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case. I see that the committee is in favour.
The vote is open.
Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Korun, Ms Wurm, Ms Groth, Mr Hunko, Ms Werner and Ms Gündeş Bakir, which is, in paragraph 14, replace the words “in line with the political commitments entered into under the partnership” with the following words: “and verify that practical measures are taken further to the parliamentary decisions, following the commitments undertaken in Resolution 1818 of 21 June 2011 (article 8)”.
I understand that Ms Strik will not move Amendment 6. Is that correct?
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 6? That is not the case.
Amendment 6 is not moved.
We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Ms Strik, Ms Wurm, Ms Groth, Mr Hunko and Ms Werner, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 15, after the word “resolution”, add the following words: “on the basis, primarily, of the practical measures taken with regard to Article 8 of Resolution 1818”. )”.
I understand that Ms Strik will not move Amendment 7 either. Is that correct?
Ms STRIK (Netherlands) – Yes.
The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 7? That is not the case.
Amendment 7 is not moved.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13230, as amended. Before we proceed to the vote I would like to say, Speaker Ghellab, that I was delighted to see you here. This has been most important for the Council of Europe as a whole, and I have been delighted to have been in the chair for this session.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 13230, as amended, is adopted, with 55 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.
That is carried nem con. Congratulations to Luca Volontč. Thanks also to the other rapporteurs for their opinions, to the secretariat and to the committee chairperson.
7. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I have to announce the results of the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Iceland and Lithuania.
Iceland
Number voting: 170
Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 6
Votes cast: 164
Absolute majority: 83
The votes cast were as follows:
Mr Guđmundur Alfređsson: 41
Ms Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir: 27
Mr Róbert Ragnar Spanó: 96
Accordingly, Mr Spanó, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years beginning on 1 November 2013.
Lithuania
Number voting: 170
Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 9
Votes cast: 161
Absolute majority: 81
The votes cast were as follows:
Ms Lyra Jakulevičienė: 41
Mr Egidijus Kūris: 106
Mr Ignas Vėgėlė: 14
Accordingly, Mr Kūris, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years beginning on 1 November 2013.
8. Next public business
THE PRESIDENT⃰ – I thank our interpreters and staff.
The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 8.10 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Changes in the membership of committees
2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
3. Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary
Presentation by Ms Lundgren of report of the Monitoring Committee in Doc. 13229
Response by Mr Walter on behalf of the Bureau
Speakers: Mr Chope (United Kingdom), Mr Hunko (Germany), Mr Volontč (Italy), Mr von Sydow (Sweden), Ms Reps (Estonia), Ms Bakoyannis (Greece), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Mr Braun (Hungary), Ms Cramon-Taubadel (Germany), Mr Hancock (United Kingdom), Sir Edward Leigh (United Kingdom), Mr Gulyás (Hungary), Ms Bourzai (France), Ms Csöbör (Hungary), Mr Biedroń (Poland), Mr Rochebloine (France),
4. Prolongation of the deadline for the tabling of amendments in respect of the urgent procedure debate
5. Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary
Speakers: Ms Schuster (Germany), Mr Neill (United Kingdom), Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark), Mr Allavena (Monaco), Mr Villumsen (Denmark), Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary), Ms Gündeş Bakir (Turkey), Mr Beneyto (Spain), Mr V. Szabó (Hungary), Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen (Denmark), Mr József Nagy (Slovak Republic)
Replies: Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Herkel (Estonia)
Amendments 3, 4, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21 as amended, 14, an oral amendment, 16 as amended and 2 adopted.
Draft resolution in Document 13229, as amended, adopted.
6. Evaluation of the Partnership for Democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco
Presentation by Mr Volontč of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Doc. 13230
Presentation by Mr Xuclŕ of opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Doc. 13244
Presentation by Ms Gafarova of opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination in Doc. 13245
Speakers: Mr Villumsen (Denmark), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova), Ms Strik (Netherlands), Mr Hancock (United Kingdom), Mr Liddell-Grainger (United Kingdom)
Address by Mr Karim Ghellab, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco
Speakers: Mr Beneyto (Spain), Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Yatim (Morocco), Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland), Mr Bugnon (Switzerland), Ms Woldseth (Norway), Mr Bouhriz (Morocco), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal), Mr Iwiński (Poland), Mr Bensaid (Morocco), Mr Salles (France), Mr Recordon (Switzerland), Ms Quintanilla (Spain), Mr Sabella (Palestine), Mr Frécon (France), Mr Díaz Tejera (Spain).
Replies: Mr Xuclŕ (Spain), Mr Volontč (Italy), Mr Marcenaro (Italy)
Amendments 11, 13, 5, 1, 8, 9, 14, 10, 3 as amended, 12 as amended and 4 as amended adopted.
Draft resolution in Document 13230, as amended, adopted.
7. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
8. Next public business
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
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Arben AHMETAJ*
Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ
Jean-Charles ALLAVENA
Karin ANDERSEN
Lord Donald ANDERSON/Michael Connarty
Paride ANDREOLI
Khadija ARIB/Tuur Elzinga
Volodymyr ARIEV*
Francisco ASSIS*
Danielle AUROI*
Daniel BACQUELAINE*
Theodora BAKOYANNIS
David BAKRADZE*
Gérard BAPT/Christian Bataille
Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA
Doris BARNETT*
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL
Marieluise BECK*
José María BENEYTO
Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Tinatin Khidasheli
Deborah BERGAMINI
Robert BIEDROŃ
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY/ Sir Edward Leigh
Ľuboš BLAHA*
Delia BLANCO*
Jean-Marie BOCKEL*
Eric BOCQUET/ Mme Bernadette Bourzai
Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica
Olga BORZOVA
Mladen BOSIC/Ismeta Dervoz
António BRAGA
Anne BRASSEUR
Márton BRAUN
Federico BRICOLO*
Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*
Gerold BÜCHEL
Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino
André BUGNON
Natalia BURYKINA/Olga Kazakova
Sylvia CANEL
Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU*
Mikael CEDERBRATT
Otto CHALOUPKA
Irakli CHIKOVANI
Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini
Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Desislav CHUKOLOV*
Lolita ČIGĀNE
Boriss CILEVIČS
Henryk CIOCH/Grzegorz Czelej
James CLAPPISON/David Davies
Deirdre CLUNE
Agustín CONDE
Telmo CORREIA
Carlos COSTA NEVES
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Armand De DECKER
Roel DESEYN
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Peter van DIJK
Şaban DİŞLİ
Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ
Jim DOBBIN
Karl DONABAUER/Sonja Ablinger
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS/ Maria Giannakaki
Damian DRĂGHICI
Daphné DUMERY*
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*
Josette DURRIEU
Mikuláš DZURINDA*
Baroness Diana ECCLES
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Gianni FARINA*
Joseph FENECH ADAMI*
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*
Vyacheslav FETISOV*
Doris FIALA*
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča
Axel E. FISCHER
Jana FISCHEROVÁ*
Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*
Hans FRANKEN*
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO
Erich Georg FRITZ
Martin FRONC/József Nagy
Sir Roger GALE/Robert Neill
Karl GARĐARSON*
Tamás GAUDI NAGY
Nadezda GERASIMOVA
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Paolo GIARETTA*
Michael GLOS*
Pavol GOGA*
Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI/Iwona Guzowska
Alina Ştefania GORGHIU
Svetlana GORYACHEVA
Martin GRAF*
Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou
Andreas GROSS
Arlette GROSSKOST*
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Attila GRUBER
Gergely GULYÁS
Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Carmen Quintanilla
Ana GUŢU
Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON/Riitta Myller
Carina HÄGG/Lennart Axelsson
Sabir HAJIYEV
Andrzej HALICKI
Mike HANCOCK
Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar
Davit HARUTYUNYAN
Hĺkon HAUGLI/Anette Trettebergstuen
Norbert HAUPERT
Alfred HEER
Martin HENRIKSEN
Andres HERKEL
Adam HOFMAN
Jim HOOD
Joachim HÖRSTER
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN
Anette HÜBINGER*
Andrej HUNKO
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV*
Shpëtim IDRIZI*
Vladimir ILIĆ/Vesna Marjanović
Florin IORDACHE/Viorel Riceard Badea
Igor IVANOVSKI
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI
Denis JACQUAT/Rudy Salles
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Stella JANTUAN
Tedo JAPARIDZE*
Ramón JÁUREGUI*
Michael Aastrup JENSEN
Mogens JENSEN
Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Katarina Rakić
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić
Antti KAIKKONEN
Ferenc KALMÁR
Božidar KALMETA/Ivan Račan
Mariusz KAMIŃSKI
Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel
Ulrika KARLSSON/Kerstin Lundgren
Burhan KAYATÜRK
Jan KAŹMIERCZAK/Marek Krząkała
Serhii KIVALOV
Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski
Serhiy KLYUEV*
Haluk KOÇ*
Igor KOLMAN
Attila KORODI
Alev KORUN
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO*
Dmitry KRYVITSKY
Václav KUBATA*
Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT
Igor LEBEDEV*
Harald LEIBRECHT*
Orinta LEIPUTĖ
Christophe LÉONARD*
Terry LEYDEN
Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE
Lone LOKLINDT
François LONCLE*
Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Bernard Fournier
George LOUKAIDES
Younal LOUTFI*
Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA
Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*
Philippe MAHOUX
Gennaro MALGIERI*
Pietro MARCENARO
Thierry MARIANI
Epameinondas MARIAS*
Milica MARKOVIĆ*
Meritxell MATEU PI
