AA15CR20
AS (2015) CR 20
2015 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(Third part)
REPORT
Twentieth sitting
Monday 22 June 2015 at 3 p.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.
3. 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.
(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p. m.)
THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.
1. Ceremony – 60th Anniversary of the Europe Prize
THE PRESIDENT – Our first item of business this afternoon is the ceremony to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Europe Prize. Before that, I want to express, on behalf of us all, condolences to the representative from Graz.
(The speaker continued in German.)
What happened yesterday in Graz was absolutely horrifying, and we must react together.
(The speaker continued in English.)
It was the act of a desperate young man, who killed many people with his car. On behalf of all of us who represent cities and local authorities, please rise for a minute of silence –
(The speaker continued in German)
– for the victims of this appalling act.
(The Assembly stood for a minute’s silence.)
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and honour to welcome you to the official ceremony that marks the 60th anniversary of the Europe Prize. Born a decade after the Second World War, the prize symbolises the quest of Europeans for peace, prosperity and solidarity. Sixty years is a long time, but the prize has no wrinkles to show, unlike Europe, which unfortunately does have some to show. The prize has kept us busy building bridges between Europe’s cities, towns and local authorities. No city is too big and no village too small to play a part in bringing all Europeans closer together around shared values. I have been the deputy mayor of the city of Luxembourg for some decades, so I know about local politics. It is in the towns and cities, close to the people, that we must build Europe and share our values. Those values give us inspiration and energy for our daily efforts to shape Europe into what we want it to be: strong and caring, proud of its history and culture but forever young, dynamic and creative.
Despite our efforts and our common aim of peace and unity, however, conflict and violence continue to pose a threat to our nations and people. In Ukraine, for instance, many villages have been destroyed and thousands of people have fled their homes. Such challenges in Ukraine and other European countries make our promotion of the ideals of Europe more important than ever.
(The speaker continued in French.)
I hope that the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the Europe Prize will be marked by continuity and a spirit of tolerance. When the prize was created, the priority was to build a Europe of strength, humanity and solidarity. Today, in a Europe that sometimes experiences doubt, intolerance and racism, we must continue to promote European values. The Europe Prize is important, because municipalities have a great responsibility to help people learn to live together.
This year, two cities jointly received the Europe Prize: Dresden, in Germany, and Vara, in Sweden. I warmly congratulate Mr Dirk Hilbert, the acting Mayor of Dresden, and Mr Fredrik Nelander, the Mayor of Vara, on receiving the prize. Dresden is the emblem of European reconstruction not only after the Second World War but after the end of the separation of Europe. It is the city of European integration. Through its example, we have been able to build a more united, stronger Europe. The city of Vara distinguished itself by defending European values and building a Europe closer to citizens. Vara is twinned with six other European cities, co-operating on culture, education and health.
I can tell the representatives of the prize-winning cities and their twinned municipalities that the Council of Europe appreciates your European vocation. Your reward is this prize. Your undertaking deserves our admiration and we cannot fail to express our great gratitude and congratulations.
It is now my pleasure to ask Jean-Claude Frécon, the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, to address us.
Mr FRÉCON (President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe)* – On the 60th anniversary of the Europe Prize and as President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, I thank and congratulate the Parliamentary Assembly for setting up this high accolade for local authorities. The prize is the result of a novel initiative to support and promote European ideals and their implementation at the local level – cities, towns and rural communities – all of which make up the European movement. In the current context of citizens having a crisis of confidence in their elected representatives, at both national and European level, the prize has taken on an even greater significance. I also thank and congratulate the many local authorities that have worked with the Parliamentary Assembly for over 60 years to make the prize a success. The twinning of European towns and the many other exchange events organised with the common goal of promoting Europe, its values and the links between its citizens deserve recognition and support.
Europe has witnessed some terrible events over the past few months. I am thinking about the repeated tragedies in the Mediterranean and the horror of terrorism in various European cities, including what happened in Graz the day before yesterday. I am also thinking about the expressions of hate and intolerance that have afflicted many of our communities. A strong commitment to defend our values of respect and tolerance to enhance solidarity between citizens is essential if Europe is to rise to its challenges.
In the light of all that, I warmly congratulate the two cities that have won the Europe Prize 2015: Dresden in Germany and Vara in Sweden. Their mayors Dirk Hilbert and Fredrik Nelander have done us the honour of being here today. I congratulate them, their teams and their cities’ populations on their success and on their commitment to promoting Europe. Dresden is a symbolic city that rose from the ashes having been bombed to smithereens in the Second World War. Since then, it has twinned with 13 other cities in Europe and beyond and has become involved in movements such as “Never Again” to fight against the scourges of anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia. Dresden’s campaign dovetails with the priorities of the entire Council of Europe, particularly the Congress, because it seeks to build a more tolerant and inclusive society. The town of Vara has set up twinning relations with six other European towns and is situated in Västra Götaland county, which is noted for setting up a regional human rights committee in 2011. The committee’s aim is to promote the right of all citizens to participate equally in society, introducing a human rights dimension into the entire public decision-making process.
The Congress launched European Local Democracy Week in 2007 to promote citizen participation at European level. It is held every year during the week of 15 October, the choice of which was no accident as it marks the opening for signature of the European Charter of Local Self-government in 1985. For a week each year, local authorities throughout Europe – 175 participated last year – are invited to organise events to promote citizenship and democratic participation at the local level with a different theme each year. I am proud to say that the initiative has been taken up with great enthusiasm by local authorities and citizens since its launch eight years ago.
European Local Democracy Week and the Europe Prize are linked because they seek to achieve the same thing. The Congress wants to establish even closer links between the two events so that we can develop co-operation and synergy. The link is particularly strong this year, because the Parliamentary Assembly has done us the honour of choosing to debate the theme that the Congress chose for the 2015 local democracy week: “Living together in multicultural societies: respect, dialogue, interaction”. The connection between the two will bear fruit over the next few months. In the current political climate, it is more necessary than ever that Europe be seen as close to its citizens and that efforts made at local level to promote Europe be supported.
THE PRESIDENT – We will now see and hear a speech from Michael Hammon, Lord Mayor of Coventry. I remind the Assembly that Coventry was the first city to be awarded the Europe Prize back in 1955. It is also twinned with Dresden after both cities suffered devastation during the Second World War. I invite the Assembly to look at the screen for Mr Hammon’s message.
Mr HAMMON (Lord Mayor of Coventry) – Good afternoon, Madam President. I am able to greet you this afternoon through the wonders of modern technology. I would have liked to attend the 60th anniversary meeting, but I unfortunately cannot. I attended the Kieler Woche festival at the weekend and am now back in Coventry.
Friendship and understanding are vital for communities and municipalities, towns and cities. We need to understand one another’s cultures, and this is your 60th anniversary, which is a wonderful achievement. Coventry was the first recipient of this prize in 1955. I congratulate both Dresden, our twin city which suffered like us in the last war, and Vara on their awards. The words of Provost Howard on the morning of walking into our destroyed cathedral, “Father, forgive,” should always be remembered. The future holds so much for all of us, especially our young people. As I have said, we must understand one another’s cultures. Adieu, mes amis.
THE PRESIDENT* – It is now a great honour to call on the Chair of the Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize, Mr Axel Fischer, to bestow the trophies for the Europe Prize on the acting mayor of Dresden, Mr Dirk Hilbert, and the mayor of Vara, Mr Fredrik Nelander.
Before closing the ceremony, I would like us to watch and listen to a video of the European anthem, and I ask you to rise for the anthem.
Dear guests, once again I wish you a very pleasant stay and a good continuation of your celebration of the Europe Prize. We now come to the end of the ceremony, and we will meet again on another occasion to award the prize to another city. Once again, my congratulations to the prize winners.
2. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee
THE PRESIDENT* – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, Document 13813 and Addenda I, II and III, and Document 13816, presented by Ms Adele Gambaro, and the observation of the parliamentary elections in Turkey on 7 June 2015 by Mr Tiny Kox on behalf of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau, Document 13822. We will hear both presentations, before opening the debate to the floor.
The speakers list closed at midday. I remind all members that speaking time in this debate will be limited to three minutes.
The debate must conclude at 4.30 p.m., so I propose to interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.25 p.m. Is this agreed?
I call Ms Gambaro to present the progress report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – The progress report covers the activities of the Bureau and the Standing Committee from 24 April to today. I want to dwell on certain issues. First, preventing and combating terrorism is more topical than ever. With the adoption of the additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, the Council of Europe affirmed itself again as a pioneering organisation in the drawing up of international instruments and in confronting pressing matters that require close co-operation at international level. I hope that the obstacles to the signing of the protocol will be overcome as soon as possible, because the enrolment of foreigners in terrorist groups operating in different countries and the radicalisation that leads to violence, especially for young people, are burning questions that are very much present on the political agendas of all countries of the Council of Europe. As Secretary General Jagland said in his speech before the United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, combating terrorism is a battle of ideas in which we must stay faithful to the values that make us democracies. We must find the right balance between control and freedom.
Different committees of the Parliamentary Assembly together proposed action lines for a democratic response to the implementation of Resolution 2031 of 2015 on the terrorist attacks in Paris. I draw attention to the activities of the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance, which has been working since the beginning of the year, as well as to the work undertaken by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media on democratic citizenship. Prevention should be our main objective if we want combating terrorism to be a sustainable objective with deep roots in society.
