AA15CR18

AS (2015) CR 18

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Eighteenth sitting

Friday 24 April 2015 at 10 a.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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

5.       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 Walter, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Equality and non-discrimination in the access to justice

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “Equality and non-discrimination in the access to justice” (Document 13740) presented by Mr Viorel Riceard Badea on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      I remind members that the speaking limit on speeches is four minutes.

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

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Access to justice is very much part of a State based on the rule of law, and it is an essential requirement in any democratic society. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights deals with the right to a fair trial, and Article 13 deals with the right to effective remedy. Those articles make reference to access to justice, but the concept is far broader and includes such elements as the possibility of being awarded compensation through the courts for a violation of one of the rights enshrined in the Convention. It also covers the right to information on legal proceedings; legal aid or assistance; legal representation; legal standing; and access to the courts in general terms.

      Alongside the Convention, there are other international instruments in the area of human rights that make reference to access to justice, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the first international legal instrument to make explicit reference to access to justice is the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, in paragraph 4 of Article 67, on the basis of which the European Union is obliged to facilitate access to justice, particularly through the reciprocal recognition of judicial decisions and extra-judicial decisions in the field of civil law.

      As we know, access to justice is often impeded by a number of factors – an absence of awareness of legal information, a lack of trust in the authorities, the impact of the economic crisis on legal aid, or even a legislative framework that is not appropriate to deal with the complexity of the situations that are encountered in reality. According to the many reports that various governmental and non-governmental institutions have produced, various difficulties have been identified in promoting access to justice for a number of vulnerable groups, such as women, people belonging to national minorities, migrants, refugees, stateless persons, LGBT persons, those with disabilities and those on modest incomes. That is particularly true in member States of the Council of Europe where the level of various legal fees and charges is disproportionate compared with the income of certain categories of people, and where legal aid or assistance has been eroded substantially by the budget cuts caused by the economic crisis.

      It has been found that the groups that are most vulnerable to discrimination are unaware of their rights and the possibilities open to them to access the courts. The absence of information and the fact that information is presented in technical language are among the most frequently encountered obstacles. Were we to refrain from couching things in general terms and instead talk about specific problems, that would certainly contribute to facilitating access to justice.

      Another shortcoming, as the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice has identified, is the trend that we see at the moment of a reduction in the number of courts. That has an impact on physical access to court, particularly for people living in remote areas and those with disabilities. Of course, legal aid is fundamental to ensuring access to justice for all. To ensure access to effective remedies, specific rules on legal aid or legal assistance might need to be revised, so that people on more modest incomes in particular have access to legal aid.

      Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the Court may receive applications from individuals, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals who allege violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention and its various protocols by one of the high contracting parties – that is to say, member States. The definition of the status of victim, as understood by the Court, could be criticised as being overly rigid, in particular when taking into consideration the position of persons with a legal impairment, because the Court has decided that such persons would not enjoy legal standing. However, the Court has recognised that the absence of legal standing, including partial legal standing in respect of such persons, can have a negative impact on their access to justice.

      I also draw to your attention two documents of the Parliamentary Assembly: Resolution 1642 of 2009, on persons with disabilities gaining access to their rights and therefore their active participation in society; and the recent Resolution 2039 of 2015, which deals with equality and inclusion of persons with disabilities, and encourages member States to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy legal standing under the same conditions as other members of society.

      I look forward to hearing your contribution to the debate and thank you for your presence here this morning.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Badea. At the end of the debate, you will have six and a half minutes remaining to respond to the debate.

      In the debate, I first call the representatives of the political groups. The first name on my list is Ms Werner from Germany, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms WERNER (Germany)* – I thank the rapporteur on behalf of my political group for his analysis. As a disabilities representative in the Bundestag, I set great store by the principle of equal access to justice for all individuals. Article 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – access to justice – states that contracting parties must make sure that people with disabilities have equal and effective access to justice. Unimpeded access for all parties concerned, including witnesses, must be guaranteed through procedural and age-appropriate measures, for instance by making sure that texts are provided in plain language or ensuring that IT solutions are found. Such access should be guaranteed in all legal proceedings. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been ratified by 160 States and the European Union, and it applies to 650 million people. It is applicable law.

      Despite the fact that we have various conventions on human rights, for many people access to justice is unfortunately often complicated by insurmountable obstacles. For example, we do not have enough assistance with legal proceedings; we do not have translation of legal texts into plain or understandable language; we lack information in simple, understandable and accessible language; we do not have step-free courtrooms or offices; and we also lack legislation that would conform with human rights and that would really guarantee full access to legal proceedings for all human beings. Most importantly, what we are missing is effective human rights training for all legal staff, police staff and prison staff, which would ensure that the rights of disadvantaged minorities are effectively protected. People, whether they have a disability or not, have the same rights in all areas of life, and therefore no one should be discriminated against on the basis of their origin, sex, sexual orientation or economic situation; people should not have worse access to justice because of any of those grounds.

      We require a number of support options that are needs-based and quality-assured to allow all individuals access to justice. We need targeted measures to ensure that physical access to, and the informal accessibility of, justice is guaranteed for all individuals. We also need to ensure that we provide access to legal aid, starting from a low threshold if we are talking about people who live in poverty. In Germany, those who are under legal guardianship should not have their own will replaced by some kind of substitute or alternative decision-making process; instead of a substitute decision, there should be support for them to make their own decision. We need training and easily accessible advice.

      We also need to provide support for individuals. They should be able to choose assistance freely, from one or several people. We do not need a court order to provide that assistance, because a court order may actually curtail the autonomy of the individual concerned. To ensure that autonomy, we need new quality criteria to make sure that all individuals can exercise their legal capacity; that is a sine qua non.

      Only when we have equal access to justice for all individuals – when such access is no longer just a human rights vision of some sort but becomes reality – and the right to obtain such access to justice becomes the right to receive it will we have an inclusive society.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Werner. It is now time for the spokesman of the Group of the European People’s Party, but I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment; he has only just been nominated. So I will move on to Mr Le Borgn’ from France, of the Socialist Group.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – Access to justice is a fundamental issue for our citizens, and it is also one of the major conditions of democratic life that people should be able to defend themselves and know how to do so. What is the aim of this debate? It is to deal with the cruel gap or gulf to access for justice that exists for many Europeans. That gulf exists because of a lack of information, a lack of trust in institutions at this time and the weakness of legal aid. Not being able to defend oneself bolsters a feeling of injustice and a two-speed society, in which some are more equal than others. That situation is very disruptive, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

      I welcome the fact that our Assembly is addressing that challenge, because it is a challenge to the rule of law. Indeed, we should recall that the European Convention on Human Rights, because it enshrines the right to a fair trial and the right to effective remedies, opens the way for judicial and legal assistance to be provided.

      In the National Assembly in France, I represent French people living abroad. As I work in that field, I am regularly turned to by many compatriots who feel lost abroad, given a legal system, a law or even a language that they do not know well enough to defend themselves properly. I have become an in situ connoisseur of the justice systems in central Europe and the Balkans, particularly in the field of family justice, and I have tried to provide assistance to people, offer them someone they can trust and even put a foot in the door whenever possible. No case is too complicated and no cause is lost provided, provided there is proper support.

      Sometimes I have to view myself more as a defender of rights or an ombudsman than a member of parliament, but if I do not defend those people and if we do not act as parliamentarians to ensure that justice is accessible, what value do we add to matters? This process requires action daily. What can we do? We can communicate online and in several languages regarding legal procedures, and do so systematically, relying on the irreplaceable role of non-governmental associations and institutions operating in this field. There is also a need to strengthen the mechanisms and budgets for legal aid. Legal aid should be open to absolutely everyone, without any exceptions.

      We should encourage those member States that have not yet done so to sign or ratify the European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid, and encourage them to develop the equivalent of class action suits, which can and should lead to ensuring representation by third parties in fighting for equal rights. Furthermore, access must not be denied to anyone with a disability, any migrant or anyone in an irregular situation. Thank you, Mr Badea, for the quality of your work, which the Socialist Group will strongly support.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Le Borgn’. I now call Mr Xuclà, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Mr Badea, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I commend you for your report, which is a positive contribution to the issue of access to justice. A report can never be summarised simply, but “justice for all” would be an apposite way of describing its main thrust. The Council of Europe, with its 47 member States, is the house of democracy and contains many different realities. The draft resolution gives us pointers on how we can improve justice for all. There are the issues of education and economic resources; if there are problems with those, there are often problems with access to justice.

