AA15CR24

AS (2015) CR 24

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-fourth sitting

Wednesday 24 June 2015 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.        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 3.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT* – Our next item of business is to consider a change proposed in the membership of committees. This is set out in document Commissions (2015) 06 Addendum 3.

Is the proposed change in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      It is agreed to.

2. Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation – resumed debate

THE PRESIDENT* – We now continue the debate on the report titled “Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation (follow-up to paragraph 16 of Resolution 2034 (2015))”, Document 13800.

In order to finish by 4.30 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 3.50 p.m. to allow time for replies and votes. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes.

Before giving the floor to the speakers, I call Mr Tiny Kox on a point of order.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – This morning, when appealing to get all members of parliament off the blacklists of the Russian Federation and European Union, I mistakenly said that Alexey Pushkov, leader of the Russian delegation to the Assembly, was on the European Union’s blacklist. Mr Walter corrected me this morning, and Mr Pushkov confirmed that he is not on the European Union’s blacklist, although his colleagues, members of this Assembly, Naryshkin, Melnikov, Slutsky and Kalashnikov, together with 13 other members of the Russian delegation, are on the blacklist. I should like to correct my mistake, because my mother always taught me that telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was the best thing you can do in life.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for that declaration. It is a very good lesson for us all. I call Mr Walter on a point of order.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I just want to thank Mr Kox for his graciousness. I have checked the list several times. At one stage, I felt that Mr Pushkov should be on the list, but he is not – but now I probably am!

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. We can now continue with our discussions. I call Mr Bakradze.

Mr BAKRADZE (Georgia) – Every organisation has its moment of truth, when it has to prove its credibility, and the credibility of any organisation rests first of all on its ability to defend values and previously adopted decisions. It is in that light that we are discussing what to do about the Russian Federation. I am delighted that, unlike in previous sessions, we have had almost no discussion about whether what Russia is doing in Ukraine is good or bad. We are almost unanimous in saying that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is a grave violation of all international standards and laws.

Instead, today’s discussion has focused on whether we should give dialogue and peaceful reconciliation one more chance. It is not an easy decision. It is more than a year since we discussed the issue of occupied Crimea and the aggression against eastern Ukraine, and after one year, there remains a manifest lack of progress on the implementation of the Assembly’s resolution. Even worse, Russia has suspended all official activities with this Assembly, clearly demonstrating its attitude to our resolutions.

What makes the case even more complicated, however, is that Ukraine is not Russia’s first victim – there was also Georgia. On this subject, the Assembly has adopted three resolutions, but they have been continually ignored by the Russian Federation. Instead, steps have been taken that have made the situation even worse. Today, as we discuss what to do about the Russian delegation, the Russian Federation Council has ratified a so-called integration agreement with the occupied region of South Ossetia. The Russian Federation is attempting fully to absorb two occupied Georgian regions – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – into its political, legal and military field. That is one reason colleagues tabled Amendment 15, which mentions Georgia. It offers an example of Russia disregarding three resolutions adopted by the Assembly. We have to respect our commitments and resolutions, which is why I urge colleagues to support the amendment, which mentions Georgia and the occupied territories together with Ukraine.

      The decision is not easy, but I support the rapporteur’s resolution. We should try once more to maintain an open and constructive dialogue, but we should make it clear that the number of chances is not unlimited; at some point, there should be a last chance. Otherwise, good will turns into appeasement, and chances turn into an inability to act. We should give engagement one last chance, but if there is no progress come January, I hope that we will vote unanimously for the annulment of the credentials of the Russian Federation.

      Ms ZALISHCHUK (Ukraine) – Just one hour ago, in Room 5, Russian leaders of the opposition presented a report entitled “Putin’s War”, which sets out undeniable facts about Russian military aggression against Ukraine. I remind the Assembly that this report was initiated by Boris Nemtsov, who was recently brutally killed just 100 metres from the Kremlin. Symbolically, the report was presented on the eve of the vote on this resolution.

      This is only my second Parliamentary Assembly part-session. I am new to politics, and idealistic enough to remember reading in books that the Council of Europe was created after the Second World War by European politicians who were driven to bring peace to our part of the world. The Council of Europe, with other international organisations, has written the bible of modern geopolitics and peaceful co-existence among European nations. The first commandment of that bible says: “You shall not violate the States’ territorial integrity.” Today, on the eve of the vote on the resolution, let me remind you that one member country of the Council of Europe has brutally redrawn the boundaries of another member country. A simple conclusion can be drawn: either we re-tailor the rules of the Council of Europe to fit the new reality, or we take the tough decisions necessary to show that these violations are not acceptable.

      There are many problems in many countries, and the Magnitsky case could have happened somewhere else. Anna Politkovskaya could have been killed by others in power. Alexander Litvinenko could have been poisoned by authorities from another country. Mr Khodorkovsky could have been imprisoned for challenging someone else’s presidential ambitions. But those events did not happen in another country. They happened in Russia. The annexation of Crimea and the occupation of the Donbass are simply Russia’s punishment of Ukraine for daring to challenge its imperial ambition by choosing Europe. It is difficult to appreciate that Crimea, which Putin illegally annexed, is equal in size to half of Estonia. There are 1 million internally displaced persons in Ukraine, a number which is equal to one third of Lithuania’s population.

      As a Ukrainian with Russian blood, I know that it is impossible to build peace in Europe without Russia. However, in building that peace, we must not forget to include the words “democratic Russia”. If we want to show Russia what democracy is, we should vote for the resolution on further consideration of the annulment of Russia’s credentials.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I am grateful to Assembly members for their support in resolving the current conflict in Ukraine. On 28 June, it will be six months since Resolution 2034 was adopted. In this resolution, the Assembly imposed 21 conditions and obligations. However, none of those obligations has yet been met. I am disappointed about some of the statements in the report. It mentions a lack of progress but, as we know, there has been no progress. The obligations have been cynically and totally ignored. The OSCE special monitoring mission to Ukraine has stated in reports that it has seen a “massive” increase in the number of cease-fire violations in eastern Ukraine. Moreover, Russian-controlled separatists violate the cease-fire regime approximately 100 times daily. There was a dramatic example of this in June in Marinka. Separatists destroyed more than 100 houses during their attack with heavy weapons. The Russian Federation fails daily to implement the Minsk agreement although it signed it.

      Mr Stefan Schennach has called on the Russian delegation to establish a constructive and open dialogue. It is difficult to believe it will happen. The Russian Federation speaks the language of a military dictatorship, while the Assembly speaks the language of democratic values, human rights and freedoms. It is clear from the Russian Federation’s actions over a long period that it does not support – indeed, it ignores and violates – many European values, and it does not implement its international obligations.

      Of course Ukraine is not perfect. We have many issues that need to be addressed and obligations that need to be implemented. However, our country does its best. It has demonstrated that it desires to continue to make progress and to make more changes which will lead to improvement in all spheres of life. The Council of Europe needs to call a spade a spade, not only on the situation in Ukraine but in dealing with all issues in the Council of Europe generally. The Russian Federation does not respect or follow the values and charter of the Council of Europe. Moreover, it does not express good will as regards continuing the dialogue within the European framework. The consequences of such actions have been clearly set out in the Organisation’s charter. All member States must respect and follow these basic documents.