The Standing Committee met in Sarajevo on 22 May. It was an important meeting to discuss with the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina not only their priorities for their chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers but the situation in the country in relation to a number of political institutions and social challenges. The meeting was also an opportunity to hold a current affairs debate on the situation in Macedonia. The speakers expressed concerns about the violence in Kumanovo and about the institutional crisis in which the country finds itself because of a lack of determination in confronting certain chronic problems, such as corruption and nepotism, lack of confidence in the political class, the risks of instrumentalising the ethnic problem, and the use of electoral boycotting instead of dialogue. It also showed that the international community and the Council of Europe, through its Assembly, can act only as facilitators, not as makers of prefabricated solutions imposed from outside. The resolution of a political problem that allows a country to go down the path of reform, which is so necessary, can come only from within, but to find a solution is not a choice; it is the only option. I would even say that it is a responsibility.
I also had the opportunity in Sarajevo to present a report on cultural heritage in situations of crisis and post-crisis, in my capacity as Chair of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media – I replaced the rapporteur, Ms Ismeta Dervoz, who left the Assembly. The deliberate destruction or damaging of cultural artefacts has become a characteristic of modern conflicts, especially ethnic ones. Such destructive acts aim to eradicate culture, identity and the existence of the other, yet the restoration of cultural heritage can be part of a process of reconciliation, if it is monitored carefully. In that context, the Council of Europe can play an important role – for example, by developing guidelines based on the Faro Convention.
While we were discussing the report in Sarajevo, we received news that ISIS militants were destroying the cultural heritage of Palmyra. Apart from destroying an archaeological centre that pertains to humanity, ISIS is terrorising the West and killing population groups in Syria, where the conflict is becoming even more complex because of the many groups involved. The conflict has driven 4 million Syrians to abandon their country and seek protection, and created 7.5 million internally displaced persons.
The meeting of the ad hoc committee on the mass arrival of refugees in Turkey a few days before the celebration of world refugee day on 20 June was perfectly timed. Turkey is giving a lesson to the rest of Europe on how to maintain an open-door policy in the face of a constant and important influx of people seeking international protection. Whereas the European Union is negotiating small quotas, and certain countries, such as Italy and Greece, are left alone to face the tragedies in the Mediterranean, Turkey is providing asylum to 2 million Syrian refugees – half have recently fled from Syria – and has so far spent $6 billion on providing assistance.
I would like to briefly mention the FIFA scandal, which appeared across the world media. The role of the Assembly in drawing out the important questions has been crucial but, regrettably, I have not found references to our work in the media coverage about the arrests of FIFA leaders and the stepping down of re-elected president Blatter. I do not want to be polemical, but we should have a constructive consideration and awareness of the Assembly’s media representation. Our parliaments and the public should know about what is happening in Strasbourg.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Kox to introduce his report on the observation of the parliamentary elections in Turkey.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As always, it was an honour and a pleasure to observe the elections in Turkey with so many colleagues from the Assembly, on both the pre-election mission in May and the full mission in June. We did our job, co-operating excellently with our colleagues from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – both its parliamentary assembly and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Together with our OSCE colleagues, we presented our statement on the elections and our conclusions at a press conference in Ankara on the day after the elections, 8 June. The unity we were able to display will certainly contribute to the chance that our observations will have some effect in Turkey. I will highlight our main findings and offer some advice to our Turkish colleagues and democratic institutions. The rest is in the report, which was produced so quickly by our excellent secretariat – one more reason to thank all the fine professionals we have.
According to our observations, the parliamentary elections of 7 June showed Turkey’s democratic strength, including a very high turnout of 84%, strong political parties and active citizen observers. There was a genuine choice for voters, and many serious issues were part of the campaign. That is one reason why so many millions participated in the crucial elections, in contrast to the decreasing turnout seen in several other member States. Election day itself went very well, from the opening of the polling stations to the smooth counting of votes. We found the overall functioning of the polling stations we visited to be efficient and transparent. The election result reflects the will of Turkey’s citizens, and the fact that it is acknowledged by all the political parties that participated is a sign of their mature democratic commitment. Nevertheless, when observing elections, we should look at not only the election day itself but the whole electoral process. Although the legal framework is generally conducive to the conduct of democratic elections, many things can and should be improved if Turkey wants to commit itself to the highest standards of democracy.
We observed that fundamental freedoms were generally respected. Unfortunately, however, the campaign was tainted by an unacceptably high number of attacks on party offices and by serious incidents of physical attacks, many resulting in injuries and some even in fatalities. The results of the investigations launched by the authorities should be made public as soon as possible, and the perpetrators should be brought before the courts in Turkey. The violence in this campaign was a serious threat to the democratic process, as stated by all political parties and the prime minister.
Our mission identified media freedom as an area of serious concern, with media outlets and individual journalists critical of the ruling party being subjected to pressure and intimidation during the campaign. We identified the 10% threshold as counter-productive to free and fair elections, and we urge the new parliament to follow the previous advice from the Assembly and the Venice Commission to lower the threshold substantially. We observed that the president played a very active role in the electoral campaign, even though the constitution does not allow him to be partisan and says that he should perform his duties without bias. I hope that the new parliament will evaluate what happened and come up with new rules to prevent that from happening again, because it was a shame in the campaign.
Our observations were very positive about the role of citizen observers. In future elections, we advise Turkey to give official status to such citizen observers, as they can and did play an important role in increasing trust in the electoral process. I pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers, especially from Vote and Beyond, who did a great job and made our work more relevant as an addition to their activities.
Finally, we congratulate Turkey on the elections, but we ask the Turkish Parliament and the Turkish authorities to improve the electoral process in line with our proposals, because that will benefit all citizens of Turkey.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox, for your report and the work you led as the president of the observation mission. I also thank the members of the mission. I call Mr Lund on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr LUND (Denmark) – Last week’s parliamentary elections in Denmark showed a turn to the right. Why did that happen? I think the reason is fear, but do we have something to fear? Actually, the only thing to fear is that we do not know each other and therefore do not understand each other. As Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
I thank you, Madam President, for your initiative in setting up the ad hoc committee on the large-scale arrival of refugees in Turkey. It is an important example of how we can help Turkey, Jordan and other countries that receive refugees in large numbers. I am convinced that the refugees’ greatest wish is to be able to return to their homes.
Today, there are many refugees because of war and crisis in the world. In future, there will be other refugees because of climate change. What is common to both situations is our common responsibility. There is an obvious need for us as human beings to support each other, regardless of skin colour, language or convictions. We are all human beings who love our next of kin, but we do not quite know and understand people who are more distant from us. Historically, the picture of foreigners was that they were so different as to be dangerous. History has a tendency to repeat itself, but we must learn from our mistakes. There is only one solution – a peaceful approach through dialogue.
This will be my last Session. I want to thank you all for your excellent co-operation and for our fruitful and hard-working past. I wish you a peaceful common future. Remember that when you point a finger at somebody else, three fingers are always pointing back at you.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lund. On behalf of us all, I wish you all the best. I thank you for your commitment during your period as an active member of the Assembly.
I call Ms Duranton on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Ms DURANTON (France)* – Having participated in the observation mission to the legislative elections in Turkey on 7 June, I welcome the complete and objective report drawn up by Tiny Kox. The elections took place in a context that might have given rise to fears about their genuineness. In the end, according to the observers, we should be glad that such fears were unfounded.
Although the AKP has won all the elections since 2002, this legislative vote presented an important issue: would voters approve the New Turkey projects promoted by President Erdoğan and open the path to transforming Turkish institutions into a presidential regime, at the risk of accentuating the authoritarian tendency – symbolised by his palace with more than 1,000 rooms – of the man, who some denounce, elected by a large majority in August 2014?
Historically a member State of the Council of Europe, Turkey has shown the reforms of which it is capable, thanks to great economic vigour, a very dynamic civil society and active diplomacy. It was up to Turkey to demonstrate that on the political level, particularly electorally, given that international observers noted several failings during the presidential elections in 2014. According to colleagues who went there on the pre-electoral mission last May, the deficiencies that had not all been corrected included the strong mobilisation of administrative resources to the benefit of the party in power, a lack of transparency in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns, and the partiality of the media.
Such a demonstration has, however, been largely successful: the Turks were able to express their choice freely after a very dynamic and violent campaign, in which there were many incidents and attacks. The AKP still ranks as the first party in Turkey, but thanks to a very high participation rate, Turks clearly said no to those who have praised enlightened despotism, and they refused to grant the AKP the absolute majority that would have enabled it to reform the constitution in a worrying direction.
Turkish electors have therefore matured democratically, especially given the context of the recent economic difficulties, the fact that the campaign was underscored by nationalism, imperial recollections and the instrumentalisation of religion, and the internal difficulties engendered by the incoming refugees fleeing the war in Syria and Iraq. The result of the vote is not the stability promised by the AKP, but an open choice about the future: the possibility of different combinations of parliamentary coalitions allows a free and promising future to Turkey, and therefore to Europe.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Chope on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on her speech. I like the fact that she began by emphasising the importance of the additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. The protocol was adopted in Brussels on 19 May. On Friday 19 June, the Secretary General presented it to the United Nations in New York, where it was extremely well received, which is a great compliment to the Council of Europe. Internationally, people think the protocol is fantastic. I therefore suggest that the Council of Europe should open it for signature immediately.