      Countries should help their citizens access justice – some do, but others put up obstacles. The non-provision of judicial assistance can be discriminatory. The text discusses an awareness campaign involving the main legal stakeholders. That is important – for people living with disabilities, for example. A few years ago, there was a secret vote concerning blind people in Spain and how they could take part in election processes. At the time, we were told that it was impossible to provide ballot papers for them, but we worked on that. I am also working on a braille system so that the non-sighted can take their own decisions without recourse to a carer. You, Mr Badea, ask us to meet those challenges in your report.

      We live in two worlds, one of which is ending and the other of which is just beginning to emerge. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy is working on a report, which we hope to finalise by October, that will comment on how helpful new technologies can be in providing access to justice. They are a tool allowing us to provide for mediation. Routine cases can be resolved much more quickly if new technologies are used. In one world, we are fighting to ensure minimum conditions for access to justice but in the other there are many opportunities through new technologies and awareness raising. That can help us guarantee rapid and fair access to justice. Thank you, Mr Badea. You have the support of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. I call Mr Ghiletchi, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I thank Mr Badea for an excellent report. He deals with the subject of the report as a parliamentarian; he represents Romanians who live outside Romania and is aware of the problems such people face on access to justice. I congratulate the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, whose report deserves unanimous support in our Assembly – not something that every report receives. I am glad that Mr Badea managed to find common ground.

      Access to justice is an important goal because justice is an important cornerstone of democracy in defending human rights. “Access to justice for all”, however, is something of an ideal – I do not know whether or how we will reach it – but it is worth fighting for. We need to make progress and help people have equal access to justice. The report identifies the obstacle of social status, which is particularly relevant to immigrants. Paragraph 5.4 of the report talks of “making legal immigration status irrelevant to the conduct of judicial proceedings”. There is the case of a Moldovan lady who was killed in a car accident in Greece. I do not mean to blame Greece, but two years on her husband and children cannot get access to justice. It is important that immigrants should have equal access to justice.

      Financial obstacles are another problem, but there is a need for more than that. Legal aid and information available in people’s own languages are also important and stressed in the report. I am a bit sceptical about the use of quasi-judicial mechanisms; perhaps I am being subjective, but that sounds like a short cut. I do not believe in cheap justice. We need quality justice, which means that countries need to invest more in their judiciaries. Waiting time is another problem, not least here at the European Court of Human Rights. More investment is needed to make justice accessible for people.

      There is a parable in the Bible about a widow who wanted access to justice; the problem has been around for a long time. The moral of the parable is that perseverance is important. When we persevere, we can get what we want – equal justice for all.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ghiletchi. The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does he wish to respond at this stage? I call Mr Badea.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We have now heard from representatives of the political groups, which have spoken clearly in support of our report. I particularly thank Ms Werner for her contribution. We will take her comments on board. We hope that member States will act on the points in the draft resolution and draft recommendation, because you cannot talk about the rule of law of a State that is based on that unless genuine access to justice for all is guaranteed. Otherwise, we are deluding ourselves.

      A professor of law in Romania raised the issue of the principles on which one should act when one is in a position of responsibility in a country. He said that if you give people bread and justice, you will find yourself in power for years to come. That was a wise thing to say. Access to justice, therefore, is very important.

      I thank Mr Le Borgn’ for the thoughts he shared with us this morning. He has obviously understood our report. If I understand it correctly, he represents French people living abroad. In the Romanian Parliament I represent some 7 000 000 Romanians who live on two continents, Europe and Asia, and I have encountered so many cases where access to justice of the Romanian diaspora has been denied and they have suffered greatly as a result.

      I also thank Mr Ghiletchi for his contribution to the debate. I have visited Moldova on a number of occasions and it is true that there is much to be done when it comes to ensuring access to justice. I agree with what he said at the end of his statement. For thousands of years we have seen people being denied access to justice, so we need to look back at that history and realise that such efforts are part of a continuum. We need to do what we can at national parliament level to promote access to justice.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Badea. You have three and a half minutes left at the end of the debate to reply.

      Mr REISS (France)* – I thank the rapporteur for the comprehensive job he has done. I want to return to some of the points in the report that are particularly important. Justice is essentially intended to calm social relations. That is why I want first to refer to disputes that may seem minor – family disputes, trade disputes or neighbourhood disputes – where fostering alternative dispute settlements such as conciliation may be worthwhile.

      Such procedures are often not known to the public, but they are a way of allowing people to ensure that their rights prevail without having to go to the courts and a trial. However, while these procedures may be easy to access in principle because they are free of charge and a lawyer is not needed to help, in practice several obstacles make it difficult to develop them further. On the one hand, the structures offered are disparate and poorly co-ordinated, which causes inequalities between citizens in gaining access to alternative dispute mechanisms. On the other hand, there needs to be a procedure for trying to find a negotiated solution before such cases go before a judge.

      Mediation that allows the judge to propose to the parties that they amicably resolve their difficulties through confidential intervention by a judicial mediator could be proposed and the parties concerned would have to stay in contact to that end. Justice must meet the principles of fairness and allow each citizen to be defended and properly advised. Stéphane Leyenberger, the secretary of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, has recalled the importance of legal aid in the countries of Europe. Even if access to justice is free, none the less it is a fact that there are bound to be costs that may create disparities between the users of the judicial system.

      Legal aid allows poorer people to benefit from the same safeguards as other people who turn to the courts to defend their rights, without having to pay for judicial costs, as they are covered in full or in part by the State. It also allows for free or subsidised provision of a lawyer. Here again, however, there are difficulties relating to the complexity of the approaches of those turning to the justice system, in particular in terms of the sum to be paid to the lawyers for their work for the State or through legal aid. Moreover, the handling of requests for legal aid, especially in less important cases, often involves time frames that can pose a problem for access to justice and the functioning of the judicial system in general.

      The new procedure adopted in France in 2014 – class action suits, of which disputes relating to consumer rights are an example – is of interest here. This innovative procedure allows consumers who individually might not have been able to fund the procedure to bring their rights to bear. We have not yet had enough time to look at how that has worked and we need to be careful to ensure that it does not lead to excessive litigation in society, as may be the case in the United States. We support the report.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – First, I thank the rapporteur. We all understand that without access to justice there is no democracy. That is why every country should present a report about what is happening in their country on access to justice. I am glad that we can say something about what we are doing in our country on this. Currently, the prohibition of discrimination and protective mechanisms against inequality are inserted into all national legislation, whether on labour or social, economic, civic, political or cultural matters. One of the significant measures that the Georgian Parliament took last year was to pass unilaterally a bill on elimination of all forms of discrimination.

      It should be noted that the State authorities and governmental bodies co-operate with the international community actively, with the Council of Europe among that number, as well as relevant stakeholders in order to improve the mechanisms to combat inequality and discrimination. One example of such improvements is the enhancement of effective access to justice for all persons without exception on any grounds.

      Some speakers have underlined that using new technologies is a very effective way to allow access to justice. In my country in that regard we promote and improve legal awareness by exploring and implementing specific information mechanisms and an innovative communication strategy. The country’s relevant bodies attempt to ensure that adequate information on rights and procedures is available in different languages and formats, in plain language. They also rely on the support of civil society intermediaries for the dissemination of such targeted information. Trust in the national authorities in terms of the immediate and proper reporting of all crimes and misconducts has significantly improved. However, the State continues to work on that issue and strives to increase the level of trust.

      One of the State authorities’ goals is that all types of people have access to effective remedies from discrimination. Nowadays, Georgia is party to the Council of Europe’s Convention. Under Georgia’s constitution and other domestic legislation, the right to free access to court is there for all, including minorities and migrants. Moreover, the latest amendment to the national legislation made it possible for individuals, without any kind of distinction, to use the State’s legal aid assistance in court proceedings in most civil and administrative cases. Before that amendment, that service was available only in criminal cases and a few administrative ones.

      In Georgia, the legal, social and economic barriers to women’s access to justice have already been removed. Nowadays, one of the main aims of the country is completely to remove the cultural barriers to such access by adopting special gender-sensitive policies. Last year, Georgia signed the Istanbul Convention and is committed to ratifying it. In December 2014, amendments were made to national legislation that significantly improved protection from domestic violence for women.

      Through the assistance of the international community and relevant stakeholders, the government has carried out national studies to evaluate the scale of the obstacles and implemented measures to eradicate the gaps; provided specific training to the police and legal professionals, including lawyers and judges, on discrimination issues; taken steps to remove practical obstacles to access to justice for people with disabilities; and actively supported and co-operated with national equality bodies, including the ombudsman’s office. We have also developed a mediation service for cases that do not need to go to court. Mr Ghiletchi said that he does not trust such services, but we think they are very helpful in some situations and we support the idea.