      Signals of strong disapproval and expressions of deep concern, such as Ukraine receives daily from our international partners, have the same effect in the current conflict as pressing the “like” button does on the Facebook page of a child who is dying of cancer and needs immediate help.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I am not planning to start off, as one often does, by thanking the rapporteur. Rather, I wish to signal my profound disagreement with what is being proposed – that is, not to annul the credentials of the Russian Federation. Notwithstanding the fact that the report recognises that the Russian side has not made progress on Resolution 2034, the committee nevertheless recommends that the Assembly should recognise the Russian delegation. There is a lack of consistency here between the premise and the conclusion. The obvious conclusion is not drawn from the premise as it is set out. Using the phrase “not annul”, rather than affirming that the Russian delegation’s credentials should be validated, could lead to confusion.

      The Russian delegation has made no progress whatever. Indeed, it is in breach of the vast majority of the commitments it made to the Organisation. Accepting the Russian delegation would therefore amount to our implicitly countenancing the Moscow authorities’ breach of all standards of international law. Crimea and eastern Ukraine are in the process of being used to redraw the map as it was during the Cold War of the former Soviet Union.

      Transnistria is subordinated to the interests of the Russian Federation by the unlawful maintenance of forces on the territory of an independent State, namely the Republic of Moldova. We therefore have to ask ourselves just how much more time the Russian Federation needs to honour its commitments – those that it has so far failed to respect. When will it withdraw its troops from the territory of the Republic of Moldova? How many more international organisations will have to call on Russia to do that before it takes this step?

      A first step in that direction was taken recently, although not by the Russian Federation, but by the Ukrainian Parliament, which denounced the agreement that gave Russian troops the authority to transit through Ukrainian territory. The so-called peacekeeping mission in Transnistria gives Moscow a pretext to maintain its troops and is essentially tantamount to exercising control over the region, which is an integral part of an independent State that has enjoyed international recognition for two decades.

      Russia is turning Ukraine and Crimea into new theatres of the Cold War. That is why I categorically restate my refusal to allow members of the Assembly to approve the Russian delegation’s entry to the Parliamentary Assembly.

      THE PRESIDENT – I remind members that they need to stick to three minutes to allow other colleagues to speak. I do not see Mr Stroe in the Chamber, so I call Sir Edward Leigh.

      Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – It seems to me that we are establishing an interesting precedent this afternoon. What we are saying is that if you are a member of the Council of Europe, you can invade another member of the Council of Europe, but you will not be kicked out of the Council of Europe. That is an interesting precedent. I will ask you to bear it in mind in a couple of years’ time, because the British Government – with my full support, I have to say, and that of all other Conservatives – is determined to proclaim the supremacy of our Parliament and repeal the Human Rights Act, while probably building the Convention into the new British Bill of Rights.

      To return to the situation with Russia, it seems to me that we are in rather a paradoxical position. Perhaps we could be accused of hypocrisy, but I do not think we have any choice but to act as we are acting. I personally and my group believe that we should preserve the status quo, which is quite simple. Russia is effectively being wrapped across her knuckles. She has been deprived of her voting rights, but she is very welcome to turn up here whenever she wants to and engage in dialogue with us. Speaking for myself, I think it would be a wholly retrograde step if we listened to some of the more extreme voices asking us to expel Russia. Russia, you may remember, was welcomed into the Council of Europe in the late 1990s. She signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998. The former spectre of Europe was brought into the family of nations. For all the faults in Russia – and there are a very large number – she has made progress on many fronts.

      Russia has, of course, acted absolutely appallingly in Ukraine. While I for one would never condone her actions, we have to have some understanding of history and, if we are to be logical and sensible in our arguments, to understand Russia’s point of view. That is not to condone what Russia has done; it is to understand it. It is to understand, for instance, that with the stroke of a pen Khrushchev signed away Crimea, against the wishes of the Crimean people, from Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s. Ukraine has always been a heavily divided country, as we know, between west and east. These are the facts of history. Difficult as they are, we have to recognise them. For all the faults of Russia, we in this Assembly would be wise to remember that we are a forum of the people in Europe attempting to get peace and dialogue between the nations of Europe. We should therefore support the rapporteur and maintain the status quo.

      THE PRESIDENT – I said at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting that I had to interrupt the list of speakers at 3.50 p.m. I am sorry to say that that is what I must now do. 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.

      I call Mr Schennach, the rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes and 15 seconds.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I am very grateful indeed to all members of the Parliamentary Assembly who have taken part in what has been an extremely intense as well as emotional debate today. That is perfectly comprehensible. Family conflicts and breakdowns are always associated with emotions running high, and the Council of Europe is the only institution in which we come together as parliamentarians.

      It may well be that some of the words used as the result of aggression, the violation of a country and deaths are particularly harsh. We heard Valeriu Ghiletchi quote the words of priests and bishops. We heard quotations from the Bible, some motivated by anger, but at the end of his contribution, he said that without dialogue we would not get anywhere. Mr Neguta, another speaker from Moldova, said he felt that there no demands were being made of Ukraine. Although both sides are mentioned many times in the report, we need to make clear exactly who the victim of the aggression is. That comes through very clearly in my report.

      Let me turn to our colleagues from Georgia. I can fully understand them, because we have had resolution after resolution on the occupation of Abkhazia and Ossetia and our attempts to reclaim those territories, which belong to Georgia. I can therefore well understand their dismay at the way this situation is being characterised. However, Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven provinces stand as a stark warning to us all. If we simply leave things in Ukraine as they are and do not do everything in our power politically – that is, if we do not engage in political dialogue and use all international instruments – we are likely to add a further frozen conflict to all the ones that have been ongoing for decades.

      Bob Walter hit the nail on the head when he said that here we are only talking about whether or not we should annul the previously ratified credentials of 36 members of the Russian Duma. What we decide here will change nothing when it comes to the sanctions. The sanctions are in place and they will be maintained in their entirety. That is why I invite you all to be clear about precisely what it is we are talking about today. In January, we formulated 21 conditions. The report I have submitted to you today will put in place further demands, on top of those 21 conditions. I should also like to mention the contributions of Ms Schneider-Schneiter, Ms Durrieu, Ms Zalishchuk and Ms Schou to the debate.

      This is what it boils down to. We are trying to embark on a difficult path. It was Sir Edward Leigh who talked at the end of his contribution about the familiarity of the Russian populace with basic democratic standards and the level thereof, compared with other European societies.

      We stand for and champion the values of the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, we have to try to convey those values through dialogue. The committee resolved that we did not wish to see conflicts between member States. We believe that Crimea will be one of the most important items on the agenda in the weeks and months to come. I thank all members for this emotional and committed debate, and urge you all to vote in favour of the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does the vice-chair of the committee want to add anything?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I was highly impressed by many speeches in this decent debate. Despite our disappointment, anger and indignation about what Russia is doing, we want to keep the door open. If we annul the credentials of the Russian delegation, we just wash our hands and recognise that we can do nothing. I call on colleagues to support the report prepared by Mr Schennach and the amendments that have been supported by the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT – The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution to which 15 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled.

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

      I understand that the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 5, 11 and 14 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that the case?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? As there is no objection, I declare that these amendments to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      Amendments 5, 11 and 14 are adopted.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 1.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We proposed Amendment 1 because we all know that there are not only two sides of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Even if Russia does not recognise its participation, it is a fact. Just an hour ago, at lunchtime, in the presentation of the Nemtsov report in room 5, it was mentioned that Russian troops are also part of the conflict.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 2.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We have a lot of facts about torture and killings of Ukrainian soldiers captured by pro-Russian led terrorists. We want those words and facts mentioned in the resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Cilevičs to support Sub-amendment 1.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The sub-amendment is aimed at sticking to the exact language and facts that were explained in the explanatory memorandum.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – As a compromise, we can agree to the sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – The Monitoring Committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.