Apparently, there is a problem, to which the rapporteur referred. The European Union Council is making signature by European Union member countries conditional on agreement first by the European Union Council, but why has the European Union Council not got on with that already? Surely the European Union Council cannot prevent us from opening for signature a protocol that is of urgent international importance and significance. Why should the 19 member countries of the Council of Europe that are not members of the European Union not be free to start signing the protocol immediately? I hope that that is exactly what will happen.
The second issue that I would like to raise is the lack of progress that we have seen during this period on dealing with and resolving Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. The sanctions introduced by Russia against members of this Assembly show that things are going from bad to worse, as does the lack of co-operation that the Russians are now saying will be their policy towards members of this Assembly and the Council of Europe.
Another issue is the lack of progress on resolving the migrant crisis in Europe. It is another area where the European Union seems to be bogged down with bureaucracy and cannot come up with any decent solutions. That is also the case with the possible accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We talk about this as a progress report, but as so often, we find a lack of progress. That is often directly attributable to the European Union, which is meant to be working with us, rather than against us. To hear the suggestion this morning that the European Union will seek to duplicate the work of the Venice Commission filled me with despair.
It is great to be back in this Assembly following the election of a real Conservative Government in the United Kingdom. Some 200 of the constituencies in which that Conservative Government was elected were either more than 10% larger or more than 10% smaller than the Venice Commission norm, and I hope that that will be addressed by the United Kingdom authorities, so that our constituencies are more evenly proportioned for the next general election.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you so much, Mr Chope, for being a strong supporter of, I hope, all the conventions of the Council of Europe. I call Mr Heer on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Mr HEER (Switzerland)* – I thank the two rapporteurs for their reports. I will focus on the elections in Turkey, which I participated in as an observer along with Mr Kox. I think we can say that those elections were a strong sign of the viability of Turkish democracy. I confirm what Ms Duranton said about the conduct of the elections. It is true that there are always little niggles that we could raise about things that were not perfect, such as the media and the president being partisan and campaigning, but to be honest we can say that such things are no longer a problem in Turkey and also that we have such niggles about elections in other European countries.
It is true that the president has used a certain amount of clout. In Turkey, there is freedom of information with the privately owned media, although perhaps not with State television. I can confirm that because, by chance, a team from Swiss television was with me observing the elections. Afterwards, the TV crew said that they had full access to all the information and to all the polling stations. There were vibrant discussions with the supreme board, which is responsible for TV coverage, and I did not feel that its members all shared one opinion.
I think we can now say that there is proper debate in Turkey in the parliament and the media. We should not forget, looking at the countries neighbouring Turkey, that in Syria there is no democracy at all. The country is in a state of war, and there are dictatorships in other neighbouring countries. We should be grateful that we have Turkey as a bridge between the Middle East and Europe. It is a relatively stable country where the population can see that democracy is crucial, as demonstrated by the high turnout in the election.
For the future, we need to look again at the 10% threshold, which is very high. The Council of Europe can perhaps help with that and look at whether such a high threshold can be justified if we want to see pluralism and democracy in Turkey.
THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Hunko on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr HUNKO (Germany)* – I congratulate Tiny Kox on his excellent report, which is precise and balanced. I also congratulate him on the excellent report he did before the election, which it is important to look at, too. I have observed all Turkish elections since 2011, although previously that was always in the pre-election phase. This time I could not participate in that, but this election is perhaps a historic breakthrough. One cannot overstate its importance. For the first time, the Kurdish minority in Turkey has managed to form its own party, along with other minorities and civil society groups in Turkey. Of course the 10% threshold is undemocratically high – we should always criticise it, and it should be abolished – but despite that threshold, the Kurdish minority managed to get through.
It is much better that the questions that we have, such as the Turkish question, can now be addressed in the parliament and not, as was the case before, outside the parliament in other ways. As with the presidential elections last year, we have always criticised the 10% threshold, the unfair media coverage and the abuse of office by the president. We are still criticising those things, and those ongoing issues are mentioned in the report.
In particular, I want to mention the violence that occurred before the election. There were dozens of attacks, particularly on the election campaign of the HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party). There were fatalities in Diyarbakir from a bomb attack that injured more than 200 people a day or two before the election. The offices that we visited in Adana last year were attacked, too. I do not think we should forget those things. It is good that the elections worked, by and large, and that most of the campaign was peaceful, but those things cannot be taken for granted. I was in Diyarbakir last week, and I talked to a lot of people there who were very worried because there were fatal shootings after the election. It is important that we send out a signal from the Assembly that we are keeping a close eye on what is happening. People are returning from the civil war in Syria and from ISIS to Diyarbakir and other cities, and there is a fear that certain forces in Turkey might be co-operating with them. Following the progress made in Turkey, we have to bend over backwards to ensure that things remain peaceful. I hope that they will.
THE PRESIDENT* – Does the rapporteur wish to respond now, or later after all the speakers have spoken?
Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I will wait until I have heard all the speakers.
THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Durrieu.
Ms DURRIEU (France) * – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Kox, for his report. I, too, observed the elections in Turkey – I was in the south-east, close to Syria – and I agree that election day went very well, although the campaign did not. Given the imbalance between parties in respect of power and means, you cannot say the campaign went well. However, the omnipresence of the president, who was for the AKP and against the opposition, did not give the expected result, which was a failure for Erdoğan – a relative failure, but a failure nonetheless – and a double victory for the Kurds. Not only did they reach the 10% threshold – they scored about 13%, which is a lot – but their victory was symbolic.
The problem of the Kurds is the fundamental problem of Turkey. Many problems can be resolved, but without a political response, the Kurds will remain the basic problem of Turkey. Thus far, negotiations have led to little – although some things have progressed – but now the Kurds are in parliament, it is through a political and democratic framework that their cause will advance. Erdoğan cannot form a majority with the nationalist party – the MHP – and the CHP (Republican People’s Party) against the Kurds. He cannot combat Kemalism while also making an alliance with Kemalism against the HDP and the Kurds. I cannot see that happening, but we will have to wait and see what happens in 45 days, when we will likely start again with new elections.
In conclusion, I express my admiration for the Kurdish people and the force of democracy in their historical culture. Their secularism and generosity will finally win the day against the personal power exercised by Erdoğan, who lost. Well done to the Turkish people. The power of Turkey is indispensable in the Middle East, particularly in many of the peace processes. We need Turkey. We need another Turkey. We need this power and balance in the region, and we need it to be clearly within the coalition, not ambiguously, as it has been till now.
(Mr Wach, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)
Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – Thank you, Mr President, rapporteurs and dear colleagues. As a re-elected member of the new parliament in Turkey, I am proud of the democratic maturity of my country. As the rapporteur said, the turnout at the elections was 84%. On the day, older voters were the first to turn up at the polling stations, which is normal, but many young people also acted as volunteers to observe the elections and the count. That was the contribution of the Gezi movement of young people two years ago. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe observation delegation knew of allegations of fraud during the pre-electoral period, but the vigilance of the electorate prevented any attempts at irregularities and contributed to the conduct of free and fair elections.
As many observers said, the president played an active role in the campaign, despite the constitution stating that he has to be neutral. He participated in a vast number of public events and abused his power to campaign for his own party. He openly criticised the opposition, and the media were under his control. The public service broadcaster was biased in favour of the government party, which benefited from 46% of airtime – virtually half the airtime – yet the Turkish electorate rejected the president’s authoritarian excesses. His party, the AKP (Justice and Development Party), lost its absolute majority.
International observers had felt that the 10% threshold for entering parliament was a major obstacle to pluralism, but any proposals to change the law were rejected by the party in power. We had asked for that to be changed. Again, however, the lesson dealt out by the electorate was to bestow 13% on the People’s Democratic Party, which became the fourth political party to cross the threshold. As normal, women worked hard during the campaign, but they made up only 28% of candidates, while the number elected rose from 79 to 96, or 17.4%, which is not much.
We need to learn how to manage the diversity that has emerged from the election. That diversity is a good thing, however, because the polarisation of the country provoked by the president is in danger of destabilising an already beleaguered region. The political representatives need to show that they, like the electorate, are capable of democratic responsibility.
Mr TILKI (Hungary) – On 7 June, I was a short-term observer of the Turkish elections on behalf of the Council of Europe. I thank the rapporteur, Mr Kox, for his reports and his excellent work.
A number of international organisations monitored the elections. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Parliamentary Assembly were involved, with short-term observers, including two Hungarians, and the overall impression of the Hungarian observers was that the election was well organised. I was in Diyarbakir, in the centre of the Kurdish area, where two days before the election, two bombs exploded at an HDP – the Kurdish party – rally. Four people died and more than 100 hundred were injured.
In spite of this tragedy, the atmosphere on election day was calm. It was easy to tell whether the atmosphere was positive or negative. After visiting a few polling stations, you could feel whether there was a calm ambience or nervousness in the air. The process of voting on election day was generally correct and the elections were organised in a generally professional manner.