      Mr ŠIRCELJ (Slovenia) – I remind you that the guarantee of a fair trial and presumption of innocence are fundamental human rights. Access to justice is too often hampered by both practical and legal obstacles. I am not very satisfied with what we are doing about access to justice in Slovenia. Since 2004, when Slovenia joined the European Union, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights have together cancelled more than 600 decisions of the Slovenian courts on the basis of serious violations of human rights.

      Slovenia is the only European Union member State that has not carried out lustration after the fall of the communist regime. The latest example, and also the most exposed, is the judicial process of Patria, which despite the lack of evidence against the opposition leader, Mr Janša, has lasted for more than six years. After being sentenced, he was sent to prison only three weeks before the 2014 parliamentary elections and had to stay there for six months.

      The Slovenian constitutional court yesterday – 23 April 2015 – announced in a written order that the opposition leader Janez Janša is innocent. The constitutional court found clear violations of the constitution, including violation of the right to a fair trial. The court invalidated all previous convictions and established that the convictions issued by other courts were unlawful and that their procedures had not assured impartial judgment. According to respected Slovenian and international lawyers, this case was one of the most striking and politically motivated court procedures.

      On 15 October 2014, the judicial persecution of Janez Janša was joined by political persecution: the majority in the Slovenian Parliament deprived him of his elected parliamentary mandate. But justice has been served because in November 2014 the constitutional court decided that Parliament’s decision was unconstitutional. Janša returned as an elected deputy of the Slovenian Parliament.

      In May 2013 the European Commission stressed that the state of the Slovenian judicial system is unsatisfactory. It proposed a series of corrective measures to the Slovenian Government. The Group of the European People’s Party adopted a resolution on the situation in Slovenia and expressed its concern about the condemnation of the opposition leader. In the resolution, the EPP (European People’s Party) invited independent organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) to follow closely the compatibility of the ongoing procedure with the rule of law and international standards. It also underlined the need for an impartial judiciary in all member States. It called for the swift adoption of lustration laws in all member States that have not yet done so. The International Democrat Union notes with concern the European Commission’s comments on the unsatisfactory nature of Slovenia’s judicial system and the need for further reform.

      I thank the rapporteur and I support the report, but I also call attention to the fact that human rights are often violated, and the need to reform the judiciary is more obvious than ever before, especially in Slovenia.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine) – The question of non-discrimination and equal access to justice is of supreme urgency. The issue of access to justice has to do with the fundamental rights of a democratic society. It is a right that should suffer no limitations.

      However, when we look at the situation prevailing in different countries, we realise that the Russian example is the most striking, because not only has that right been seriously curtailed, sometimes it is not guaranteed at all. Today, I can tell you about the fate of our colleague Nadiia Savchenko, a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Assembly. We have been told that her doctors may not see her and, for a long time, her lawyers were unable to submit their applications. In addition, we know that the outcome of the Russian legal proceedings is predictable. How can we talk about the principle of non-discrimination and equal access to justice, when we know that Nadiia Savchenko was illegally arrested in Ukraine and then deported to the Russian Federation?

      Today, the Russian judiciary intends to charge Ms Savchenko with crossing the border unlawfully. We have had a lull for almost a year now – her case had a preliminary hearing, but the substance has still not been examined, a year later. The Nadiia Savchenko case is a violation of the principles of non-discrimination and equal access to justice.

      I thank Mr Badea for his resolution and I hope that we will all do whatever we can to make sure that Nadiia Savchenko can be with us in the Chamber once again.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – First, I wish to congratulate my colleague Mr Badea on the great job he has done. I strongly believe that this report will be an effective means to manage and overcome various problems in member States. On our part, we have to spare no efforts in promoting the process of providing access to justice for all on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.

      Access to justice is a very important part of the rule of law, with its essential role in the effective enjoyment of rights by individuals. Access to justice should be considered as one of the fundamental requirements of democratic societies. I totally agree with the rapporteur that access to justice is too often hampered by both practical and legal obstacles. The lack of legal information, lack of trust in the authorities and the impact of the economic crisis on legal aid significantly contribute to the persistence of barriers to access to justice.

      We have to increase our activities to improve legal awareness in society by setting up information mechanisms and making the relevant information available in different languages and formats. We, as parliamentarians, have to make more efforts to ensure the provision of legal aid to every person, accused or victim, regardless of their status. But I would also like to underline the necessity of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. These mechanisms should also be developed. Public organisations have to take more responsibility in assisting people who face obstacles in their access to justice. Regular seminars, round-table discussions and training should be organised by the relevant governmental bodies – together with NGOs, courts and branches of the legislature – to increase legal awareness, which is of the upmost importance in providing access to justice.

      One of the paragraphs of this report relates to women’s access to justice. It should also be stressed that, obviously, women are not a uniform group. Specific situations create additional barriers to women’s access to justice. This is the case, in particular, when gender intersects with other criteria that potentially increase discrimination, such as having a disability, belonging to a minority group or being a migrant, especially in an irregular situation. The same can be said for physical barriers, such as living in a remote or rural area. Women who are victims of violence occupy a special place.

      In my country, Azerbaijan, providing access to justice for all on the basis of equality and non-discrimination is one of the priorities, standing on the agenda of the State Committee for Family, Women and Children’s Affairs, the Supreme Court and the relevant committee of the parliament I represent here. A few days ago, on 17 April, a round table on the “Rights of women and children in judicial practice” was held by the State Committee for Family, Women and Children’s Affairs and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Judges of all district courts of Baku city, members of parliament and officials from Ministry of Justice, as well as members of different civil society institutions, attended the round table. There were speeches and presentations with detailed information, and special attention was paid to the principles and norms defined by international conventions, as well as CEDAW. Further such initiatives will be undertaken in Azerbaijan. We, as parliamentarians, will always do our best to increase legal awareness in our society of providing full and free access to justice for all on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I now call Ms Morin, Observer from Canada.

      Ms MORIN (Canada)* – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the issue of equality and non-discrimination in access to justice. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Badea, for his detailed report.

      Access to justice is an extensive concept that encompasses all measures to increase access to courts and non-judicial bodies responsible for civil and criminal law issues. Access to justice implies equal participation in, and access to, all aspects of the legal system, from the preliminary stages of a case to final settlement. As the rapporteur noted, the Lisbon Treaty is the first international instrument to compel States to acknowledge this concept. Individual rights, in the context of a judicial procedure guaranteed by major international instruments, foster effective access to justice for all.

      In Canada, these rights are protected by the constitution and they include the right to have access to a lawyer, the right to be presumed innocent and the right to a fair trial. The rapporteur, however, confirms the sad fact that in legal systems throughout the world there are still hurdles to access to justice for several groups: women, national minorities and people with disabilities, among others. This inequality continues, notwithstanding the existence of international safeguards, as well as anti-discrimination laws and policies in many countries.

      Canada is aware of these continuing difficulties and has established several programmes to foster access to justice: legal aid, extra judicial dispute settlements, legal outreach and information. The federal government provides resources for long-term financial programmes and facilitates access to justice in the two official languages, particularly in the indigenous communities and the communities of the north of the country. Canada’s criminal code compels judges to take into account the circumstances of indigenous offenders, for example when the sentence is established in the criminal courts.

      Measures devised to increase access to justice for indigenous offenders include: specialised courts and quasi-judicial assistance. However, as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recently stressed, guaranteeing access to justice for indigenous First Nation peoples, especially indigenous women, will require unflagging and concerted effort. The rapporteur concludes by pointing out that access to justice is a necessary condition for the rule of law and the establishment of more inclusive and egalitarian societies. For Canada, as for the member States of the Council of Europe, access to justice is crucial if one is to protect the rights of the individual in our legal systems.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of registered speakers, but if any other member present in the Chamber would like to contribute to the debate they would also have four minutes. I would ask them to please state their name and their country when they speak, as they have not previously registered. I see Mr Díaz Tejera from Spain, who has asked for the floor.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Good morning to everyone in the Chamber. First, I would like to thank Mr Badea and the committee’s technical team. Thank you for addressing this issue.

      Article 9.2 of the Spanish constitution relates to the conditions under which equality and individual freedom may be exercised and become effective, removing obstacles that would deny such access and equality on cultural, social, economic grounds and so on. We imported the article from German basic law and the German constitution. It means that all public authorities are under a permanent obligation to ensure that equality is effective in practice, not just for groups but for all individuals.