      The vote is open.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We state in the report that we are looking for dialogue. With this, we add one part of the story and forget the other part of the story, which is that many people – insurgents and citizens – on the other side of the conflict have already been killed, massacred and tortured. By adding this, we are forgetting and closing our eyes to the fact that people on the other side have been injured, wounded and killed. That does not make the report more balanced. We should be fair and mention everything, which this amendment does not do. Therefore, I am against it.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 3.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Not moved.

      THE PRESIDENT – Amendment 3 is not moved. I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 4.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We propose to include in the report updated news of the brutal violation of the Minsk agreement that happened after the signing of the second Minsk agreement, including the shelling of Debaltseve and Marinka.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Once again, there are unfortunately many violations of the Minsk II agreement. This is horrible because it was agreed; but to now only mention what has been done by one side and forget what is stated by international observers – that there is violation of Minsk II from the Ukrainian side – does not make sense. It disturbs the balance of the report. I hope that the Assembly will be fair and reject the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Schennach to support Amendment 10 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – With this amendment, we want to show the lack of willingness regarding the neighbouring States, and the implications. It includes the relation to Abkhazia and Ossetia, but also to Transnistria. We want to specially express that it is not only Ukraine; there is also a lack of willingness regarding the neighbour States. Therefore, I promised the committee to put the amendment into the report.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      I call Mr Agramunt to support Amendment 6.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – This is a technical amendment to increase flexibility, particularly for the ad hoc committee that is charged with this mission. We would also like to involve rapporteurs who are responsible for other matters. I believe that the amendment would improve the text.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – In the sub-committee that deals with conflicts between member States, we had a long discussion about this, and we decided that we preferred to use a format for the mission that the Council of Europe used many years ago regarding Abkhazia and Ossetia. The matter comes under the remit of the Monitoring Committee. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons are invited to take part, but it falls under the responsibility of the Monitoring Committee. That format has worked well.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 7.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – This is a question of definition. The term “insurgent forces” is used in pro-Russian propaganda. The term “pro-Russian illegal armed groups” appears often in the report, so we propose to change the definition here.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Mr Ariev says that it is a matter of definition, and I agree. In that case, we should use the definition that is used in the Minsk II treaty, which is not “pro-Russian illegal armed groups” but “insurgent forces”. Following Mr Ariev, we should not adopt the amendment because it changes the language from that used in the treaty.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 8.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – After the call to the Russian Federation immediately to reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea, it is absolutely logical to demand that it withdraws all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. The Assembly should support the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – My group is very much in favour of ending the conflict and following the Minsk agreement, but the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory is not based on fact. The Russian Federation do not agree with it, and international organisations do not have a clear position on the matter. If we are looking for solutions, we should not add things that are argued by only one side and are not proven. They might be true, or they might be false. We should add only facts, not possible facts.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 9.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – This amendment doubles Amendment 7.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The same goes for me. If we follow Mr Ariev’s theory that we should use the official language and the official definitions, the amendment should not be accepted because it would change that language. I do not see what is strange about my resistance to the amendment. Of course, it is up to the Assembly to decide, but I do not see the point of it. Mr Ariev is in favour of holding to the definition, and then he changes it.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Kandelaki to support Amendment 15.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The rapporteur, Mr Schennach, described well how the situation of Georgia and Russia fits into the context of what we are discussing today, and I thank him for that. The amendment simply refers to Council of Europe resolutions on the consequences of war between Georgia and Russia. The text of the amendment is present, word for word, in two previous resolutions on the same subject from April this year and April last year. With the agreement of the rapporteur, the wording was included in two previous resolutions, and as far as I know he does not oppose it now. I understand that the committee’s rejection of the amendment was down to a technical misunderstanding. As the saying goes, manuscripts do not burn. For the sake of keeping the record straight, please support reference to the resolutions adopted by the Assembly on the consequences of war between Georgia and Russia.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 15 is rejected.

      I call Ms Zalishchuk to support Amendment 13.

      Ms ZALISHCHUK (Ukraine) – Several weeks ago, President Putin issued a decree in which he classified information about military casualties among Russian troops. Through the amendment, we urge the Russian Government to provide the public with fair information about the death of Russian soldiers. We think that access to public information is a fundamental right of open and democratic societies.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I am always in favour of providing the public with fine and accurate information, but the position of the Government of the Russian Federation is that there are no Russian regular troops in Ukraine, so we already know the answer. The amendment would add something that would not help us at all. Let us concentrate on what really matters and not add things that do not help to overcome the huge conflict in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Vareikis to support Amendment 12 on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – This is a technical point. We have a resolution about annulment or non-annulment of the credentials, but Rule 10 states that we have two opportunities to ratify or not to ratify credentials. Formally, non-annulment means ratification, so the committee, following Rule 10, proposes that we should ratify rather than not annul the credentials.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs is somewhat wrong on this, because Resolution 2034 states that the Assembly resolved to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation at its June 2015 sitting. We are taking the decision not to annul. That is very clear, legally and linguistically. If we were to use the word “confirm”, we would simply give comfort to the Russian delegation.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13800, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      I thank the rapporteur, the committee and all participants for the manner in which a difficult question was debated.

3. Situation in Hungary following the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1941 (2013)

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report titled “Situation in Hungary following the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1941 (2013)”, Document 13806, presented by Mr Walter on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with opinions presented by Mr Díaz Tejera, who is rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13831, and by Mr Flego, who is rapporteur for the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13832.

      In order to finish by 6.10 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 5.35 p.m. to allow time for replies and votes. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes. I call Mr Walter to present on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The report stems from a resolution that was before the Assembly a few years ago, in which it was proposed that Hungary be placed under our monitoring procedure. When the Monitoring Committee report on that proposal came to the Assembly in 2013, it was decided that it would be inappropriate to put Hungary into the monitoring procedure but that the issues raised in the proposal should be considered by the Assembly and the matter was referred to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. I was subsequently appointed as the rapporteur of the committee to consider the situation in Hungary in those particular areas.

      This report is not about the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. He is a controversial figure. Some would say that you either love him or hate him, but I can think of many controversial politicians, prime ministers and presidents among member States of the Assembly, not least in my own country. Margaret Thatcher was a controversial politician, and one or two members of the Assembly – members of my delegation – will have strong views both ways on her. Tony Blair also generates strong views. I have heard strong views both ways on Silvio Berlusconi. Nicolas Sarkozy, Václav Klaus, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Alexis Tsipras all have their friends and supporters. That is not what this report is about. Much emotion has been generated about personality and style, but this report is about Resolution 1941, which asked me to look at five areas of the Hungarian Constitution. In those five areas, the Hungarian Parliament, in which one party had secured a two-thirds majority, had made changes to the constitution and to cardinal laws. The areas included freedom of religion and the status of churches, how elections are conducted, the constitutional court, the judiciary and the media.

      Regarding the Hungarian Church Act, it is a fact, as reflected in the resolution, that the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 8 April 2014 found a violation of Article 11 on the freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights. Read in the light of Article 9 on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Act questioned and violated the rights of religious communities when it stripped churches of their status. It is my opinion, however, that nobody in Hungary is prevented from worshipping whomever they wish and in whatever manner.

      Regarding the redrawing of electoral districts, the parliament thought it reasonable to redraw the boundaries in response to a decision by the constitutional court. The opposition parties claimed that that was unfair, but the Venice Commission did not find evidence of unfair redistricting. I concluded, however, that the process should be conducted by an independent body. The Hungarian authorities have shown ongoing co-operation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and others on these matters. The Venice Commission clearly criticised the restriction of the constitutional court on economic matters. As mentioned in the report, no statutory changes were made following the commission’s opinion. There is no requirement that the constitutional court’s judges should have been judges before, although a cooling-down period would make sense.