It was important for the Kurdish party to surpass the national electoral threshold of 10% of valid votes cast. The election was therefore characterised by active citizen participation. In some of the polling stations, more than 80% of voters turned out. It would be better perhaps if the threshold were lowered to increase political pluralism in the parliament. The People’s Democratic Party – the HDP – passed the threshold, so the role of Kurds will now be the key issue in the future of Turkey.
As a Hungarian, I admit that Turkey is an important partner of Hungary, and the AKP remains the most important political party. However, the election convinced us that the present political system will remain and the parliamentary democracy will not change to a presidential regime.
Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – The term “family” is often – and appropriately – applied when talking about the Council of Europe. The progress reports released on the eve of each part-session are sincere family conversations about past affairs and facilitating future debates, following the example of ancient European generations and families. I do not arbitrarily use the word “sincere”, because sincerity is the primary condition for such exchanges of views and family debates. If such debates lack sincerity, it means that they are not family debates at all and no important outcomes can be expected. The major factor undermining sincerity in family affairs is an unequal attitude to the members of family, who should have equal rights, and the application of diverse standards.
In Resolution 1416, the Parliamentary Assembly has clearly and unconditionally declared that Armenia is an occupier. The genuine face of Armenia – which is pursuing aggressive, anti-democratic and inhuman policies not only towards its neighbours but in its own nation, and which is implementing State terrorism – is very familiar to the Parliamentary Assembly chairmanship. Nevertheless, during the period covered here, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights held a meeting in that country, which the Bureau considers to be a normal case.
I would like to draw your kind attention to one other troubling issue that has occurred since the last session. As members will know, in accordance with the Bureau’s decision, the rapporteur has been identified for the report entitled “Escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan”. However, Armenia does not accept the Bureau’s decision and will not allow the rapporteur, Mr Robert Walter, to go to Armenia and to occupied Azerbaijani territories. It will not work with the rapporteur at all. It is very difficult to find a logical explanation for the Bureau’s tolerance of these self-willed actions by Armenia. Why do you approach this country with such a kind and extremely soft attitude and fail to impose sanctions against it? You should ask yourselves what invisible power it is that makes you be so generous and unfair when it comes to Armenia. Sanctions have been imposed on Russia. Why cannot 10% of the same severity be shown to Armenia? It deserved to have the same sanctions imposed on it 10 years ago. What is preventing you from doing that? How can we tolerate such hypocrisy? No, it is more than hypocrisy, and it has continued for a long time. Let us focus on real outcomes deriving from realities and not on making general replies on such cerebral issues. These issues should be addressed in future reports from the Bureau and Standing Committee.
Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey) – I thank Tiny Kox and the other members of the delegation for their efforts as part of the parliamentary election observation mission in Turkey. The elections were conducted in an orderly and professional fashion. As the report states, the media and campaign environment is vibrant, with a wide range of broadcast and print outlets. Furthermore, different outdoor activities and social media were extensively used by the contestants. A high turnout showed that Turkey’s ever-lasting struggle for democracy and freedom will not end after the elections.
I would like now to shed some light on the findings which were critical of the president's involvement, the 10% electoral threshold and the impartiality of the Supreme Board of Elections and the Radio and Television Supreme Council. It should be noted that the president’s meetings with citizens were not conducted in the context of the elections but were part of various ceremonial openings and other social events. It should also be noted that President Erdoğan is elected by popular vote, so there was nothing extraordinary about his meeting citizens or declaring his opinion on matters of public interest.
Regarding a lower electoral threshold, the AKP has made various proposals on these matters, most recently in the democratisation package announced in September 2013. Those proposals even included demolishing the threshold altogether. However, none of the political parties represented in the parliament was interested in such a change.
As for concerns about the impartiality of the Supreme Board of Elections, five of the seven-member district electoral boards are representatives of parties which received the highest number of votes in the most recent elections. It should also be noted that the members of both the SBE and the Radio and Television Supreme Council are elected by each political group in the assembly. Thus, all the parties have representatives in these two vital organisations, ensuring their impartiality.
Lastly, I have to say that the elections in Turkey are held under safe and well-regulated conditions. Not only was the legal framework found to be conducive to the holding of democratic elections but it was determined that a high level of clarity and accountability was displayed and executed at every stage of the election.
Mr SÁEZ (Spain)* – I congratulate those involved in producing this report, particularly Tiny Kox and his colleagues, on the great job they did. I also congratulate Mr Sánchez Amor and the OSCE electoral observation team.
Some points in the report raise concerns. First, as has been said more than once, the report talks about improving electoral processes. The 10% threshold to enter the Turkish Parliament can give rise to disproportionality in representation. The 10% threshold was a mobilising element in the Turkish elections and encouraged HDP electors to mobilise and obtain good results. However, the Council of Europe should ask the Turkish authorities to lower the threshold to 3% or 4%, as it is in many of our parliaments.
Secondly, much reference has been made to the role of President Erdoğan in the electoral campaign. He conducted an active campaign, which is not compatible with the neutral role that the constitution bids him follow. It is understandable for the president to maintain a political agenda in the campaign but it should not have happened as it did on this occasion. He often followed his political agenda and was critical of the opposition.
Thirdly, it is also important to underscore the possible pressures that might have been exerted on the press. As members know, there were orders to limit the work of journalists, and Erdoğan often appeared on public television. We should underscore the fact that he appeared in a television interview the Friday before the election. These matters should be corrected in future elections as it will help democratic Turkey. With all the crises and difficulties in the Mediterranean, European countries should show great solidarity with Turkey – a country which we much appreciate.
Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – I am pleased to hear that the “Turkish question” about increasing the number of Turkey’s representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been worked out. I am happy to see the Standing Committee’s recommendation on this issue and hope that the Committee of Ministers will support it as well. We also perceive that this Turkish initiative will support our States and the rule of law. Turkey’s increased contributions might even remedy the possible shortage of funds from the Russian Federation.
I express my special gratitude to the head of the Turkish committee, Professor Zafer Üskül, and to all the committee members, for their report on the situation of Crimean Tatars in illegally occupied Crimea. The report again proved mass human rights violations in occupied Crimea. I was informed that the delegation was put under incredible pressure by the so-called authorities of the occupied territory. Nevertheless, they succeeded in preparing an objective and impartial report. This is one more proof of the Turkish commitment to the rule of law.
Housing problems; the involuntary change of nationality from Ukrainian to Russian; the suppression of the Tatar language and the closure of schools that use it; the illegal confiscation of the Mejlis’s property and that of various charity foundations that helped the Crimean Tatars; the persecution of independent media; searches of the mosques, houses and schools of Tatars; the ineffective investigation of kidnappings, killings and disappearances of Crimean Tatars – all these problems are pertinent today in Crimea. A detailed independent report by our Turkish colleagues has disclosed them all.
The attention of the international community is very important for us today. A violation of international norms as cynical as the annexation of Crimea has been unknown since the Second World War. I am sure that we will face this challenge with honour. The rule of law is above the rule of force. We rely on the support of the European community and international organisations on the issue of the de-occupation of Crimea. We are happy to see that European values are predominant in Turkey and that this State is demonstrating the European direction of its development. Together we will be able to succeed.
Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate both rapporteurs, Ms Adele Gambaro and Tiny Kox, on the excellent job they have done, especially the election observation mission in Turkey. Turkey needs our support. Turkey is a great country and one of the co-founders of the Council of Europe. More democracy in Turkey, more stability in Turkey and a more understandable Turkey are very important for the Council of Europe and the rest of the world.
As Ms Adele Gambaro said, Turkey gave us a good lesson in how we deal with refugees and IDPs. It spent $6 billion just on beginning to resolve this problem. The rest of Europe should understand that if just one country can make such a great contribution to one problem, together Europe can find the solution. Why am I talking about the refugee problem? I am talking about it because Azerbaijan is also suffering. We have 1 million refugees and IDPs in our country, and, also alone, we resettled these people, despite the fact that they have been awaiting the liberation of our lands that have unfortunately been occupied by Armenia.
The Council of Europe should pay much more attention to the objective information that is coming before it. As my colleague has already mentioned, unfortunately Armenia today is not ready to accept even one rapporteur, as appointed by the Council of Europe. We heard just a few minutes ago, at the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, that they are “thinking about” a rapporteur on Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied territories, but what about the report covering inhabitants of the frontier regions who have been deprived of access to water? That rapporteur cannot go to Armenia either. How is it possible that two rapporteurs appointed by the Council of Europe cannot go to the country to investigate the situation? That is why, if we are looking for the solution to these problems of refugees and IDPs suffering – in Azerbaijan, in Turkey, in Europe, from Africa, from Syria – we should pay more attention to the issues that relate directly to us. We should help the rapporteurs go there, in order to bring us the truth and get more objective information.
THE PRESIDENT – I will allow one more person to make a short presentation.
Ms MAIJ (Netherlands) – Thank you for the time, Mr President. I will speak really fast; I am sorry for the interpreters.