      Why do public authorities have to do that? They have to be active not passive – that is the nuance – because we know that our societies are not equal and it is therefore a matter of assessment. To achieve this utopia – the process, the trial and hearings and so on – we have to ensure that all parties are on an equal footing, despite starting from a point of inequality in terms of access to information, training, public resources and technical knowledge. They start off not equal, but at least when it comes to the hearing, the trial and the issue before the judiciary, they should be on an equal footing. That is very important.

      We need to look towards the future: Iura novit curia is an important principle in this respect. People need to know their rights and judges need to know those rights. Sometimes a lawyer does not do his or her job properly, but the judge or magistrate must do his or her job properly. The judge needs to know the law under all circumstances. Even if parties do not have enough money to pay for a good lawyer, there has to be guarantee that a good ex officio lawyer will be provided. That is the practice in Spain: every party pleading before a court has a right to an ex officio lawyer if need be. Sometimes there are difficulties or tensions, but basically all those who work in the judiciary know that this is the case. It has nothing to do with economic resources, origin or background – everyone should have access. For the hearing or trial, this must be guaranteed. If a party before the court has not had access to a qualified lawyer – because he does not have the money or high calibre investigators – the judge has to make up for that shortcoming. That is important for the future.

      We support the report and thank the committee for its work. We should always have the greatest respect for the work done by our colleagues and the technical teams of the committees. Let us look towards the future. What exactly does it mean in practice to ensure access to justice without any kind of delays or problems? What does it mean for the judge or magistrate in terms of his interpretation and active effort? What does the judge have to do in a hearing to make up for any kind of inequality? This is a very important issue. The report is excellent and I will support it with enthusiasm.

      Once again, I would like to thank Mr Walter very much indeed. Thank you for making sure members of the Assembly can take the floor and participate in such debates. It is much appreciated. Once again, I commend the rapporteur for this excellent report.

      The PRESIDENT – Are there any other colleagues who wish to take the floor? I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I want to discuss this issue because it is important to analyse not only current but previous cases in which we have been the victims of these problems. First, there is the case of Ms Savchenko, a serious and important case that we must analyse so that we know what we need to do in future when a member of a national parliament and of the Council of Europe is held in harsh conditions. The parliamentary immunity of a member of a national parliament and of our Council of Europe means nothing to the Russian authorities.

      We must not forget another case that we have discussed in this Chamber – the case of such a person is relevant to this report. I refer to the case of Ms Tymoshenko, who was imprisoned for three and a half years for something she did not do. It is a good idea to think about how it is that our national and international courts can approve the reality of the judicial system in all our countries. When we are in the majority we must reform the judicial system so that cases such as that of Ms Tymoshenko do not occur. After three and a half years in prison, she was cleared by the national courts, including the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court that represents the Council of Europe in all relations between our countries. However, she was still in prison for three and a half years. In future, we must analyse all such cases.

      The report gives us an excellent opportunity to protect politicians, irrespective of whether they are male or female, from political imprisonment. The reaction of the world community and the decisions of national and international courts show that the imprisonment of Ms Tymoshenko was political. Yet the Ukrainian judges who took the original decision three years ago are still our judges. What should we do? How can we approve of that situation? We must have investigations into such judges, and not only in respect of particular cases, but more generally, because of the situation in countries in which such violations take place.

      The report is only the start of a lot of work. We must protect everyone in our countries, whether they are politicians or not, so that we do not have a situation in which the so-called protection of the courts enables people to clear themselves only after years of real struggle. I thank the rapporteur for the report, which is, I think, only the beginning.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sobolev. Now I must bring the general debate to a conclusion. I call Mr Badea, rapporteur, to reply. You have three and a half minutes.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I will now draw a few conclusions from the debate. Our discussions of this issue did not start today, and they will not end today. We are simply trying to make a small contribution to endeavours in this field. I thank all those who have participated in the debate. I thank the Secretariat in particular for the work we have done together on the report.

      It is clear from the debate that this subject is of great importance. When we leave this Chamber we must take forward the ideas we have been discussing. Some people go to church, bow their heads and listen to the sermon, but as soon as they leave the church they forget entirely what they have just heard. We enjoy the confidence and trust of the citizens who elected us, so it is incumbent upon us to act on what we have heard in this Chamber this morning.

      Some members from countries in eastern Europe have flagged up the shortcomings or failings of their own judicial system with regard to access to justice – our colleagues from Ukraine, for example. We should not forget the constraints under which certain of us operate in countries in central and eastern Europe. We should draw on the experience of countries in western Europe. We must be more resolute when acting on judicial decisions. For example, in my own country mediation is still a fledgling idea, so it is important that we seek inspiration from countries that are more advanced in the field of mediation.

      We cannot be expected to save the world, but if we are more modest in our ambitions, we can certainly learn from others and do what we can to facilitate access to justice.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Ms Kovács wish to speak on behalf of the committee?

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Mr Badea’s report concerns one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law: access to justice. I congratulate the rapporteur, who by considering the topic in such a comprehensive manner has raised awareness of what still has to be achieved in this field. Access to justice is at the heart of the work of the Council of Europe and of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. Its cross-cutting nature makes it an issue of particular interest.

      The notion of access to justice is very broad. It refers to all measures that aim, ultimately, to obtain redress for the violation of rights. It covers many concepts, such as access to information about one’s rights and existing remedies, the need to eliminate obstacles to reporting violations of one’s rights, the right to effective remedy, including alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, access to legal aid, legal standing, the right to legal assistance and representation, and the right to a fair trial. Mr Badea has provided us with information on each and every one of those aspects in his report, allowing us an accurate view of the challenges linked to the issue of access to justice for all on an equal basis. The report also underlines the fact that some categories of the population face greater difficulties because of discrimination, particularly women, persons with disabilities, national minorities, migrants and refugees.

      The draft resolution was unanimously adopted by our committee in March in Paris. As members of an Assembly defending human rights, democracy and the rule of law, it is essential that we reaffirm our commitment to those common values. I invite members to do so by supporting the draft resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. The debate is now closed. The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled. We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13740. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

2. The effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Brighton Declaration and beyond

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “The effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Brighton Declaration and beyond” (Document 13719 + Addendum) presented by Mr Yves Pozzo di Borgo on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

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

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – It is with great pleasure that I present the report – “The effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Brighton Declaration and beyond” – on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. For many years, the Assembly has set great store by the good functioning of the European Convention on Human Rights system. It would therefore be apposite for us to set aside half a day in a future part-session for a debate to deal with a number of reports on it.

      As delegates may be aware, the Convention system has been undergoing a process of reform for some years. Recently, there was a high-level conference entitled: “Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights: Our shared responsibility”. It was organised under the aegis of the Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and led to the adoption of the Brussels declaration on 27 March. It was the fourth high-level conference dealing with the reform of the Convention system, following the Interlaken conference in 2010, Izmir in 2011 and Brighton in 2012.

      My report touches on a number of subjects that were specifically mentioned in the Brighton Declaration of 20 April 2012. It also pinpoints a number of areas where, according to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, measures should be taken. The main thrust of the report is as follows: we take note of the fact that various measures have been taken following the Brighton Declaration, particularly by the Court here in Strasbourg, in order to safeguard the efficiency of the Convention system, but unfortunately the progress made by the Court has not gone hand in hand with corresponding improvements within the contracting parties to the Convention, meaning the States. As a consequence, my report concludes by highlighting the responsibility of States parties. They need to ensure that the Convention is effectively applied at the domestic level, based on the principle of subsidiarity, which is a tenet of the Convention system.

      When preparing my report, I organised two hearings before the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which provided us with an opportunity to look at the various issues arising from the reforms. I was able to follow the work done at intergovernmental level closely, which has given me a clear picture of the current situation.

      Reforms have been undertaken by the Court. A policy of prioritisation and a single judge mechanism have yielded impressive, positive results. I simply point out that the Court has been able to reduce its backlog of cases substantially – it has reduced it by more than half since the beginning of January 2012 – while at the same time maintaining the highest standard of legal reasoning. In addition, the Court has made remarkable progress on the dissemination of its case law and its information policy. I can but congratulate the Court on those achievements, which are intended to guarantee the long-term efficiency of the European human rights protection system.