      On the judiciary, the issue of the transfer of cases between judges has been resolved with the help of the Secretary General of this Organisation. The position of chairperson of the national judicial office has also been severely limited.

      The Venice Commission has been asked to produce an opinion on media matters, which is reflected in some of the amendments to the resolution.

      While we welcome the measures taken by the Hungarian authorities and the ongoing co-operation of the Secretary General, we encourage Hungary to continue the open and constructive dialogue with the different Council of Europe interlocutors and other international organisations. I still stand by my opinion of two years ago: I am still confident that the Assembly made the right decision not to open the monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary. Based on my report and the resolution before us today, I do not believe we need to continue with any special examination of the kind that I have carried out in respect of Hungary. However, I do note that some people still have concerns and to reassure them I say that I know the Monitoring Committee is now looking at every single member State of the Council of Europe, not just those in monitoring and post-monitoring, to see how compliant they are with their obligations as members of this organisation, and I understand that Hungary will come under the scrutiny of that committee next year. It would therefore, to my mind, be illogical for us to open up a parallel process, which would happen if I were to continue my work or a successor rapporteur were to take it up.

      I hope the Assembly will accept my recommendations and resolution, and I hope we can decide to wish Hungary well while at the same time reminding it that it still has work to do to meet its obligations as a member of this Organisation.

(Mr Giovagnoli, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Brasseur.)

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Walter. You have five minutes remaining.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You have three minutes.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – The committee has done a very good job. We commend the work done by Mr Walter and others. There are five amendments, and we think they are pretty reasonable. They are merely legal amendments; we do not engage in any political assessment as we believe the lead committee is responsible for doing that. These five legal amendments are all relevant in my view, and were all carried in the committee, with the exception of one. I flag that up as ordinarily committees approve amendments, but I think Amendment 4 is fairly reasonable. It addresses the “Chairperson of the National Judicial Office” who can remove names from a list of candidates for appointments to the post of judge proposed by the government.

      The Hungarian Government has accepted five of the reforms proposed by the Venice Commission, and we are talking here about highly specialised legal reports. I have taken part in this work as a representative of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, so I know these are high-quality, in-depth reports. Notwithstanding the receptive attitude, even though more curbs have been put in place, the situation whereby the head of the NJO can have names removed from a list has not been ended, nor is there any right of appeal against a decision, so decisions can be arbitrary, and they are discretionary decisions, which is at odds with our conception of the rule of law. That is why I commend Amendment 4. I hope the plenary Assembly will support it. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights asked me to speak on their behalf in the plenary.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Flego to present the opinion on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – Since at least 2008, we have reminded members of our Assembly that the media are crucial for the public space and for constructing public opinion for democracy and freedom. This is why we produce regular biannual reports on the freedom of the media. Our resolutions, critical remarks, suggestions and recommendations are friendly attempts to bring the mentioned countries to adhere to the rules and standards of the Council of Europe, as they are obliged to do.

      That is the case with Hungary. Since 2010, the Hungarian so-called media package has provoked much criticism. I will mention only a few of the criticisms: the Commissioner for Human Rights’ reports of 2011 and 2014, and the resolutions on media freedom in 2013 and 2015.

      After that resolution and the report of Mr Walter, two new documents have been published. First, there is the opinion of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, which also heavily criticised Hungary, and after our request to the Venice Commission to analyse the media situation in Hungary, it issued its opinion on 19 June, based on expert analysis of a normative legislative level, not analysis of practice and everyday behaviour. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media proposes the enclosed report for opinion and submits four amendments which are very factual. They repeat some elements of the mentioned documents and of the international expert opinion. That is why we think it is important to adopt them. On the other hand of course, the Council of Europe keeps repeating that dialogue with Hungary needs to be continued, and our amendments have been proposed with that in mind, too.

      THE PRESIDENT – We will now hear from the spokespersons from the political groups, starting with Mr Corsini of the Socialist Group.

      Mr CORSINI (Italy)* – I hope this afternoon’s debate will take place in accordance with our parliamentary customs and traditions. I say that because, sadly, in the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media yesterday Mr Flego was the target of unpleasant remarks. I mention him by name because we are looking at this issue in terms of comparative analysis of his text and the provisions of the resolution. What emerges from a close reading of those texts is as follows.

      First, the law on churches should be reviewed in the light of the observations of the European Court of Human Rights. The law on the constitutional court has not been amended as advocated in the relevant recommendations. On the press and the media, the Media Council has not been separated from the Media Authority, and further restrictive measures have been introduced on top of those already in place, as has been mentioned by many observers of the democratic institutions. The electoral system continues to confer an unfair advantage on the governing party, because it gives a two-thirds majority to whichever party has just 44% of the vote. That is not how it should be if we are to have popular democratic representation. The Venice Commission has said that the constitution should not be the expression of the will of a single political party rather than the will of the people as a whole. Those are the basic premises on which we should base our discussion.

      We should go beyond the texts and look closely at the choices we have to make. We need an holistic political analysis of the situation. What, precisely, does that approach mean? First, we are particularly worried about the emergence in Hungary of the Jobbik party, which is populist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic. It is not simply a Eurosceptic party, but an all-out anti-European party. Jobbik has influence on various sectors of public opinion. Moreover, we have also seen in Hungary the capture of the State – we have come to have an authoritarian democracy, if I can use a term that Marc Lazar would have used. We are seeing a kind of government authoritarianism emerge, so we need to use the recommendation to look at what changes can be made and what amendments we can make to the text to bring about further improvement. We would like to see more democratic spirit from the leaders of Hungary.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Fischer to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany)* – Hungary is a free, independent, democratic country. It has held a number of free and fair elections that fully comply with Council of Europe standards. It is only because one of the electoral outcomes does not please people that Hungary is being pilloried. Hungary has also committed to membership of the Council of Europe, thereby committing to complying with certain principles and engagements, to which it really must stick. The Council of Europe should ensure that those commitments are honoured.

      If there is a majority of more than two thirds – as is the case in Germany, where the grand coalition has a three-quarters majority – we have to set very high thresholds. Sometimes the minority or opposition is not taken seriously enough. It is right and proper for the Council of Europe to mention that. My group has sometimes spoken for and sometimes against Hungary in political discussions, and the political parties we deal with have closer or looser affinities. Sometimes, when the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy was discussing the amendments, I felt that people’s arguments had less to do with the situation in Hungary than whether the Socialist Group, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe or the European Conservatives Group was in the majority.

      Nevertheless, we have adopted a very clear position: we want Hungary to stick to the agreements. The report drafted by Robert Walter is excellent, and we can discuss each of its points. I ask all members to look closely at all the amendments, independently of any political affiliation, and judge them on their proper value. It is important that we send very clear signals to Hungary, but it is also important that we have agreed to subject all 47 member States to monitoring procedures in future. The older western European countries should not feel that they are better than the other countries, so it is important that we state clearly that we will stand by what we have agreed. We are here to set standards and to strengthen the Council of Europe’s position. I hope that Hungary will continue on the path it has embarked upon, and I wish it all the best. It has achieved quite a lot, but still has a long way to go. I have no doubt that the issues will be addressed.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Mr David Davies, so I call Ms Lundgren to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – I thank Robert Walter for the report and congratulate him on behalf of ALDE. My group does not speak with one voice: there are differences within it, as I am sure members will hear later in the debate. Nevertheless, we all want to see Hungary standing up for our values – human rights, democracy and the rule of law – and safeguarding freedom and prosperity for the Hungarian people. That is why we are worried when we hear about the fences. We applauded Hungary when it tore them down previously – remember that.