First, let me thank the leader of the election observers, Mr Kox, for his report, our colleagues in the Council of Europe and the OCSE, and of course the Turkish authorities for facilitating the election observation on 7 June, of which I was part. Let me say that I left Turkey with mixed feelings about the elections and their position in the development of the Turkish democracy. The elections were alive among voters, who came to the polling stations in massive numbers. I was an observer during the elections in the city of Diyarbakir, in the south-east of the country. The day of the elections passed without serious disorder. Sometimes it was a little chaotic or messy, and on one occasion a ballot box had not been sealed, but these seem to be minor hiccups. We observed, together with four observers of different parties, the counting of the votes. The voting procedures as such seem to have been followed properly.
However, I wish to mention some points of concern. Freedom of the press and especially the media in Turkey is under pressure. Journalists, national and international, told me that they felt intimidated and did not express themselves freely. There is a large degree of self-censorship. On Friday, two days before the election, there was an attack in Diyarbakir during an election rally of the HDP. There were two explosions, with over 100 people wounded and three or four killed. However, that evening, the news on Turkish State television did not report it. We were told by a TRT representative that this was because the situation was unclear. For sure the situation was unclear, but I do not understand why such violence during an election rally of one of the four major parties is not primary news on the television.
During the campaign, hardly any proper public debate between politicians was broadcast. Politicians were preoccupied with speaking ill of other parties. Violence took place during election rallies of all the parties. Also, the fantastically high threshold of 10% makes it virtually impossible for smaller parties to enter parliament and the president, who should stand above the parties, actively participated in the campaign for his own party.
A proper election day does not necessarily mean that the whole election process was up to standard – I gave some examples. Let me also stress that free and fair elections do not automatically mean free, open and mature democracy. Elections should be a part of a democratic process, but elections are in no way the confirmation of democracy. The election day and the result of the elections make me optimistic, but I think Turkey is not there yet.
THE PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I wish to respond first to Mr Lund. He emphasised the work done by Turkey, but also stressed the fact that these waves of migrants from various countries have a number of causes, including climate change. In other words, these migratory flows are not always caused by political considerations. We need to be clear that a peaceful approach, based on dialogue, is indeed the way forward to deal with all migration issues. I thank Mr Lund for his comments, and I am sorry to hear that this is the last time he will be with us.
As for Mr Chope, I noted his comments, and I agree with him that we have to make progress on the protocol. Despite the fact that the European Union has not been able to sign up to it entirely, for administrative or bureaucratic reasons, it does none the less deal with a fundamental issue.
Thanks also go to my colleagues Mr Seyidov and Mr Huseynov, who said that they recognised the enormous efforts being made by Turkey in trying to tackle the situation that is confronting it. If one country can do that, imagine what all of Europe could do if it were united.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Kox, do you wish to respond?
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Thanks to my colleague, I have a few minutes to reply to the many comments. I thank everybody for a pleasant and productive debate. It is great that so many colleagues – not only those who participated in the election observation mission, but others – paid attention to the report on these important elections. I am grateful that Ms Bilgehan and Mr Denemeç reacted to the report. What makes it so pleasant is that this time, although we still have a lot of differences about how to evaluate these elections and how to proceed, there is not the big controversy that we sometimes had in the past. It is up to the new Parliament of Turkey to deal with the elections. We all know, more or less, what went very well, what went very wrong, and what could and should be improved.
The report does not only contain conclusions, but concrete advice to the Turkish Parliament that could benefit all Turkish citizens, including advice on: the threshold; dealing with the violence that took place; the role of the president; dealing with the media and ensuring media equality; and the role of voting abroad. Those are all elements of the report. I hope that our colleagues, especially in the Turkish Parliament, take it home, say there was huge support for the overall conclusions and advice, and ask their colleagues in the Turkish grand chamber to do something with that advice, because we were united with not only the OSCE, but in our delegation. We were very united; I heard only additional remarks from our colleagues – not that they do not support the advice. It is up to you, Ms Bilgehan, Mr Denemeç and other colleagues from Turkey, to take our conclusions and advice to your parliament. It is my conviction that if you can deal with the advice, it will only strengthen your democracy, which proved, on 7 June, to be rather mature – perhaps more mature than many of us previously thought.
THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.
The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly, set out in Document 13813 Addendum I.
Is there any objection to the proposed references to committees?
There is no objection, so the references are approved.
I invite the Assembly to approve the remaining decisions of the Bureau requiring ratification by the Assembly, as set out in the progress report, Document 13813 and Addenda, and Document 13816.
The progress report is approved.
(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Wach)
3. Communication from the Committee of Ministers
THE PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Igor Crnadak, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. After his address, Mr Crnadak has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.
I welcome you warmly to this Chamber, dear Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. I congratulate you on the chairmanship, which you took at a difficult time. You have many challenges to address. This is an historic opportunity for your country to lead our Organisation for the first time, after 13 years of membership, but it should also be seen as a huge responsibility.
There are at least two important reasons to look forward to the chairmanship of Bosnia and Herzegovina. First, your priorities are not only timely and topical for Europe but, as you put it when we met in Sarajevo last month, realistic enough for a relatively small country. Some of the most significant priorities of the Council of Europe are to promote the Istanbul Convention, to enhance cultural co-operation, to reinforce our engagement with neighbouring regions and States, and to make full use of the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. Today, in your first address to the plenary session, you will present your priorities in detail, as well as your vision of how the Committee of Ministers, under your chairmanship, can work along those lines to produce positive results. Many Assembly members will certainly be glad to participate in these activities. It is with great pleasure that I accept your invitation to visit Sarajevo again in September to take part in the exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, under the banner “Building Inclusive Societies Together”.
The second reason that we are looking forward to your chairmanship is that it will give you an opportunity to promote Bosnia and Herzegovina’s positive image and, at the same time, to strengthen support for the European ideal and values inside your country. It is a great opportunity to show that Bosnia and Herzegovina is dynamic, positive and has much to offer – that the country can lead the Organisation of 47 European States. We are not forgetting about the current tense international context, which will require new commitment and energy from you as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. We are not forgetting about the urgent need for profound institutional reforms in your country. You can be confident that the Assembly stands ready to help in all the tasks that you will face during or after your chairmanship. Thank you for addressing the Assembly.
Mr CRNADAK (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers) – Dear President, Secretary General and members of the Parliamentary Assembly, I thank the President for her kind words. It is not only nice to hear those words, but encouraging for the upcoming months that we will chair the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Thank you for the warm welcome. We will try to live up to the high expectations before us.
It is my honour to address you for the first time here in Strasbourg as the new Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This year Bosnia and Herzegovina is chairing the Committee of Ministers for the first time since its accession to the Organisation in 2002. Along with the one-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, this is the most challenging task with which our country has been entrusted since the war. However, we do not see it as one of those arduous challenges that we hope to overcome as soon as possible, but rather as a challenge that we have eagerly been anticipating and during which we hope to thrive.
I have already had the privilege to present the priorities of our chairmanship at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Sarajevo in May, which was my first task as the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. Today I will therefore only briefly mention our priorities, including those we share with the previous chairmanships of Belgium and Azerbaijan. For further information on the subject, please refer to the documents distributed by the secretariat of the above-mentioned meeting.
Because Bosnia and Herzegovina was the sixth country to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – the Istanbul Convention – it was only natural to make that topic one of the top priorities of our chairmanship. The initial idea was to promote the convention, but because it entered into force sooner than expected and has already been signed and ratified by the majority of Council of Europe member States, we can now focus on the process of implementation. A conference in Sarajevo in October 2015 will be the first real opportunity to assess the monitoring mechanisms and the implementation process of the convention. I am sure that that will allow for concrete and useful discussions.
Another main priority of our chairmanship will be the neighbourhood policy. That is particularly important in the light of recent events in Europe and our neighbouring regions, as well as the Secretary General’s recent initiatives in that field. In a true spirit of neighbourhood partnership, we have decided to hold a ministerial conference in Morocco, also in October 2015, under the working title “Neighbourhood Partnership Policy of the Council of Europe – an important tool to address the current threats.”
Because the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe’s European Cultural Convention coincides with the chairmanship of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in line with our policy of treating all three pillars of the Council of Europe equally, we decided to dedicate one of our priorities to European film. The highlight of our efforts will be a high-level conference on the role of women in the European film industry, which will be held during the Sarajevo film festival in August. In close co-operation with EURIMAGES and the Sarajevo film festival, we have decided to use the opportunity to raise the visibility of the Council of Europe’s work through mainstream media and popular culture.
Regarding the joint priorities of the chairmanship troika, I wish to mention, among other things, the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, which I shall come back to, and the promotion and protection of human rights, with special emphasis on the protection of the rights of vulnerable groups.
We assumed the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe last month in Brussels at the annual ministerial session of the Committee of Ministers, so perhaps this is a good opportunity to recall the results of that session. The meeting was held on 19 May, with 43 member States represented, including 31 foreign affairs ministers. The main focus of the agenda was the fight against violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism, which resulted in the adoption of the additional protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. In my capacity as the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I cannot stress enough the importance of a rapid entry into force of the document. I therefore hope that the protocol will soon be opened for signature so that member States can sign and ratify it promptly in order further to strengthen the fight against the emergence of foreign terrorist fighters.