Pirkko MATTILA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA
Sir Alan MEALE/Linda Riordan
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Aleksandar Spasenovski
Ivan MELNIKOV/Vassiliy Likhachev
Nursuna MEMECAN*
José MENDES BOTA
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Frédéric Reiss
Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović
Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI/Renato Farina
Andrey MOLCHANOV*
Jerzy MONTAG/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel
Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Ángel Pintado
Patrick MORIAU/Fatiha Saďdi
Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*
Lydia MUTSCH/Fernand Boden
Lev MYRYMSKYI*
Philippe NACHBAR*
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*
Marian NEACŞU*
Aleksandar NENKOV*
Pasquale NESSA
Fritz NEUGEBAUER*
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Paul Flynn
Brynjar NÍELSSON*
Elena NIKOLAEVA/Anvar Makhmutov
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Mirosława NYKIEL/Elżbieta Radziszewska
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY
Lesia OROBETS/Olena Kondratiuk
Sandra OSBORNE
José Ignacio PALACIOS
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS
Eva PARERA/Jordi Xuclŕ
Ganira PASHAYEVA*
Lajla PERNASKA*
Johannes PFLUG*
Danny PIETERS/Sabine Vermeulen
Foteini PIPILI/Eleni Rapti
Ivan POPESCU
Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Mailis REPS
Eva RICHTROVÁ/Pavel Lebeda
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Marlene RUPPRECHT*
Ilir RUSMALI/Kastriot Islami
Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko
Rovshan RZAYEV
Giacomo SANTINI
Giuseppe SARO
Kimmo SASI
Deborah SCHEMBRI
Stefan SCHENNACH*
Marina SCHUSTER
Urs SCHWALLER/Luc Recordon
Senad ŠEPIĆ*
Samad SEYIDOV*
Jim SHERIDAN
Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO*
Boris SHPIGEL*
Arturas SKARDŽIUS*
Ladislav SKOPAL*
Leonid SLUTSKY/Alexander Sidyakin
Serhiy SOBOLEV
Lorella STEFANELLI*
Yanaki STOILOV
Christoph STRÄSSER*
Karin STRENZ*
Ionuţ-Marian STROE
Giacomo STUCCHI
Valeriy SUDARENKOV*
Björn von SYDOW
Petro SYMONENKO*
Vilmos SZABÓ
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI/Tinatin Bokuchava
Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Tamerlan Aguzarov
Romana TOMC
Lord John E. TOMLINSON*
Latchezar TOSHEV
Mihai TUDOSE*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*
Theodora TZAKRI
Tomáš ÚLEHLA*
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*
Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste Tofani
Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Spyridon Taliadouros
Volodymyr VECHERKO*
Mark VERHEIJEN/ Tineke Strik
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Luigi VITALI
Luca VOLONTČ
Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco
Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ
Zoran VUKČEVIĆ
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Johann WADEPHUL*
Robert WALTER
Dame Angela WATKINSON/Ian Liddell-Grainger
Katrin WERNER
Karin S. WOLDSETH
Gisela WURM
Karl ZELLER*
Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Andreja Črnak Meglič
Svetlana ZHUROVA*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN*
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Deo DEBATTISTA
Michael FALZON
Observers
Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA
Partners for Democracy
Najat AL-ASTAL
Mohammed AMEUR
Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID
Hassan BOUHRIZ
Qais KHADER
Bernard SABELLA
Mohamed YATIM
Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)
Mehmet ÇAĞLAR
Appendix II
Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Iceland and Lithuania
Pedro AGRAMUNT
Karin ANDERSEN
Robert BIEDROŃ
Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz
Agustín CONDE
Telmo CORREIA
Carlos COSTA NEVES
Katalin CSÖBÖR
Joseph DEBONO GRECH
Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA
Ioannis DRAGASAKIS/ Maria Giannakaki
Damian DRĂGHICI
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Jean-Claude FRÉCON
Sir Roger GALE/Robert Neill
Valeriu GHILETCHI
Alina Ştefania GORGHIU
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/ Carmen Quintanilla
Davit HARUTYUNYAN
Andrej HUNKO
Vladimir ILIĆ/Vesna Marjanović
Florin IORDACHE/Viorel Riceard Badea
Igor IVANOVSKI
Stella JANTUAN
Michael Aastrup JENSEN
Mogens JENSEN
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Igor KOLMAN
Tiny KOX
Terry LEYDEN
Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA
Philippe MAHOUX
Pietro MARCENARO
Thierry MARIANI
Pirkko MATTILA/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Jean-Claude MIGNON/ Frédéric Reiss
Rubén MORENO PALANQUES/Ángel Pintado
Joăo Bosco MOTA AMARAL
José Ignacio PALACIOS
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN
John PRESCOTT
Jakob PRESEČNIK
Gabino PUCHE
François ROCHEBLOINE
Rovshan RZAYEV
Ionuţ-Marian STROE
Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN
Katrin WERNER
Karin S. WOLDSETH
Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Andreja Črnak Meglič