      We are very concerned that the introduction of the death penalty has been brought up. The abolition of the death penalty is a basic value of the Council of Europe. We were also concerned that the report from Freedom House has downgraded Hungary from a consolidated democracy to a semi-consolidated democracy. But that is not an issue in this report, as such. Because we are concerned about the Hungarian people, we are concerned when reading all the reports – there are many – from the Venice Commission on different laws; the latest, on media legislation, was adopted just a couple of days ago. Having read the reports, heard what has been said and seen what has been done, the Assembly has to be careful. Beware: if, today, we give a green light when there has been a lack of results, we will accept that it is enough to talk the talk without walking the walk.

      I urge colleagues to support the amendments that make clearer the wishes of the Assembly. We should keep up and follow closely the work of the Hungarian authorities. If anyone wants to fool themselves, they should be assured that they can. This debate is about whether Hungary should be put under the Monitoring Committee procedure, but none of us has seen the outcome of that procedure. We do not know what we are asking for.

      The situation is specific. We have read the Venice Commission’s report, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) media report, and the report by the European Court of Human Rights. As Mr Walter’s report points out, there remain things to be done concerning churches, electoral law, the constitutional court and judiciary, and media law. This is a question not about personality or belonging to a particular political group, but about the need to stick to our values.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Jónasson on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur, Robert Walter, for his work and his report. He reminded us that, in June 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary because of the changes that had been made to the Hungarian Constitution and to the fundamental law. The 2013 report stated that “the sheer accumulation of reforms…aim to establish political control of most key institutions while in parallel weakening the system of checks and balances”. The final decision was not to open such a monitoring procedure, but “to closely follow the situation in Hungary and to take stock of the progress achieved in the implementation of this resolution”. That is what this report is about.

      The rapporteur said that some success has been achieved. He outlined how the changes and reforms made in the judiciary are to the good, but there are still criticisms. The report refers to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Mr Nils Muižnieks, who pointed out last summer that the media still suffer from both an inadequate legal framework and political pressures. The report mentions very harsh condemnations by the political opposition in Hungary: “according to the Socialist Party, the government led by Viktor Orbán no longer makes even the slightest official attempt to comply with the basic principles of liberal democracy concerning State organisation and protection of the law, the promotion of which is the most important mission of the Council of Europe”. I think we have all received the warning words issued by Human Rights Watch, and the latest news raises concerns about the decision to prevent people from seeking asylum in Hungary.

      However, the conclusion of the Group of the Unified European Left is that the process has had a positive result – we have had some success – and should be kept going. We will therefore for Amendment 7 to the draft resolution.

      THE PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of spokespeople for political groups. Mr Walter does not wish to respond at this stage, so I call Mr Rouquet.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* - I thank the rapporteur. The case of Hungary is far from being the most problematic one that we have to deal with, but it illustrates a recurring difficulty for our Assembly: what do we do when a State crosses the yellow line to a degree that is more or less serious? Do we reach for sanctions? Cutting off a country de jure or de facto is a weapon that, if it does not lead to results, can rebound on those who launched it. If we choose that option, all communication between us will cease, and we will have to pass on the task to other organisations, such as the OSCE. Such initiators of sanctions either have to renounce all dialogue or to go back on their word, which is extremely difficult in practice. Any resemblance to the case of Russia is of course purely incidental.

      Do we merely denounce such a state in the classic fashion? That is not very satisfactory. We have done that with Azerbaijan, for example, and everyone knows what the results have been. Bolstered by its natural resources and geostrategic position, Azerbaijan is slipping further and further away from our values. Do we stand by as an observer? With “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, we just made statements about how the situation was deteriorating.

      Another sanction would be to open or reopen a monitoring procedure, but what happens when we come up against indifference or, even worse, a negative reaction? Well aware of this dilemma, we decided not to open a monitoring procedure for Hungary, but to keep a close eye on the evolving situation and to sum up what was being achieved to try to play our part, without embarking on a conflictual game of power.

      What has been the result? I will start by stressing the positive aspects. Dialogue has been kept up and improvements have been noted, as the rapporteur said. That essential point legitimises the decision taken in 2013. However, there are still sizeable problems, such as the attacks on media freedoms. Even more seriously, Hungary seems to want to withdraw from Europe and move towards the kind of nationalism that is so disturbing, given the history of our continent. That feeling is further aggravated by the prime minister’s provocative declarations. Amnesty International has exposed the real witch hunt that the government is leading against non-governmental organisations, and the latest report on human rights from the US State Department lists a whole series of problems.

      In these circumstances, it seems to me premature to put a stop to the process of taking stock of what is happening in Hungary. It is even less opportune for us to lower our guard given that on 19 May 2015, after hearing Mr Orbán, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to create a monitoring mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. That would duplicate the efforts of the Council of Europe, but we should not, just to avoid such duplication, hand down a verdict of good conduct to a State that could do better.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – I am grateful to Robert Walter not only for this report but, as he is close to completing his activities in the Council of Europe, for the very British balance he represents in the Chamber. Such balance is very well reflected in the report on Hungary.

      It is not just the past two years that have been important, but the past five years – since the fundamental changes in Hungary. During that period, Hungary has been in close consultation with the Council of Europe and other European institutions, such as the European Union and the OSCE. That is especially true of the Parliamentary Assembly. We are very grateful to the Secretary General, who has played his role in that type of co-operation, and I underline the pivotal role played by the Venice Commission. Such co-operation demonstrates how legal fine-tuning is possible in democratic member States. For me, it is a model of co-operation, with the member State undergoing fundamental reform. I believe that the Council of Europe has proved a very effective instrument in the fine-tuning process.

      What is the situation in Hungary today? I am sure that you know about the German Council on Foreign Relations, led by Mr Dohnányi. He has recently published a report on Hungary, and I want to quote an organisation that is really independent and autonomous. The report notes that Hungary is a working democracy, with free elections. There is an independent judiciary, including at the higher level, the independence of the constitutional court. The press is free, and freedom of religion is guaranteed.

      Obviously Hungary makes mistakes. The question is not whether we commit mistakes, but about our ability to correct them. I believe that we have been able to do that, with the help of the Council of Europe. The basic question of the report and for the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy is about whether to continue or to terminate the special examination of Hungary. In my opinion, that examination should be terminated. The committee decided that in Rome and will commit to that position twice today, and I hope that that will not be questioned. Hungary will co-operate smoothly with the Council of Europe.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I, too, thank our colleague, Bob Walter, for his work on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. None the less, my conclusion is different from his. I believe that it is necessary for our Assembly to continue to monitor Hungary’s respect for its obligations. That does not mean putting a great and beautiful country on trial; rather, it means stating firmly and solemnly that concern over its respect for various fundamental rights has arisen as a result of a number of legislative developments and political announcements, and that concern remains.

      Examples of what I am talking about include the restrictions on the power of the constitutional court and the independence of the central bank; the restrictions on the freedom of the press and the possibility of financial penalties being imposed on any content considered contrary to common or public morality or not to be sufficiently impartial; the persistence of ethnically based violence and widespread anti-Semitism, which the government appears not to be tackling; discrimination against the Roma community in access to schools, housing and health and in participation in political life; the increased use of administrative detention; and the deplorable living conditions in reception centres for asylum seekers. Another example is the government’s campaign against NGOs, particularly those based outside the country.