A declaration and an action plan to fight against violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism were adopted at the ministerial session. It was stressed that the terrorist attacks perpetrated in recent months in Europe and elsewhere in the world were unacceptable infringements of the values and principles that are the foundations of our democratic societies. The action plan is set to run until 2017, with the aim of strengthening the legal framework against terrorism and violent extremism, and developing concrete measures in the public sector to tackle the problem.
Other subjects of discussion at the ministerial session were the situation in Ukraine, the Secretary General’s latest report on the state of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Europe, and the Secretary General’s consolidated report on the conflict in Georgia, which covered the period from November 2014 to March 2015. Those topics are also frequently discussed at the regular meetings of Ministers’ Deputies in Strasbourg.
Finally, in Brussels, ministers welcomed the results so far realised by all relevant stakeholders in the framework of the reform of the convention system, in particular the measures taken by the Court further to increase its effectiveness and the prompt implementation of Protocol No. 14, which is designed substantially to decrease the number of pending cases.
In April, the Committee of Ministers continued its dedicated work to abolish the death penalty on our continent by adopting a decision to reaffirm its opposition to the death penalty. It welcomed the resolution adopted on 18 December 2014 by the United Nations General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. It reiterated its urgent call to the Russian Federation to take as soon as possible all necessary steps to transform the current moratorium on the death penalty into the abolition of that penalty. The committee deeply regretted that a new execution had taken place in Belarus, which further distanced the country from the Council of Europe. It also deeply regretted the executions in Japan, the United States and Egypt, the decision to continue execution in Jordan after eight years without enforcing that form of punishment and the decision by the Government of Indonesia to continue with the execution of eight prisoners on death row.
The Committee of Ministers held an exchange of views with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights at the end of May, during which he presented his annual activity report for 2014 and his first quarterly activity report for 2015. On 11 May, the Committee of Ministers decided to establish a European day for the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, which Council of Europe member States will mark on 18 November. As a representative of my government, I am particularly pleased at the adoption of that decision.
Regarding the activities of the Council of Europe on the promotion of issues relating to Roma and Travellers, the Committee of Ministers has invited the Secretariat to begin preparations for an event at which regular dialogue with Roma civil society organisations will be established. The initial such meeting is planned to take place this autumn. The Committee of Ministers recently agreed on the Secretary General’s strategic orientation “Updating the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)” and noted that he would proceed on that basis with the preparation of an action plan.
The Committee of Ministers held a series of exchanges of views with the president of the Venice Commission, the president of the Group of States against corruption and the chairman of the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism. Preparations are currently under way for the Council of Europe 2015 exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, which will be held in Sarajevo on 8 and 9 September. That annual exchange is designed to increase the level of participation and visibility through various measures suggested at the last exchange in Baku. The theme of the exchange is building inclusive societies together.
Co-operation with other international multilateral organisations remains high on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers. I am well aware that that is also the case for the Assembly, and I warmly welcome the visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon, to our Organisation tomorrow. With regard to the OSCE, I emphasise the intention of both the chairmanship of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the Committee of Ministers, and the chairmanship of Serbia of the OSCE, to use those coinciding chairmanships to strengthen co-operation between the two organisations through various joint activities. The details of those activities will be presented in due course. I had the opportunity to address the question of co-operation with the OSCE when I presented the priorities of our chairmanship to the permanent council of the OSCE in Vienna on 9 June.
As I mentioned at the start of my address, the Council of Europe’s policy towards neighbouring regions is one of the priorities of the chairmanship of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we are looking forward to making significant progress in the next five months.
Finally, regarding the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Ministers’ Deputies held their 1 230th meeting in June 2015, at which they decided to close the examination of 14 decisions and judgments of the Court. The list of cases examined and the decisions adopted appear in the relevant Committee of Ministers document.
Thank you for your attention. I am now willing to respond to any questions or suggestions you might have.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Minister, for your address and for informing us about the priorities of your chairmanship. Members want to ask you questions. The first group will do so on behalf of their political groups.
I call Mr Schennach, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I thank the minister for his address. As an Austrian, I am particularly happy to see you here. We are of one mind.
What does Bosnia and Herzegovina intend to do regarding two rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights: Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ruling on children from mixed marriages? Such children are currently suffering as one parent must effectively be ignored and the other matter is important when it comes to taking political office.
Mr CRNADAK – Thank you for that question. The Sejdić and Finci case is already quite famous. We now have in front of us a so-called new European approach, which has enabled Bosnia and Herzegovina to focus on economic and social reforms by putting Sejdić and Finci and other constitutional discussions to one side. We appreciate that, but I stress that we are fully aware that our constitution contains obvious and unacceptable discrimination. There is no party, politician or non-governmental organisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina that does not understand or support that stance. We are aware that it is impossible in the middle of Europe in the 21st century to have a situation where someone cannot be a candidate for any position in a country simply because he or she does not belong to a particular people. Our institutions are fully aware of this and I am sure that we will be turning to resolving the issue and removing the discrimination. It is hard for me to state a deadline or provide exact timing, but I am sure that it will be in the near future.
On the second issue, I do not believe that today – 20 years after the war – that this is a big problem. Of course, when compared with the first part of the question, it might seem logical, but the situation today is that, legally and formally, children from so-called mixed marriages do not have major problems and their problems are no different from those of other young people in the country. Anyhow, the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and others will work with the rest of society to address the matter in a way that reduces its importance. That is how we see the issue and that is how we want to handle it.
The PRESIDENT – I call Ms Quintanilla, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Ms QUINTANILLA (Spain)* – I am sure that you know what the war in the Balkans meant in practice. Many women were raped during the conflict, and women were the victims of the war. The UN Security Council is about to adopt a new resolution that follows from Resolution 1325, and Spain will be chairing the Security Council meeting. I do not have a question as such, but it is important that the Council of Europe produces an institutional statement about ensuring that women can enjoy peace and security instead of conflict. A declaration from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should support the new resolution. We must establish the principle of peace and security, with particular regard to women. It is important to recognise that women are often victims of collateral damage in war.
The PRESIDENT – I remind the Assembly that speakers have 30 seconds to ask questions.
Mr CRNADAK – I will also try to give shorter answers so we can get through more questions.
I can of course do nothing but support the idea. However, I must also request a little caution when it comes to different resolutions, particularly given the political life of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is always best to have a balanced document that is accepted by everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina so that we can really aim for the future. Documents, resolutions and declarations should bring people closer together, rather than divide them. The idea is a good one and, generally, I can only support it.
The PRESIDENT – I call Robert Neill, who speaks on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.
Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I welcome the minister to his post.
On 19 May, the Committee of Ministers adopted an additional protocol to Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Following on from the written report, what specific steps will the minister be taking in his chairmanship actively to promote the signature of that protocol by all member States? Why is it not open for immediate signature? I suggest that there is no need to wait for the European Union Council of Ministers to agree, because by no means all the Council of Europe’s member States are members of the European Union. We should get on with it straight away.
Mr CRNADAK – Thank you for the question. As you say, the protocol to the convention was adopted on 19 May. The Committee of Ministers will open it for signature when a large enough number of member States will be able to sign it. It is important to stress that the protocol will be open to member and non-member States of the Council of Europe. The idea is that it be implemented quickly, but the document should be backed by as many countries as possible. The European Union is willing to accede to the protocol but faces several institutional and legal difficulties. From all the information that I have, those difficulties are now just technical and I am certain that they will be overcome soon and we will be together on this matter. I signed the commitment in Brussels together with the Secretary General and Minister Reynders. We confirmed at the event and have said publicly that we want the protocol to be open for signature and entered into force as quickly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Taktakishvili on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I have two questions. Thank you for the information in the report, but what future measures does the Committee of Ministers plan to take to ensure the effective implementation of the Assembly’s recommendations on the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine? Secondly, do you have any specific plans to assist the Ukrainian authorities in implementing the ambitious reforms process?
Mr CRNADAK – There is much to be said on this issue. It does, of course, receive permanent attention from the Committee of Ministers and was at the heart of the discussions we had at the ministerial session in Brussels. The Minsk agreement must be swiftly and fully implemented, and the Ukrainian Constitution must be amended. That was all emphasised. We are closely following what is going on. The chairmanship of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including me personally, also expressed our desire to be very active on this issue. We must bear in mind the importance and position of our country, but sometimes relatively small countries without many of the burdens that bigger countries may have can make unexpected breakthroughs. The Committee of Ministers under our chairmanship will continue to monitor this issue very closely and we will contribute as fully as possible to finding a solution that will bring peace to the region. I hope by the end of our chairmanship this problem will be if not resolved, at least smaller than it is today.
THE PRESIDENT – The last speaker on behalf of the political groups is Mr Tiny Kox from the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Mr Minister, when we met in Sarajevo in the Standing Committee the crisis in the “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was developing, which caused great concern. You said you would follow closely what happened in this former republic of Yugoslavia. Can you update us on what you have done since then, and is there the beginning of a resolution to this dangerous crisis?
Mr CRNADAK – This was also discussed at the ministerial session in Brussels, both in the formal part and at the informal dinner. There was a very valuable exchange of views with Minister Poposki and this is still very high on the list of priorities. Unfortunately we do not have a solution, but it is essential to find one for the consolidation of democratic institutions in the country, which is greatly needed. There is activity in the European Union institutions and there is a process, and it is still unclear how it will end. We on the Committee of Ministers welcome the clear commitment by political leaders to find a solution and I hope one will soon be reached. Since we took over the chairmanship, I have discussed this issue with the Secretary General and Ms President and I think I can say on behalf of the Council of Europe that we stand available to help and work together with our colleagues in the institutions of the “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in the weeks and months ahead.