      Of course, challenges remain. For instance, we need to cut the backlog of applications that are neither manifestly admissible nor founded. I am sure that the Court is on the right track to resolving that problem. I am more concerned about the fact that so little progress has been made by the states parties. I find that deplorable and unacceptable. Most of the shortcomings – the ones that lead to the difficulties the Court must entertain - arise at the national, domestic level. I should like to mention three in particular. First, some States parties have not resolved systemic or endemic problems that produce a great number of repetitive applications before the Strasbourg Court. Those States parties – Italy, Ukraine, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Romania and the United Kingdom – each have more than 1 000 pending repetitive cases before the court. They are the primary responsible stakeholders in that unacceptable situation.

      Secondly, there is also the serious nature of some of the unresolved human rights violations. I should note that between October 2013 and October 2014, the Court found violations of Article 2, on the right to life, and Article 3, on the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, in 23 member States. The Russian Federation has 130 cases, Turkey 82, Romania 68, Ukraine 43, the Republic of Moldova 42, Bulgaria 35 and Greece 30.

      Thirdly, I should mention the non-enforcement of judgments handed down by the Court, which is a sign of a lack of respect by some contracting parties vis-à-vis their Convention obligations. That is a serious problem. A report has been tabled by my colleague, Mr de Vries, on the implementation of judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, which we hope will be adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in June, and debated in plenary at the autumn part-session.

      I want to be open and frank. The problems I have identified in my report and the conclusions reached by the Committee are by no means new. They are not novel. It is regrettable that so little progress has been made with regard to issues that our Assembly identified a long time ago. They should have been addressed by member States in the meantime. My report takes note of the roles and responsibilities of the Strasbourg institutions in the reform process, but at the same time I must make it absolutely clear that primary responsibility lies with the States parties. They have to remedy existing problems. It is therefore crucial to ensure that Convention standards are firmly anchored in the domestic law of our member States. The Convention must be appropriately implemented at domestic level, and we need the rapid and efficient enforcement of judgments handed down by the Court. Those are a sine qua non for the proper functioning of the system.

      In the draft resolution, the committee takes note of the role played by national parliaments in that context. We must provide appropriate training to law professionals to ensure that the Convention can be effectively applied, and so that the case law can be effectively respected.

      Finally, my report also talks about alternative models that would help us guarantee the long-term viability of the Convention system. Some have argued that the Court in Strasbourg should play a more constitutional role. However, you will remember that the Assembly has always emphasised the importance of the individual application, and it is important to highlight that yet again. In my report, I have therefore spoken about the need to examine how we can reconcile the two objectives, the two missions, of the Court to rule on individual applications and to ensure that the European Convention still serves as a constitutional instrument within the European public order.

      In the light of this assessment of the draft resolution, which was adopted by the committee unanimously last December, we invite member States to incorporate more effectively Convention standards in their internal legal order. In addition, we are calling upon national parliaments to become involved in a more upstream fashion, to become involved more proactively in this field – for example, by examining the compatibility between their domestic Bills and the Convention, as well as keeping a vigilant eye on the enforcement of judgments handed down by the Court that should be implemented by their governments.

      In addition, the committee is convinced that it would be very useful for the Committee of Ministers to send a recommendation to member States asking them to reinforce the authority of res interpretata for rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. That is highlighted in the draft recommendation.

      There is one final salient point, or key issue, that is also part and parcel of our draft resolution, namely the difficult budgetary situation of the Council of Europe, which needs to be addressed. We had an opportunity to discuss this issue in our joint debate on the budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the 2016-17 biennium and the report on the Parliamentary Assembly’s expenditure for the same biennium. That debate took place on Tuesday afternoon.

      The registrar of the Court has explained very convincingly that awarding the Court a temporary extraordinary budget of €30 million as of 2015-16 would allow it to process a substantial part of the backlog of substantiated applications before it. Therefore, in our draft recommendation we call upon the Committee of Ministers to give some thought to the awarding of such a temporary extraordinary budget to the Court. That is the spirit within which I call upon colleagues to support our draft resolution and our draft recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT – Merci beaucoup, Mr Pozzo Di Borgo. As rapporteur, you will have three minutes remaining to answer the speakers in this debate.

      We come now to the list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. I call Mr Hanžek from Slovenia, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr HANŽEK (Slovenia) – It is an honour, on behalf of the Unified European Left, to be able to support this report, which I consider a quality piece of work, but which needs to be further developed, particularly in the sense of transposing its recommendations into real life. The European Court of Human Rights is one of the most important institutions of the Council of Europe, performing the outstanding role of protector of human rights. The array of complaints it receives is indeed proof of the trust people place in it. Many see this institution as the last chance for justice; reducing its role will bring disappointment to many people.

      As a former Slovenian ombudsman for human rights, I am familiar with the significance of this subject. Likewise, I am familiar with the difficulties faced by the Court primarily because of the multitude of complaints it receives. I am also aware of the progress made by the Court in the past five decades. Unfortunately, this has not been followed by development in member States, which is also one of the main causes of its problems.

      Therefore, measures aimed at reducing the Court’s jurisdiction are in no way acceptable. Changes are needed to enable faster proceedings. This would indeed make “justice more just”, since belated justice is no justice. Moreover, the Court’s decision should be binding on all members of the Council of Europe. For this reason, the Unified European Left supports the report.

      The European Court of Human Rights must be strengthened in terms of financing and human resources, by means of structural changes that will allow the judges to work more efficiently. A lot can be done by member States by consistently protecting human rights and their judicial systems. However, the most difficult task will be to convince policy makers in the countries where human rights are violated to improve their legislation and enable a proper functioning of the judiciary, free from the pressures of political elites. In many places, politicians convicted of corruption and other crimes undermine the reputation of the judiciary. By doing so, they shatter the judicial branch of power and reduce its authority. This leads to less trust among citizens.

      An example is the conviction for corruption of the former Prime Minister of Slovenia. Before the final verdict was confirmed, he and his political party – along with some civil movements – launched a campaign against the judiciary. His supporters demonstrated daily before the court, and these demonstrations were joined by the convict when he was temporarily released from prison. Such political attacks on the courts definitely undermine trust in the judicial system, which in turn increases the work load of the European Court of Human Rights.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Hanžek. I call Mr Palacios so speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr PALACIOS (Spain)* – The EPP wishes to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Pozzo di Borgo, on his timely endeavour, which analyses the effectiveness of the Brighton Declaration on the European Convention on Human Rights. More importantly, it goes even further in respect of what should be the future of the European Court. When we are about to see the 65th anniversary of the creation of the Court, we think that this is the right time to improve it. The Court is the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe, the body that examines applications from individuals against States. We must ensure that it may play the role entrusted to it of protecting human rights even better.

      In 2012 when the Brighton Declaration was adopted, the Court had accumulated more than 151 000 outstanding cases – a figure that is unbearable at a time when each year it hands out 1 157 verdicts and has declared inadmissible 90% of applications. In spite of its already lengthy life, it has therefore demonstrated its efficiency but it may be the victim of its own success if measures are not taken and ways and means not found to make it more effective. This is what the Brighton Declaration seeks – an agreed document that, while not introducing substantial changes to the criteria for admissibility, took a major step in laying the basis for reform of the Court. Thanks to this declaration, the Court will be better able to select cases and reject trivial cases.

      The declaration calls for the stepping up of dialogue between the Council of Europe and the member States in order to ensure that all of them properly implement the European Convention on Human Rights. If they do so, this will be the best way of reducing the number of cases reaching the Court, as many of the repetitive cases relate to countries that have not yet introduced into their domestic law the requisite reforms to adapt legislation to the Convention on Human Rights or which have not taken on board the previous judgments of the Court. We need to keep clearly in mind the fact that 20% of the cases come from one State and that 10 of the 47 States of this Council of Europe account for 80% of applications. All of that is set out in this proposed resolution, which also refers to the need for the Court to focus on those cases that have not been duly considered at the national level. In other words, when studying cases one should respect the leeway for interpretation of the national courts, which have the best knowledge of local factors and realities. We also need to apply the principle of subsidiarity; in other words, we should attempt to resolve cases at the local level so that the European Court of Human Rights may focus on the gravest cases involving the violation of human rights. The report, which I hope will be adopted today in this Assembly, should help to recall the Brighton Declaration and to urge both the Court and member States to comply, without delay, with everything it contains. The report should also aim to be food for thought about the long-term future of the ECHR and should serve as a basis for creating a forum or think-tank, with broad diverse representation and membership, to debate what Court citizens wish for and need in order to protect their human rights. I repeat my congratulations to you on your report, Mr Pozzo di Borgo, and I announce our support for it.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Walter)

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker will be Mr Gross, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland)* – On behalf of the Socialist Group, may I thank Mr Pozzo Di Borgo for his report? You rightly say that the conferences that have been held have put into motion a reform process that has enhanced the efficiency of the Court and now the ball is firmly in the court of the member States. We know that member States should be doing their homework, but we should take this opportunity to draw attention to two things and reflect upon them. These two things could call into question the Court’s efficiency. Effectiveness is important – if people are waiting for a judgment of the Court for five to 10 years, that calls into question the judicial system and the Convention system as a whole. I am greatly concerned about the fact that in two of the so-called older, or longer-standing, democratic countries the very principles of the Court and the Convention system have been called into question as a result of growing nationalism; in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland, people are calling into question the fact that above States there is a place where, in some instances, there is a final say.