      Many international institutions have said that they remain concerned about respect for fundamental rights in Hungary, including the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Venice Commission, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Parliament and the European Commission. Are we going to heed none of their comments? Only a few weeks ago in Hungary, the reintroduction of the death penalty was being considered. Now, there is talk of building a four-metre high wall along the border with Serbia. That is also borne out by the recent unilateral announcement to suspend Dublin III in reference to asylum seekers. Those things are far from reassuring.

      The Council of Europe is supposed to be the home of law within Europe, and we are, but we cannot just say that scant progress in a few areas in recent years means that the Hungarian Government is doing well enough. Special examination by the Parliamentary Assembly of the situation with fundamental rights in Hungary has to continue for Hungary’s sake and for Europe’s sake.

      Mr TUZSON (Hungary) – I thank Robert Walter for the report. It was very balanced and, though I do not fully agree with all its content, I can accept it. Mr Walter put effort into understanding the questions asked by the Assembly and invested time in getting real information about Hungary. I thank everyone who took part in the development of democracy in Hungary and contributed to the fact that we can talk about Hungary as a place where the rule of law governs.

      Hungary has done a lot since 1990 to strengthen democratic institutions. In 2011, a landmark was reached when the country adopted a new constitution that preserved the institutions established in 1990. It is the first constitution in Hungary to be accepted by a freely and democratically elected parliament. The previous constitution was adopted before 1990, during the dictatorship. We appreciate the helpful co-operation of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. It examined the issues and the report proposes the closing of the special examination. We have made sincere efforts to address concerns about Hungary’s democratic institutions and, when it was needed, we modified laws to make them acceptable for the international community. The Venice Commission helped a lot in that work. I appreciate that the members of the Venice Commission came to Hungary, allowing us to confer about Hungary and the state of Hungarian democracy.

      Hungary is a democratic State where we pay real attention to the freedom of religion, the transparency of the electoral system, the independence of the constitutional court and the judicial system and the freedom of the press. The new constitution guarantees those rights. The new laws build on the new constitution and define the detailed rules of the rights I have mentioned. Hungary modified those rules several times according to the recommendations of the international community, and we are convinced that the laws fully harmonise with international law.

      Hungary is open to dialogue and welcomes recommendations and the experience of other countries. Every country has public law traditions that are in harmony with democracy, but that differ from other countries’ traditions. It is exactly that diversity that makes Europe what it is: a community of democratic countries with different traditions but the same values. I ask the Assembly to support the resolution and again thank you for your helpful co-operation.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – I too congratulate the rapporteur. His report is critical and does not simply give a seal of approval to the Hungarian Government or rubber-stamp it. He highlights several different fields that should be looked into. During the debate, we have heard from people who would like to focus on other fields that are not covered by the report, but it is important to focus on the initial remit given to the rapporteur. As a liberal, there are many things in the report that are not to my liking. I do not agree with a lot of the policies in Hungary. Some of the statements being made – in particular, those on the death penalty – do not please me either, even though some clarification was subsequently provided.

      We should support what the rapporteur said, however, about Hungary continuing to be subject to a procedure by the Monitoring Committee. That is part and parcel of the regular monitoring that all member States undergo, and it will be Hungary’s turn next year, from what I can gather. Next year, we will be able to take stock of the situation and examine what is happening.

      I am also sensitive to the issue of anti-Semitism. My socialist colleague reminded us of that just now. It is true that there are anti-Semitic trends within some segments of Hungarian society, but from what I can see, the government is doing what it can to clamp down on that anti-Semitism. As liberals and perhaps as socialists, we should express disquiet over the weakness of our parties in Hungary. How can it be that in Hungary, where there are free and fair elections, voters do not vote for more liberal or socialist parties? In the past three elections, they have voted for a party that I will not name that is extremely right-wing, racist and ultra-nationalist. That should be of great concern to us all. The rise in power of such parties worries me very much indeed. The Hungarians are not voting for socialist or liberal parties, but for an extreme-right, ultra-nationalist and racist party, and that should be the focus of our attention.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – I state at the outset, in both my national and European capacity, as a member of the Assembly, that my comments are made in the interest of both continuing a bilateral relationship between my country and Hungary and within the European family and of maintaining a strong, active, democratic European Hungarian State. My comments might be perceived as criticisms, but I think they will be helpful to supporting a good democratic political environment in Hungary.

      I agree with the criticism already made. The report highlights some concrete positive steps made by the Hungarian authorities. The recognition of the status of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Hungary as a historical Church was an extremely positive decision after many years of discussions, but I regret that the bilateral agreement between the Hungarian Government and the Romanian Orthodox Church in Hungary on concrete support for the Church and the Romanian minority in Hungary is not yet finalised. I also regret that the proposal on the death penalty was made at the highest political level. Fortunately, it was withdrawn, but it gave bad ideas to others in Europe and the region and created a precedent.

      I also regret the proposals, decisions and management around the important and delicate issue of illegal migration. In that respect, a national consultation was conducted in Hungary on illegal migration/terrorism. That was very risky and not a very European attitude. To raise a wall between Hungary and Serbia or, as we heard from Jobbik, between Romania and Hungary is not very European and would not help to consolidate European solidarity. We saw the discussion within the European Union about management and quotas. It is not fair for Germany and France to support the burden without contributions from others in Europe.

      The report also mentions the electoral legislation and redrawing of electoral districts. I regret that after so many years, the nationalist minorities in Hungary, including the Romanians, are not yet fully represented in the parliament.

I do not agree with the conclusions and proposals of the rapporteur, and I hope that through the amendments we can improve the report.

      Ms MITCHELL (Ireland) – I thank Mr Walter for his work on the report, which, because of the range and complexity of the issues investigated, is a large body of work. I also acknowledge the willingness and openness of the Hungarian authorities to engage with the Secretary General, the Venice Commission and all the other institutions in their efforts to implement the Assembly’s 2013 resolution.

      The recommendation is that the examination of democratic standards in Hungary should be concluded, and I accept that recommendation, but I have to confess that, like others, I have some reservations arising from the lack of progress on some of the original causes for concern and from the emergence of new issues that raise questions about complete adherence to democratic values.

      On the positive side, the Venice Commission was happy that the judiciary had more independence. Similarly, it was satisfied about progress on the treatment of Churches, and the European Court of Human Rights acknowledged that its requirements were in the process of being met. These are very positive developments resulting from the process, but there remain outstanding issues. There are persistent allegations about the freedom of the press and restrictions on the independence of the media. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted the lack of a legal framework and the existence of political pressures. Without unrestricted access to objective information, informed decisions cannot be made by the electorate, no matter how transparent the actual election process might be.

In addition to the specific issues that were the subject of the resolution, there have been further utterances and developments giving cause for concern. Mention has already been made of the remarks about the death penalty, the shortcomings of liberal democracy, the decision to poll all citizens about the dangers to their livelihoods caused by migrants and the announcement last week about building a wall along the border with Serbia. I realise that those were not the subject of scrutiny, and none of these developments is illegal, but taken together they raise questions about Hungary’s commitment to the values of the Council of Europe. They could be viewed as provocative and ethically questionable. This would be worrying in any country, but it is particularly so in one where the government has a large majority.

Notwithstanding that, I welcome the real progress and genuine engagement that has taken place, and I welcome, in particular, the recommendation that constructive dialogue should continue with the Council of Europe institutions and the acceptance by the Hungarian authorities of that recommendation. I agree, therefore, that there is probably no need for further close scrutiny, but I believe that vigilance is necessary to ensure that the promised future progress and dialogue does actually take place. I wish my Hungarian parliamentary colleagues well in future years.

Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I rise to support the leader of my national delegation, Bob Walter, and his resolution, which seeks to conclude the special examination of Hungary. I question why Hungary was singled out for examination in the first place. From the beginning of Viktor Orbán’s time as prime minister, he has been vilified by an angry left, both in Hungary and around Europe. We must remember that he succeeded a socialist government drained of all credibility and standing, as was summed up by the leaked admission by the socialist prime minister that he and his government had lied to the Hungarian people.

At the elections that followed, voters gave Mr Orbán’s party a strong mandate in open elections universally acknowledged as free and fair. Socialists must not forget that democracy does not just apply to those you happen to agree with. Given the strong mandate from the Hungarian electorate, the Fidesz government wisely set about an urgent series of reforms, chief among which was a new constitution finally to replace the Communist-era constitution – drafted in 1949 and heavily amended in 1989 – with one more suited to our democratic age. Prime Minister Orbán described the process of creating this constitution as "the renewal of Hungary on the basis of European values".

A telling sign of its modernity is that Hungary has the distinction of having the first constitution in the world to have been drafted on an iPad. If we seek a measured analysis of the new Hungarian Constitution, we should look no further than to the Federal Republic of Germany, which since 1949 has had a very strong constitutional culture. One of its leading constitutional scholars, Rupert Scholz, has written that: “The Hungarian constitution is a wholly exemplary modern European constitution. It is exceptionally modern in the area of basic rights. It conforms to the charter of basic European rights to an extent that I have not yet seen in other European constitutions. It establishes irrefutably the basic principles of democracy, the constitutional State, and the social State.” The democratically elected majority in parliament passed that law, but the constitutional court objected to one aspect of it. The Hungarian Parliament, under Mr Orbán’s government, then amended the provisions – so things have worked as they should have done and the parliament has responded to what the court wanted.

Mr Orbán has a very different idea of European unity from the consensus among many left-wing people, but many of us in the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, along with our partners in the European Conservatives Group, have a strong affinity with the Hungarian prime minister’s view of Europe and wish him well in the work of reforming his country.

Mr SÁEZ (Spain)* – There are a number of improvements to be made to the report, and although we have the greatest respect for the rapporteur’s work and his recommendations, we cannot share all his conclusions. I also thank the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and Mr Díaz Tejera for the amendments they have tabled.

It was a mistake for Viktor Orbán to say in a press conference in April that for Hungary the issue of the death penalty was still on the table. He apparently has since corrected himself. Nevertheless, we believe that that was a very serious slip. It is not something that we in the European institutions should allow to stand.

      In the part-session in June in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to evaluate the situation in Hungary and to inform the parliament on an annual basis on the state of democracy, rule of law and human rights in the European Union. We welcome the improvements that Bob Walter mentions in his report as well as the conclusions of the Monitoring Committee. However, we believe that there are still problems in Hungary. For example, Prime Minister Orbán has proposed curbs on the Internet in order to curtail freedom of expression. He is also making it more difficult for parliament to exercise democratic scrutiny, the exercise of which we think is essential.

      The original report made 30 recommendations to the political authorities and to Prime Minister Orbán, and the progress in Hungary has been insufficient. I think that Mr Walter himself draws that conclusion in his report in terms of press freedom and judicial independence, for example. Let us consider the European Union’s report on the democratic state of nations across Europe. Of course we need to follow up any findings, and if we see that there are shortcomings, we need to consider the risks to democracy and use that as a stimulus for trying to push for improvements. That is our duty. There are a number of threats, but Mr Walter has nevertheless drawn the conclusion that there has been democratic progress in Hungary.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – The time has come for the Assembly to examine the extent to which Resolution 1941 has been implemented. We have before us the report of Mr Walter, who considered his task a mere stock-taking of the issues listed under paragraph 12 of the resolution in question. We are talking about five concrete issues. Ultimately, what we see – this is reflected also in Mr Walter’s report – is that positive developments have been observed as regards only one issue, the judiciary. The Churches Act is still in force despite the court’s ruling in 2014. The Act on the Constitutional Court has not been amended at all. The media legislation has not been altered in line with the Assembly’s call, as the Venice Commission confirmed some days ago. Finally, the Act on Elections of Members of the Parliament also remains unchanged. Those are the facts. Of the five issues, there has been no tangible progress on four. However, I am convinced that if we concentrate merely on the non-compliance with those four concrete requests, we will miss the point.

In the resolution, this Assembly expresses its deep concerns about “the erosion of democratic checks and balances as a result of the new constitutional framework in Hungary”. The Venice Commission felt the need to underline in respect of Hungary that, “Democracy cannot be reduced to the rule of the majority”, and that the media legislation has also not been altered in line with the Assembly’s call. The OSCE/ODlHR election observers’ report found that, in the parliamentary elections, “the main governing party enjoyed an undue advantage because of restrictive campaign regulations, biased media coverage, and campaign activities that blurred the separation between political party and the State”. In other words, these elections were not fair.

      When the prime minister declares his intention to regain the right at national level to reintroduce the death penalty, to stigmatise migrants as terrorists and to rebuild the iron curtain on the southern border of the European Union; when the European Parliament is compelled to note in a resolution about the situation in Hungary that “recent developments have led to concerns regarding the principles of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in Hungary over the past year, which, taken together, could represent an emerging systemic threat to the rule of law in this member State”, and makes clear references to the Council of Europe’s legal acquis, our Assembly simply cannot turn a blind eye to these worrying tendencies.

With that in mind, we fully support the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, especially Amendment 13, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. That is the only conclusion that can be reached from the facts.

      Mr REIMANN (Switzerland)* – Perhaps I may first tell you something that I personally remember. It was in 1956 and I had just started secondary school. My country, like most countries in the world, was shocked by the popular uprising in Hungary and the way in which it was brutally put down by troops of the Warsaw Pact. In the aftermath, thousands of Hungarian refugees fled the country, and some ended up in Switzerland. We helped them a great deal, and we quickly came to realise that these people merely aspired to what we had had for so long: freedom, self-determination, and freedom once again. A large number of these Hungarians stayed in our country even after the fall of communism in 1989. Today, 60 years later, much younger generations of Hungarians are at the helm. Although the refugees of that time became integrated into our country, they never severed their ties with their country of origin. I therefore know that an overwhelming majority of the Hungarian people want exactly what their ancestors wanted in 1956: freedom, self-determination and as much independence as possible. Elections are free and they will vote for whichever parliamentary candidates convince them that they will best represent their views.

      I therefore have misgivings when it comes to examining in minute detail, or even criticising, developments relating to the rule of law or politics in a country. If in a free country developments are moving in the wrong direction, they can be rectified at the next elections. That is the case in my country and in Hungary. Of course, a country that joins the Council of Europe has to sign up to these standards and submit itself to checks. That is what has been performed by our Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with the report drafted by our British colleague, Robert Walter. His report came to one conclusion that I note with satisfaction: the Hungarian Government has agreed to seek solutions to unresolved issues; a special examination by the Council of Europe is therefore no longer necessary. Perhaps the report is as objective and unspectacular as it is because it was drafted not by left-wing do-gooders but by a Conservative realist.