Ms DURANTON (France)* – The situation in “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is extremely worrying: widespread corruption; conflict in political life; emerging authoritarian trends; the re-emergence of ethnic tensions along the borders with Kosovo and Serbia; and even deadly clashes with the police resulting in more than 20 deaths. What has the Council of Europe done to seek to stabilise the situation in the country? It is not populous, but it is exceptionally fragile even in the context of the particularly sensitive region of the Balkans.
Mr CRNADAK – I have replied in part to this matter already, but maybe I can add a few more comments. The Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers have responded to the crisis from the very beginning. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was not left without our attention even for a minute, especially when there were all the clashes and deaths in the city of Kumanovo. Also, the Secretary General called for political dialogue and reaffirmed the Council of Europe’s willingness to assist our friends in Skopje. That is very important.
Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – I want to pose a question that should be perceived as a nonsense throughout the entire history of the Council of Europe: how long will the attitude shown by the Council of Europe observers to the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories last? In your capacity as chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, can you give new information on certain member States that might assist in solving the problem?
Mr CRNADAK – I can assure you that the Council of Europe is not a passive observer of the consequences of the conflicts you mention. We do not ignore the human rights of the people who suffer as a result of these conflicts. They must benefit from the same protections as any other Europeans. That is natural; it has to be like that. This requires finding a political solution to the conflict under the aegis of the Minsk Group. I can only appeal on behalf of the Committee of Ministers to both sides to find a compromise so we finally have a peaceful solution.
Ms MULIĆ (Croatia) – The Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism has been concerned since December 2010 about the deficiencies in the anti-money laundering regime in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In April this year, the committee decided to refer Bosnia and Herzegovina to the International Co-operation Review Group for failing to make significant progress in amending its criminal code. As Bosnia is the presiding country on the Committee of Ministers, what have you done to meet international standards and remedy outstanding deficiencies?
Mr CRNADAK – I do not want to lose too much time; I understand that I should answer that question in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes, we had that problem, and we still have not wholly removed it, but we have done a lot. The latest information is that we passed amendments to the criminal law – that was the first request that was met. New legislation was introduced on fighting the financing of terrorism and on money laundering. Additional action was required, and it has been prepared in recent days. According to the information that I received this morning, that will be on the agenda for the Bosnia and Herzegovina council of ministers session on Thursday, three days from now. We have no dilemma: it needs to be one of our priorities. Bosnia and Herzegovina must be a member of a global coalition on money laundering and fighting different ways of financing terrorism, not only by declaration but in action.
Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which witnessed the Srebrenica genocide, you may know better than many how the Khojaly massacre and the occupation of territories by Armenia have been hard for Azerbaijanis. On 16 June, the European Court of Human Rights adopted a decision on the petition Chiragov and Others v. Armenia. As the decision has already been sent to the Committee of Ministers for follow-up, Azerbaijani IDPs who cannot return to their homes expect your support concerning the realisation of the Court’s decision. Should the Azerbaijani IDPs wait for concrete steps from you, as chairman, in this regard? Do you plan to visit Azerbaijan during your chairmanship to meet some of the 1 million refugees and IDPs?
Mr CRNADAK – I should remind everyone that on 16 June, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgments in one case against Armenia – Chiragov and others – and in one case against Azerbaijan, the Sargsyan case concerning the property rights of persons displaced by the conflict. In each case, the Court found violations of rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights, to the peaceful enjoyment of property, to respect for one’s home and to an effective remedy. The Court held that, pending a comprehensive peace agreement, each State should establish a property claims mechanism that is accessible to displaced persons.
Of course, direct questions should get direct answers. The Committee of Ministers will commence supervision of the execution of the judgments. Our chairmanship will certainly be very much focused on this matter, and it will be important for us. Execution of the Court’s judgment is an obligation under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and should go hand in hand with continuing efforts to establish an overall peace settlement. Mediation for the settlement of the conflict is the responsibility of the OSCE Minsk Group, and a peaceful settlement was also a joint commitment by Armenia and Azerbaijan upon accession to the Council of Europe. As for the possibility of visiting any of the member countries, I can only say for myself and on behalf of our chairmanship that we are willing to work with all member States. The possible calendar for future visits will have to be discussed in the near future. We will see whether such a visit will be possible.
Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – Given the influx of refugees to Europe, what role can or should the Council of Europe play in seeking to bring together efforts to establish structures that can deal with this tragic human situation?
Mr CRNADAK – This is one of the most important issues in Europe today, unfortunately, with an important humanitarian side. Every day, it is in the thoughts of many people dealing with politics on the continent. The Council of Europe addresses the issue on many occasions and in many ways. Of course, first of all, the Council of Europe needs to promote political democratisation in the countries of origin – that is something in which we can be active. That should in turn contribute to creating conditions for economic growth. The Council of Europe could also contribute through its policy towards neighbouring regions – we intend to do that. We must increase efforts to promote good governance, which is the best way to prevent this.
The Council of Europe should also ensure that human rights obligations deriving from the European Convention on Human Rights are complied with both when refugees arrive in Europe and when they are distant from it. Europe must share equitably the responsibility, the reception and the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers. It must accept a share of the misery with which it is faced. We must all continue – not only the Committee of Ministers but the entire Organisation – to be very much focused on and working closely on this issue.
Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – We have more and more information about the fact that fighters for the Islamic State in the Middle East are coming from your country and from our countries – from Europe. With your presidency of the Council of Europe, what is your long-term plan to deal with European people going to fight for Islamic State?
Mr CRNADAK – I come at this from two angles – that of the Chair of the Committee of Ministers and from my country’s perspective. The additional protocol adopted in Brussels is clear evidence that concrete things are being done. It is important to say this is not only a European problem but a worldwide one, which is why we have a worldwide coalition when it comes to fighting Islamic State. It is very important to have an undisputed approach of always making it very clear that there will be no negotiations or entering into calculations with the other side and that the coalition is firm. It is important for countries and organisations dealing with such issues to work together, exchange information and closely monitor what is going on in this arena. It is also important for countries to improve their own legislation on foreign fighters and other issues relating to Islamic State and threats from similar terrorist groups.
We have the same problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we speak about it very openly. More than 300 foreign fighters have come from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We even had a recent terrorist attack on our soil, in the city of Zvornik in Republika Srpska. Unfortunately, we have seen very directly how this looks. Bosnia and Herzegovina has passed a law for processing and sentencing all foreign fighters. That has been done not only on paper; some processes have already begun. Agencies, institutions and different levels of government are working together and with similar agencies from the region and from around the world so that we can fight this common enemy successfully.
Mr ANDREOLI (San Marino)* – Since the summit under the San Marino chairmanship in 2008, the Committee of Ministers has organised a meeting on religious and cultural dialogue every year. These meetings have been successful. They are very topical, having to do with current affairs, particularly in the light of the terrorist attacks that we have witnessed in several member States. His Holiness the Pope mentioned that in his address to the Council of Europe last November. As you pointed out, Minister, the next meeting will be held in Sarajevo in September, and I thank your country for taking that initiative. Could the Committee of Ministers subsequently take stock of and assess such meetings, and how that might contribute to the fundamental values of this Organisation?
Mr CRNADAK – Thank you for supporting one of the priorities of our chairmanship. This priority gets a lot of support when discussed in different forums. Such intercultural dialogue is important in promoting the mutual understanding that we need around the world. The Council of Europe has a leading role to play in this area, as we all understand. The promotion of intercultural and interreligious dialogue will be one of the axes of the action plan in the fight against violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism that was adopted in May.
As you said, Council of Europe exchanges on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue were instigated in 2008. I thank the San Marino chairmanship for initiating those exchanges. This issue has been a very important one for the past seven years, and I am sure that it will remain so for some time to come. We will have the 2015 exchange in Sarajevo in September. From our approach and the messages we are preparing for it, it will be very clear that we expect not only this exchange but the entire work on this issue to be helpful in building better solutions for the Committee of Ministers and other segments of the Organisation.
It is very important for us to maintain a very strong focus on this issue and to deliver results on it during our chairmanship. I certainly hope that we will have the support of the Assembly in our joint efforts on this issue, as on the many other issues that have been mentioned today.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Minister, for your statement and your answers. We look forward to continuing to work with you. I was glad that you said in answer to the last question that you will continue to work together with the Assembly. There are so many challenges that we must face, and we must face them together to find solutions to them. On behalf of us all, I wish you good luck on the huge challenges that you face.
4. Next public business
THE PRESIDENT – Before I close the sitting, I want to remind you to be in the Chamber at 10 a.m. tomorrow for the address of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon. We must start at 10 a.m. sharp, so please be aware that you will have to leave your committee meetings a bit earlier to get to the Chamber to hear his address.