      In Switzerland, an initiative has been taken that would have consequences for whether the final say should be had nationally. We should have learnt from the various tragedies that have occurred throughout the 20^th century that it is important that there is some supranational body with the final say on judicial matters. However, that very principle is being called into question, possibly via a referendum put to the Swiss people. So we need to reflect on these issues.

      Why are questions being raised at this particular moment? The United Kingdom and Switzerland are islands, one being a geographical island and the other could historically be referred to as an island nation. Is it a coincidence that those are the two countries that are concerned? If other countries were to realise what is happening in those two countries, they may well be tempted to follow suit.

      I wish to raise another matter relating to the addendum. It is said that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has suggested that the Commission should not go along with the procedure leading to the European Union’s accession to the European Court of Human Rights. I am not sure that these are just issues of prestige; the ECJ (European Court of Justice) has a disproportionately dominant position within the European Union. I do not think we have a balance in terms of powers. There is no counter power to the position of the ECJ in Luxembourg at the level of the Council or the Parliament. When dealing with freedom of movement, capital or absence of discrimination, that Court prevails. An economic principle is behind the fact that the ECJ does not want to submit to any other international judicial forum, such as the Court in Strasbourg. If things did go along these lines, it would be catastrophic for the European institutions themselves. We need to muster the force to stand up to the ECJ in Luxembourg and say that that would be unacceptable were it to happen. So I am keen to hear what your opinion is and whether your feel we should be producing a new report on that subject.

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker will be Ms Mateu Pi, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms MATEU PI (Andorra) – On behalf of the ALDE group, I wish to express our warm congratulations to Mr Pozzo di Borgo on his excellent report and the excellent idea of an addendum. Everything that needs to be said about this report and the highlights therein has been said. My colleagues Mr Gross and Mr Palacios also referred to the Brighton Declaration, but I also wish to talk about what preceded it: the challenging of the Court, calling it into question. Through the Brighton Declaration, many things have been put in the right place in order to afford greater credibility to the Court and to thwart, to some extent, the countries such as Switzerland, mentioned by Mr Gross, and the United Kingdom, which are challenging the Court. They cannot see how supranational judges in a Court could supersede national courts.

      I would go further and say that the changes in respect of the Luxembourg Court that came into place on 18 December last year are a move in that direction. They may impair the principle of a higher court overriding rulings and judgments. That is where we need to be extremely vigilant, and I very much agree with the rapporteur’s assessment in the addendum. I welcome the Brussels Declaration, which followed on from the Brighton Declaration. There is something particularly gratifying to us: the fact that the Court has done some of the homework requested in the declaration, with a streamlining of the backlog before it, and the fact that it is a little more straightforward in its internal procedures. On that, too, I agree with the rapporteur, as does my group, that there is a shortfall in our member States. We are somewhat responsible for that, as some have done their homework and others have not. We are dragging our feet in respect of some of the decisions and some of the protocols which we are not implementing in all the countries. That is generating more sluggishness and, as Mr Gross has said, that is why there is still a long wait. That may discredit the Court among people who wish to bring individual applications. Such applications must be retained. This is the only place in the world where an individual application can be brought.

      Mr Palacios spoke of the Court as being the jewel in our crown, and Mr Pozzo di Borgo said that it is the very crux of our institutions. We must protect the Court. We welcome the suggestion that there should be close follow-up by national parliaments on the judgments of the Court, so we strongly support Mr Pozzo di Borgo’s opinion as well as the draft resolution and draft recommendation.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does the rapporteur wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case, so I call Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland)* – The value of a court such as the European Court of Human Rights can be assessed by the extent to which it bothers member States. With checks and balances, such a court will inevitably be seen as problematic to some extent, as other speakers have said. Of course, we need to ensure that member States do not lose sight of the fundamental principles upon which the Court is premised, including those we are called upon to defend here – the primacy of law, democracy and, most importantly, human rights.

      Unfortunately, there is a risk to the Court, for instance because of the moves in Switzerland, which I hope will be blocked, and some of the United Kindom’s intentions. Most importantly, there is the ill-advised corporatism of the judges of the Luxembourg Court. They seem to fail to recognise that the rule of law is the rule of human rights, which take precedence over other legal considerations.

      At the moment, the European Union becoming a party to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) is being blocked, which is a narrow-minded way of approaching things. Our Assembly and the Council of Europe need to make a serious effort to achieve that work together.

      Another serious issue, which dates back some time, is that some member States of the Council of Europe are not terribly zealous when it comes to enforcing the rulings handed down by the Court, or when it comes to respecting human rights. I do not want to reopen all sorts of debates between nations, because we have already seen too many of those in this Chamber, so I will not point any fingers, but I think Members get the drift of what I am alluding to. Members may remember that the recent report of the ECHR and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment mentioned that their own recommendations were not being abided by in practice, and that many important questions remained unanswered.

      Those are important issues, and they relate to the most important article of the Convention. There are shortcomings of the most serious order, so I ask our Assembly not to be timid. I ask the Committee of Ministers to step up to the plate and do something about the situation, because it is getting rather serious. The spirit of human rights and democracy is being eroded in our countries, as we have seen in the worrying outcomes of some elections and referendums, even in my own country. Broadly speaking, things work out well on the whole, but sometimes the situation can be painful and far from positive from a human rights perspective.

      Last but not least, the Court must have the resources it needs to deal with the cases before it. We need to ensure that the right of access to justice is not restricted just because of a lack of resources – we have already discussed equality of access to justice at some length this morning. It is an important principle, and we cannot tolerate a situation in which it is restricted.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – First, I thank and congratulate the rapporteur, our colleague Mr Pozzo di Borgo, for this report. It is comprehensive in the issues it covers and practical in the solutions it proposes. It calls for internal improvements to limit recourse to the courts, and for the resolution of problems caused by repeat applications stemming from poor application of the law by States or the failure to amend national legislation. It mentions the shortage of resources and the need for better dovetailing between the Court’s protection mechanism and other existing mechanisms. We therefore welcome everything in it.

      I have three comments to make. First, for several years now our Assembly has been endeavouring to contribute to the effective implementation of the Court’s judgments. Delays in member States implementing judgments from an international court can and must be included in the public debate that we need. Several States are acting on that; for instance, things are moving in France. Since I proposed the production of a report by the National Assembly, the law committee has agreed to debate a report produced by the majority and minority rapporteurs responsible for monitoring the Court in France. That approach shows that the developments in this Assembly are leading slowly but surely to progress, and we need to continue them.

      Secondly, the Court’s budget needs to be commensurate with its work load. A major effort can be made in that regard, and I note that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has a much higher budget than the European Court of Human Rights, even though its scope includes about half the number of States of the European Court of Human Rights and its costs are much less onerous because only a third of them are operational costs. There must be an increase in the budget of the ECHR to the tune of some 25%.

      Thirdly, the European Court of Justice has responded in the negative to the idea of the European Union’s accession to the European Court of Human Rights, even though the majority of member States were in favour. The principle of subsidiarity has to be upheld in that regard, as a number of experts have said. The situation suggests that there is an element of defiance in the ECJ’s wish not to share competence or allow the ECHR to act in areas where it cannot. The view seems to be inclined more towards supporting institutions than protecting and promoting human rights.

      Real progress is possible if the three points that I have made – national parliaments implementing judgments, an increase in the budget and the accession of the European Union to the European Court of Human Rights – are taken on board and everyone is prepared to strengthen the protection of rights and of the individual.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – First, I wish to express my appreciation of the work done by the rapporteur. I thank him for his conclusions and for the addendum to the report.

      It is important that we ensure that the Parliamentary Assembly keeps a vigilant eye on this subject and conveys clear political messages. The reform process is important for our Convention system, because the control system here in Strasbourg should be fully operational and should shore up the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. The decisions adopted at the Interlaken, İzmir and Brighton Conferences and Protocols 15 and 16 constitute important and necessary steps forward, but they are not enough in themselves. As the rapporteur says in his report, several measures and decisions need to be taken by the Committee of Ministers and, in particular, in member States. Decisions even need to be taken within the Court. There are important budgetary questions that need to be addressed, for example.