The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 5.25 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Ceremony for the 60th anniversary of the Europe Prize
Statement by Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly
Address by Mr Frécon, President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
Address by Councillor Michael Hammon, Lord Mayor of Coventry
Address by Mr Axel E. Fischer, Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize
2. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee
Presentation by Ms Gambaro of the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Doc. 13813 and Addenda I, II and III, and Doc. 13816.
Presentation by Mr Kox on behalf of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau of the observation of the parliamentary elections in Turkey on 7 June 2015, Doc. 13822.
Speakers: Mr Lund (Denmark), Ms Duranton (France), Mr Chope (United Kingdom), Mr Heer (Switzerland), Mr Hunko (Germany), Ms Durrieu (France), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Mr Tilki (Hungary), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Denemeç (Turkey), Mr Sáez (Spain), Mr Logvynskyi (Ukraine), Mr Seyidov (Azerbaijan) and Ms Maij (Netherlands)
Replies: Ms Gambaro (Italy) and Mr Kox (Netherlands)
3. Communication from the Committee of Ministers
Address by Mr Igor Crnadak, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers
Questions: Mr Schennach (Austria), Ms Quintanilla (Spain), Mr Neill (United Kingdom), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Ms Duranton (France), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Ms Mulić (Croatia), Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Rochebloine (France), Mr Vareikis (Lithuania) and Mr Andreoli (San Marino),
4. Next public business
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/ Edgar Mayer
Luise AMTSBERG*
Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU
Liv Holm ANDERSEN*
Lord Donald ANDERSON
Paride ANDREOLI
Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA
Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*
Khadija ARIB
Volodymyr ARIEV
Egemen BAĞIŞ
Theodora BAKOYANNIS*
David BAKRADZE*
Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury
Doris BARNETT
José Manuel BARREIRO*
Deniz BAYKAL*
Marieluise BECK*
Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková
José María BENEYTO*
Levan BERDZENISHVILI
Deborah BERGAMINI*
Sali BERISHA*
Anna Maria BERNINI/ Claudio Fazzone
Maria Teresa BERTUZZI*
Andris BĒRZINŠ/Nellija Kleinberga
Gülsün BİLGEHAN
Brian BINLEY*
Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová
Philippe BLANCHART*
Maryvonne BLONDIN*
Jean-Marie BOCKEL/André Reichardt
Olga BORZOVA*
Mladen BOSIĆ*
António BRAGA*
Anne BRASSEUR
Alessandro BRATTI*
Piet De BRUYN*
Beata BUBLEWICZ*
Gerold BÜCHEL
André BUGNON
Natalia BURYKINA*
Nunzia CATALFO
Elena CENTEMERO*
Irakli CHIKOVANI
Vannino CHITI*
Christopher CHOPE
Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN
Henryk CIOCH/Helena Hatka
James CLAPPISON
Igor CORMAN*
Telmo CORREIA
Paolo CORSINI*
Carlos COSTA NEVES*
Celeste COSTANTINO/Carlo Lucherini
Yves CRUCHTEN*
Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Attila Tilki
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/Petra De Sutter
Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*
Nicole DURANTON
Josette DURRIEU
Mustafa DZHEMILIEV*
Mikuláš DZURINDA*
Lady Diana ECCLES*
Tülin ERKAL KARA
Franz Leonhard EßL/Christine Muttonen
Joseph FENECH ADAMI
Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU
Vyacheslav FETISOV*
Doris FIALA
Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Antl
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/Ľubomir Petrák
Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES
Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Viorel Riceard Badea
Svetlana GORYACHEVA*
Sandro GOZI*
Fred de GRAAF / Marit Maij
François GROSDIDIER*
Andreas GROSS
Dzhema GROZDANOVA
Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*
Gergely GULYÁS*
Jonas GUNNARSSON
Nazmi GÜR*
Antonio GUTIÉRREZ
Maria GUZENINA/Olli-Poika Parviainen
Márton GYÖNGYÖSI*
Sabir HAJIYEV
Hannes HANSO*
Alfred HEER
Michael HENNRICH*
Martin HENRIKSEN*
Françoise HETTO-GAASCH*
Oleksii HONCHARENKO
Jim HOOD/Geraint Davies
Arpine HOVHANNISYAN
Anette HÜBINGER
Johannes HÜBNER
Andrej HUNKO
Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova
Rafael HUSEYNOV
Vitaly IGNATENKO*
Florin IORDACHE
Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*
Denis JACQUAT
Gediminas JAKAVONIS
Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ*
Tedo JAPARIDZE/Zviad Kvatchantiradze
Michael Aastrup JENSEN*
Frank J. JENSSEN*
Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*
Ögmundur JÓNASSON
Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović
Josip JURATOVIC*
Anne KALMARI
Mustafa KARADAYI*
Marietta KARAMANLI*
Niklas KARLSSON
Andreja KATIČ*
Vasiliki KATRIVANOU
Ioanneta KAVVADIA
Danail KIRILOV*
Bogdan KLICH*
Manana KOBAKHIDZE*
Haluk KOÇ
Igor KOLMAN
Željko KOMŠIĆ
Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*
Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR/Matjaž Hanžek
Attila KORODI
Alev KORUN/Andreas Schieder
Rom KOSTŘICA/Marek Černoch
Elvira KOVÁCS
Tiny KOX
Borjana KRIŠTO
Julia KRONLID*
Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Andres Herkel
Marek KRZĄKAŁA*
Athina KYRIAKIDOU
Serhiy LABAZIUK*
Inese LAIZĀNE
Olof LAVESSON
Pierre-Yves LE BORGN'
Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Pascale Crozon
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/Dirk Van Der Maelen
Thierry MARIANI
Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík
Milica MARKOVIĆ
Meritxell MATEU PI
Ana MATO
Frano MATUŠIĆ
Liliane MAURY PASQUIER
Michael McNAMARA*
Sir Alan MEALE
Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA
Evangelos MEIMARAKIS
Ivan MELNIKOV*
Ana Catarina MENDES*
Attila MESTERHÁZY
Jean-Claude MIGNON/Jacques Legendre
Philipp MIßFELDER
Olivia MITCHELL
Igor MOROZOV*
João Bosco MOTA AMARAL
Arkadiusz MULARCZYK
Melita MULIĆ
Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ
Hermine NAGHDALYAN
Piotr NAIMSKI*
Sergey NARYSHKIN*
Marian NEACȘU*
Andrei NEGUTA
Zsolt NÉMETH
Miroslav NENUTIL
Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*
Michele NICOLETTI
Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI
Julia OBERMEIER*
Marija OBRADOVIĆ
Žarko OBRADOVIĆ
Judith OEHRI
Carina OHLSSON
Joseph O'REILLY
Maciej ORZECHOWSKI/Andrzej Jaworski
Sandra OSBORNE*
Tom PACKALÉN*
José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà
Liliana PALIHOVICI
Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS
Ganira PASHAYEVA
Florin Costin PÂSLARU
Waldemar PAWLAK*
Jaana PELKONEN/Olli-Poika Parviainen
Vladimir PLIGIN*
Cezar Florin PREDA
John PRESCOTT/Joe Benton
Gabino PUCHE
Alexey PUSHKOV*
Carmen QUINTANILLA
Mailis REPS
Andrea RIGONI
François ROCHEBLOINE
Soraya RODRÍGUEZ
Alexander ROMANOVICH*
Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*
René ROUQUET
Rovshan RZAYEV
Àlex SÁEZ
Vincenzo SANTANGELO*
Milena SANTERINI*
Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Boryslav Bereza
Deborah SCHEMBRI*
Stefan SCHENNACH
Ingjerd SCHOU
Frank SCHWABE
Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter
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/Gerardo Giovagnoli
Yanaki STOILOV
Karin STRENZ
Ionuț-Marian STROE
Valeriy SUDARENKOV*
Krzysztof SZCZERSKI*
Damien THIÉRY
Lord John E. TOMLINSON
Antoni TRENCHEV*
Goran TUPONJA*
Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*
Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*
Theodora TZAKRI
Ilyas UMAKHANOV*
Dana VÁHALOVÁ
Snorre Serigstad VALEN/ Tore Hagebakken
Petrit VASILI*
Imre VEJKEY*
Stefaan VERCAMER
Birutė VĖSAITĖ
Dimitris VITSAS
Vladimir VORONIN/Violeta Ivanov
Viktor VOVK*
Klaas de VRIES
Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*
Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*
Piotr WACH
Robert WALTER
Dame Angela WATKINSON/Robert Neill
Tom WATSON*
Karl-Georg WELLMANN*
Katrin WERNER/Gabriela Heinrich
Morten WOLD
Bas van 't WOUT*
Gisela WURM
Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI
Leonid YEMETS*
Tobias ZECH
Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*
Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*
Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*
Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Egidijus Vareikis
Guennady ZIUGANOV*
Naira ZOHRABYAN
Levon ZOURABIAN
Vacant Seat, Cyprus*
Vacant Seat, ‘‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’’/Vladimir Gjorchev
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, Turkey*
Vacant Seat, United Kingdom/Lord Richard Balfe
ALSO PRESENT
Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote
Johan NISSINEN
Mariia IONOVA
Kerstin LUNDGREN
Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI
Sinuhe WALLINHEIMO
Observers
Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA
Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA
Partners for democracy
Hanane ABOULFATH
Ms Najat AL-ASTAL
Mohammed AMEUR
Bernard SABELLA
Mohamed YATIM