      The Brussels conference organised by the Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers on 26 and 27 March adopted a number of important initiatives: a declaration; a plan of action; and a calendar or schedule for a realistic implementation of these measures. I will take this opportunity to refer to the need to give grounds when it comes to decisions of inadmissibility handed down by a single judge, refusing a request to refer back. That was a proposal by the Belgian chairmanship and of course there was also a call for greater transparency. Then there are repetitive cases, repetitive applications, structural problems, pilot cases and, of course, the principle of subsidiarity; I refer you to all of those.

      Some aspects were mentioned by our distinguished rapporteur and on those points I will emphasise a couple of aspects that are important from the point of view of my country, Romania. First, there is the important role played by national parliaments in this area. In my country, for some years now we have had a special parliamentary committee to supervise the enforcement of rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, and I can confirm that that process has been very useful indeed.

      There are also pilot cases and structural issues, in particular the rather complex and delicate issue of compensation following the confiscation of property in the communist era. With regard to that issue, I refer you to the pilot judgment handed down by the Court in the Maria Atanasiu case. Following that judgment, the government made some proposals and the parliament adopted legislation in 2013 – Law No. 165/2013, in fact – which is, if you like, a new mechanism for providing compensation, and it has been deemed to conform with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers has deemed it to be appropriate, as has the Court. As a consequence, hundreds of other similar cases have been struck off the list before the Court, because we now have an effective domestic remedy in our country that is available to parties with regard to such claims. Romania has ratified Protocol 15 and I understand that in a few weeks’ time we will submit our instruments of ratification. Romania has also signed Protocol 16.

      As for the incorporation into our domestic legislation of judgments handed down by the Court and provisions of the Convention, for some years now that has been done by constitutional provisions. We have a system that is anchored in our constitution and of course we have the case law of the national courts of justice, which have based their solutions on two pillars: the case law of the Court; and the provisions of the Convention.

      Finally, I agree with the rapporteur’s conclusions, particularly when it comes to the necessary accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – I thank my fellow national for his report, which provides a very complete picture with regard to the situation of the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights, which is the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe, to use the expression of the Court’s former President, Jean-Paul Costa, and I pay tribute here to his work.

      I will concentrate on two important issues in my contribution to the debate. The first has to do with the consequences of the opinion produced by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 18 December 2014 on the draft agreement on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Having criticised the draft agreement from a legal angle, the Luxembourg Court concluded that the draft agreement was not compatible with the Treaty on the European Union. So where are the negotiations about revising the text going? I have put that question to the Chair of the Committee of Ministers but I have not received an answer.

      My fear is that the negotiators themselves do not know their way out of this predicament and, as the rapporteur has said, the obstacles to accession, as outlined by the Court, are numerous and substantial in nature and will not be easily overcome, because a modification of the European treaties would be required and nobody in Brussels is seriously envisaging that at this time of growing Euroscepticism. So, above and beyond the legal difficulties, which we should not underestimate, to my mind the real problem is the political one. That could be summed up in the following way; using language that is perhaps not very diplomatic, one could say that judges in Luxembourg do not want in any way to submit or bow to the decisions of judges in Strasbourg. It seems to me that that is really what is at issue, as Andy Gross said in the debate. It is not enough just to repeat ad infinitum that European Union accession is a legal obligation in order to make it happen. Too often in the past, we have tended to agree that because something is necessary it will inevitably happen.

      My second point has to do with the political attacks against the Court here in Strasbourg. Our rapporteur has quite rightly underlined the fact that the Court has indeed made substantial and swift progress when it comes to processing the many applications that are lodged with it each year, and it has managed to whittle down its considerable backlog. Nevertheless, it is to be regretted that the European Court of Human Rights is the object of politicisation; that does not reflect well at all on those who engage in it. We can see that in the United Kingdom and also in my own country, where it has been suggested that we should renegotiate conditions before lodging applications with the Court or renegotiate the Court’s powers and prerogatives, in particular when it comes to issues related to national security and the fight against terrorism.

      The right of individual appeal is the cornerstone of the judicial system of the Court in Strasbourg. What is the alternative? Is it a political processing of cases lodged with the Court? Decisions handed down by the Court may not meet with the wholehearted approval of member States; in fact, that should be the case, because the opposite would signify that decisions are not being handed down in an independent and impartial way. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Court that applies it have not invented the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined within them; those rights and freedoms are part of a centuries-old heritage. Should we renounce the best values of Europe, including in the fight against terrorism? To do so would be to play into the hands of terrorists.

      Of course there is room for improvement and I am sure that we could allay or dispel some criticism of the Court in Strasbourg if reforms of it were undertaken, particularly when it comes to the procedure for the election of judges. The current procedure is not satisfactory; everybody knows that but not many people say it. Our Assembly has put in place a specific committee to consider this issue and let us hope that it will enable us to enhance or improve upon the current situation. In due course, we will have to evaluate its work.

      Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – As our rapporteur has said, we should do what we can to enhance implementation of the standards of the Convention at a national level and ensure the full execution of judgments of the Court. Regarding the long-term viability of the Court, there are issues of harmonisation that need to be addressed, not only to ensure coherence and conformity between case law at national and international level but to ensure consistency in terms of the many conventions, charters and agreements that deal with the same subject.

      That is particularly the case when it comes to criminalisation for denial of genocide in general. A number of countries have criminalised denial of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide and other genocides, but that is not the case throughout Europe. National laws on the criminalisation of genocide denial and freedom of expression can be reconciled if countries conform with two conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights; and the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As our guide, we should take a recent resolution of the European Parliament on the subject of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which stresses that timely prevention and the effective condemnation of genocide and crimes against humanity should figure among the principal priorities of the international community and the European Union.

      The definition of genocide was drawn up by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, who, having scrupulously examined the massacre of the Armenian people under the Ottoman empire, described the crime as the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The definition was picked up by the International Criminal Court. Genocide is a specific crime against humanity and not subject to any statute of limitation. Denying genocide undermines efforts at prevention, denies victims the right to a fair trial and gives rise to complicity in genocide, so it should be criminalised.

      This year we commemorate the 40th anniversary of the taking of Phnom Penh, which paved the way for the Cambodian genocide; the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi camps; and the centenary of the Armenian genocide. The deniers have not managed to come up with anything like a satisfactory response to the burning question: “Why?”

      Today, 24 April 2015, the civilised world pays tribute to the memory of the million and a half victims of the first genocide of the 20th century, perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey. In this Assembly, almost 200 parliamentarians from 40 member States, including Turkey, have joined us in commemorating the centenary of the Armenian genocide, having issued a written declaration on the subject. We are most grateful.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Rustamyan. The last speaker is Ms Morin, Observer from Canada.

      Ms MORIN (Canada)* – Thank you, President, for allowing me to speak about the effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights in the light of the Brighton Declaration. I also thank the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for its study of the measures for reforming the Convention since the adoption of the Declaration. I thank Mr Pozzo di Borgo for his report.

      Canada takes part in the Council of Europe as an observer State – the Canadian delegation has observer status at the Committee of Ministers. Canada has not acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights; only Council of Europe and European Union member States can. Although it does not directly apply to Canadian law, the Convention is used by the Canadian courts – it is the foreign legal instrument most quoted by the Canadian Supreme Court. That is because the Convention served as inspiration for the drafters of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been part and parcel of the Canadian constitution since the adoption of the 1982 constitutional legislation. After the charter was adopted, Canadian courts quickly began to refer to European case law, and the European Court of Human Rights has referred to the Canadian Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Convention.

      The judgments of the Canadian Supreme Court take account of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and adopt its reasoning in many cases, dealing with a wide array of rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion, press freedom, access to justice and courts, right to life, the freedom and security of the individual faced with arbitrary detention or corporal punishment, and the rights of the child. I join the rapporteur in congratulating the European Court of Human Rights on the progress made in reducing the backlog of cases and in increasing its effectiveness, while encouraging member States in their endeavours to continue implementing reforms of the Convention system. Canadians will continue to monitor developments in that regard and I am sure that the reciprocal use of European and Canadian instruments in the field of human rights will continue to enrich our respective legal systems.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Morin. That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur to reply. You have three minutes.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – I am touched by the support of the political groups and speakers in this debate. I was interested in what they said, which was of a high calibre. Cutting back on the role of the European Court of Human Rights would be cutting back on democracy. We need to ensure that member States exercise diligence and put pressure on our colleagues.

      Mr Gross, I listened carefully to your discussion about the efficiency of justice and the decisions that have been pending for a long time. That is a problem in my country as well and you are right to raise it. In not only France and the United Kingdom but elsewhere nationalist forces are at play that do not like these institutions. It is a pity that they have gained so much importance. It is a problem of democracy and we see Europe turning in on itself. Mr Palacios, I appreciated what you had to say. Many of your points are also in the report. It is important that we improve the enforcement of rulings handed down by the Court.

      Ms Mateu Pi, Ms Karamanli, Mr Recordon and Ms Blondin, among others, made a number of points. I refer them back to the Assembly’s decision in January 2015. We spoke about the problems that we needed to overcome at the European Court of Justice and the European Union institutions’ involvement in that. Deliberations are under way and we will have to hear the result of those before we start to work on the matter ourselves. Ms Blondin is right to say that the decision is political, as others also pointed out. I say also to Ms Mateu Pi that it is important to recall that the European Union wanted to join the Convention system here in Strasbourg.

      My colleague Ms Karamanli has been very active in the National Assembly. I hope that I can return to the Senate and join ranks with her. I agree with Mr Rustamyan about the implementation of Convention rights. The resolution advocates the ratification of Protocol 16, together with the Strasbourg Court and other stakeholders. I hope I have not forgotten too much of what has been said by my colleagues.

      Colleagues from Armenia, Romania and Canada all spoke in French, which I very much appreciate. We are very moved by the centenary of the Armenian genocide. I thank all those who have worked with us to defend the Court, which is the jewel in the crown. As Ms Morin rightly said, it is an example to other parts of the world. I thank the Committee for helping me draft the report.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. I hope we will be able to continue, with the help of the European Commission, to find solutions that will make it possible for the European Union to implement the decision taken in the Lisbon Treaty – the obligation to accede to the Convention. I hope that we will find a solution and we will continue to discuss the matter.

      I call Mr Dişli, vice-chair of the committee; you have two minutes to respond.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – I will make just a few short remarks. First and foremost, I congratulate the rapporteur. In the name of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I pay tribute to the contribution that the European Court of Human Rights has made to the protection of human rights in Europe. In so doing, I associate the position taken by the committee with what was said by President Brasseur at the recent high level conference organised by the Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers on 26 and 27 March in Brussels.

      It is important to emphasise the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and our shared responsibility in ensuring that the extraordinary success story of the Convention system is maintained and reinforced. In other words, we must clearly recognise that the supervisory mechanism in Strasbourg is subsidiary and that it is primarily the role of national authorities – namely the governments, courts and parliaments – to guarantee the effective protection of human rights.

      I wish to stress the important role that we parliamentarians can play in, for example, improving the effectiveness of domestic remedies and examining carefully whether our legislation is compatible with Convention requirements. In the name of the committee, I sincerely hope that both texts we put before you this morning will be adopted unanimously by the Assembly, as they were in our committee. I thank you for your attention.

      By the way, regarding our Armenian friends, there was no Ottoman Turkey in history. There was only the Ottoman Empire and then, after 1920, there was only Turkey.

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which no amendments have been tabled. It has also tabled a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13719.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13719. A two thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

3. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

      The PRESIDENT* – We turn now to the progress report of the Bureau.

      The Bureau has proposed several references to Committees. They are set out in the Progress Report (Document 13750 Addendum III). They are subject to ratification by the Assembly under Rule 26.3 of the Rules of Procedure. Are there any objections to these references?

      There are no objections, so the references are approved.

      I now propose that the other proposals in the Progress Report (Document 13750 Addendum III) be ratified. Are there any objections?

      There are no objections, so the progress report is approved.

4. Voting champions

      The PRESIDENT* – I am pleased to be able to announce the names of our voting champions, those members who have taken part in all votes during this part-session.

      This time it is very interesting because nine members have tied in first place – very well done to them. They are: Mr Borowski from Poland; Ms Christoffersen from Norway, who is always here; Mr Ghiletchi from Moldova; Mr Gross from Switzerland; Mr Lavesson from Sweden; Ms Mateu Pi from Andorra; Ms Pallarés Cortés from Andorra; Mr Schennach from Austria; and Mr Senić from Serbia. Thank you very much indeed and congratulations. You are an example to all of our other colleagues who are less diligent than you are. (Applause.)

      In a while I shall give you a small gift, as usual. As it is often the same people who are rewarded in this way, it is becoming increasingly difficult for our Secretary General to select gifts that avoid you ending up with a collection of identical items from the Council of Europe.

5. End of the part-session

      The PRESIDENT* – We have now come to the end of our business. I would like to thank all members of the Assembly still here, as well as the rapporteurs of the committees for their hard work during this part-session. I would also like to thank all the Vice-Presidents who have assisted me by presiding over sittings of the Assembly this week. They are: Mr Flego; Mr Giovagnoli; Ms Korenjak Kramar; Mr Lund; Mr Nikoloski; Mr Rouquet; Mr Wach; and Mr Walter. I am also grateful to those who volunteered but on this occasion did not preside.

      In addition, I would also like to thank the staff. Secretary General of the Assembly, kindly convey our gratitude and thanks to all of the staff, who have had to work in arduous conditions. It is a pleasure for us to work with them, though. I also thank the interpreters. I cannot see them very clearly, but I can just about make them out. Thank you for your competence, which has been invaluable.

      The third part of the 2015 session will be held from 22 to 26 June 2015.

      I declare the second part of the 2015 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

      (The sitting closed at 12.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Equality and non-discrimination in the access to justice

Presentation by Mr Badea of the report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Document 13740

Speakers: Ms Werner, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Xuclà, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Reiss, Ms Magradze, Mr Šircelj, Mr Golub, Ms Gafarova, Ms Morin, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Sobolev

Draft resolution in Document 13740 adopted

2. The effectiveness of the European convention on Human Rights: the Brighton Declaration and beyond

Presentation by Mr Pozzo di Borgo of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13719 and addendum

Speakers: Mr Hanžek, Mr Palacios, Mr Gross, Ms Mateu Pi, Mr Recordon, Ms Karamanli, Mr Corlăţean, Ms Blondin, Ms Rustamyan, Ms Morin

Draft resolution in Document 13719 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13719 adopted

3. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

4. Voting champions

5. End of the part-session

Appendix I

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*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Brigitte ALLAIN*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU*

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga

Gülsün BİLGEHAN*

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN*

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL*

André BUGNON/Raphaël Comte

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH

James CLAPPISON*

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN*

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA*

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI/Boriana Åberg

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

François GROSDIDIER/André Reichardt

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS*

Jonas GUNNARSSON/Lotta Johnsson Fornarve

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Jordi Xuclà

Maria GUZENINA*

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Margus HANSON*

Alfred HEER*

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH*

Oleksii HONCHARENKO*

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss

Gediminas JAKAVONIS*

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI

Niklas KARLSSON*

Andreja KATIČ/Matjaž Hanžek

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Charles KENNEDY*

Tinatin KHIDASHELI*

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Haluk KOÇ*

Igor KOLMAN*

Željko KOMŠIĆ*

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN*

Rom KOSTŘICA/Pavel Holík

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX*

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID*

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Zviad KVATCHANTIRADZE*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Serhiy LABAZIUK*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE/Boriss Cilevičs

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA*

Jacob LUND*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Ana MATO*

Pirkko MATTILA*

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Eric Voruz

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Attila MESTERHÁZY*

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL*

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN/Armen Rustamyan

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACŞU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH/Jenő Manninger

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON*

Joseph O’REILLY*

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU

Waldemar PAWLAK/Marek Borowski

Vladimir PLIGIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Carmen QUINTANILLA*

Mailis REPS*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

Soraya RODRÍGUEZ*

Alexander ROMANOVICH*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Indrek SAAR*

Àlex SÁEZ

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Milena SANTERINI*

Kimmo SASI*

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Luc Recordon

Salvador SEDÓ*

Predrag SEKULIĆ*

Ömer SELVİ

Aleksandar SENIĆ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN*

Bernd SIEBERT*

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK*

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV*

Krzysztof SZCZERSKI/Andrzej Jaworski

Damien THIÉRY*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Goran TUPONJA*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER*

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD/Ingebjørg Godskesen

Gisela WURM*

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/ Vladyslav Golub

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN/Vahan Babayan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

---

Observers

Marie-Claude MORIN

Partners for democracy

---