      The situation was very different recently in the European Union Parliament. At the time, the Hungarian Government came in for stinging criticism with regard to a similar resolution. Hungary seems to have become a left-right problem in which the left-leaning media are compounding the situation. This reminds me of the year 2000 when elections in Austria had led to a coalition being formed between the ÖVP People’s Party and right-wing libertarians from the FPÖ. Half of Europe was up in arms about it and boycotted Austria. They were unwilling to accept the elections and their consequences. So far as I am concerned, Hungary today, like Austria then, is a fundamentally libertarian and democratic State governed by the law – until proven otherwise. Even the European Parliament has failed to do that.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of democracy, equality, freedom, legitimacy, representativeness and transparency are fundamental principles that are always included in its description. These principles mean that all citizens are equal before the law and that everyone has equal access to power. Across central and eastern Europe, democratic institutions have evolved from the ruins of failed systems. A multi-party system, free elections, secret ballots and other aspects of representative government have been rapidly developed since 1989 in many countries in the region. I think that democracy, as a social form that implies co-existence and exchange in a dignified manner, mutual respect, trust and solidarity, is what all countries need.

      As a representative of a Hungarian minority political party living in Serbia, I would like to outline the basic tasks of minority parties, which include the development of the community, the protection of rights, the representation of interests, co-operation with the majority, the maintenance and development of links with the kin State, regional aspirations and the development of community institutions. All these affirm very good co-operation between the two countries in different fields, including infrastructure, agriculture, justice and the European integration process, as well as dialogue about sensitive issues.

      As we all know, two years ago our Assembly decided not to open the monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary, but to closely follow the situation on specific issues and to take stock of the evolving political situation in Hungary, the measures taken and the progress achieved. The report that we are discussing today states that Hungarian officials were very constructive and open to the suggested changes. It welcomes the measures taken by the Hungarian authorities and their co-operation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and it encourages them to continue the dialogue. Hungary is a committed member of the Council of Europe. I, too, believe that further dialogue is essential to develop the rule of law, the protection of human rights and democracy.

The report and the draft resolution before us, as well as several international actors, all firmly state that the judiciary is the area where most progress has been made. Therefore, the rule of law and democracy fully apply in Hungary. Thus, there is a firm commitment on the part of Hungary to respecting human rights and, in legal terms, a lot has been done. I therefore support the report prepared by the rapporteur, as well as the draft resolution and its conclusion that the current procedure – the special examination of these matters – should be concluded.

      (Mr Nikoloski, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Giovagnoli.)

      Mr GULYÁS (Hungary)* – I give heartfelt thanks for all the work done by the rapporteurs. We respect the work of the rapporteurs, Bob Walter from the European Conservatives Group and Mr Díaz Tejera and Mr Flego from the Socialist Group.

      Two years ago, the Council of Europe decided by an overwhelming majority to start a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary. The report levels various criticisms at us, but there is also a recognition that we have a new democratic, law-based constitution for the first time in Hungarian history, and it is one that was adopted by a democratically elected parliament. As has been mentioned, we have also been criticised. We do not necessarily always agree with all those criticisms, but we nevertheless take them on board. When it comes to the judiciary and the media, we have received a good deal of criticism. That is why we have worked closely with the Council of Europe and its Secretary General, Mr Jagland, which is precisely why we have passed media laws and laws on the judiciary, which have been amended in line with the Council of Europe’s recommendations. Let me quote Mr Jagland: “the laws on the media and the judiciary that were so heavily criticised have now been amended, and we are satisfied with that.”

      We have therefore done the homework given to us by the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly is not there now to sit in judgment on democracy, the rule of law and human rights; the question now is whether it is possible to judge a State on the basis of internal political disputes or to condemn it on the basis of party political infighting. I am certain that that is not something the Council of Europe can do. It does not want to get sucked into an ideological and party political debate and it certainly does not want to be exploited. That is why we are grateful to the rapporteurs, and we essentially support the main thrust of Bob Walter’s report.

      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.

      I call Mr Walter to reply. You have five minutes.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I thank all who have participated in this debate. Many did not agree with some of my conclusions, others supported my conclusions and some of talked of the amendments that they are going to propose. Mr Díaz Tejera mentioned the chairman of the National Judicial Office. I should point out again that appeals against the National Judicial Office are possible. I also thank Mr Flego for his comments, which we will discuss when we come to the amendments.

      Mr Corsini mentioned a number of issues, including the Media Council and the Media Authority. These bodies have different functions, and I think some people get them confused. What I would say in response to some of his comments is that the provisions of the constitution were passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Some people may not like it, but that is democracy. He went on to talk about Jobbik, but Jobbik is not part of the government. We have to be careful when we look at Hungary not to give more ammunition to extremist parties, when in fact we have a stable government there.

      I thank Mr Fischer for his support. I know Ms Lundgren’s views – she was the rapporteur when we were considering the monitoring procedure – and I think she still holds them. Others in their speeches acknowledged the progress, but many States, of course, could do better. We talked about the close co-operation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission and the OSCE, in particular the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

      We heard from the Hungarian opposition party, which clearly has a different view on this subject. Some of Mr Harangozó’s opinions were different from mine, but as Mr Reimann said, we have to separate out the left/right perceptions. I have tried to extract the facts from that kind of analysis of this question.

      My view is that Hungary has no political prisoners. There is freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The rule of law persists. There is the right to a fair trial and there are free elections and a functioning parliament. There are some member States of this Organisation of whom we cannot say all those things and those member States are quite rightly in our monitoring or post-monitoring procedures. I have tried in this report to get a sense of perspective into this analysis. It is 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Hungary – which has a long tradition, going back many hundreds of years, but was under communist rule in the post-war years – has redeveloped its parliamentary democracy, but it has flaws. There are issues that need to be addressed. The key message here and in my report is that the Hungarian authorities, Parliament and Government are working with the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and other international interlocutors.

      I have tried to be balanced. I have highlighted the weaknesses, and I emphasise again that my report is not about the politics of Hungary. It is not an opinion piece on Fidesz and Viktor Orbán. I ask colleagues to support my report and to take a balanced view of the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does the vice-chair of the committee wish to speak?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy appreciates Mr Walter’s work on the report. The voting on it was vivid; only four amendments were accepted unanimously. With the rest, the votes were tight. There was even a tie, but most were decided by only one or two votes. The Assembly has the key to resolve the matters on which, in many cases, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy ended up being completely divided.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 13 amendments and one oral sub-amendment have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 8, 3, 12, and 5 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that the case?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare these amendments to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      Amendments 8, 3, 12 and 5 are adopted.

      I draw attention to the fact that Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and Amendment 10, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, are identical. As Amendment 1 was tabled first, I will call the mover of that amendment to move both amendments.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to support Amendments 1 and 10.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – All the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights are technical, legal amendments. They are not the type of amendment in which we claim to make any kind of political assessment of the situation from either the left or the right. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media tabled Amendment 10, which is similar. We tabled our amendment first, which is why I have been given the floor. I invite you to support the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media because both are designed solely to improve the text. We have expressed our opinions on the situation in Hungary. I know that criticism is unpleasant, but it is our job, which is why I urge you to support the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendments? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – There are concerns about restrictions regarding the registration of Hungarian Churches. However, this phrase is about the citizens of Hungary. It is a fact that the citizens of Hungary can pray to whoever they want, whenever they want and however they want. There is no restriction on the freedom of religion in Hungary.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee was in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendments 1 and 10 are adopted.

      I call Mr Harangozó to support Amendment 6.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – The draft text highlights the agreement of the government with the six Churches concerned. However, the Hungarian authorities have still not implemented the requirements of the Assembly, despite the fact that, in the meantime, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights turned the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation into a legal obligation. We want to change the text to reflect that fact.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – My concern is that the amendment limits the criticism to just the financial compensation issues, whereas the original text talks about, “compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights”. The original text is comprehensive, covering all the issues concerned with the registration of Churches. Therefore, I ask the Assembly – I know that the committee supported this – to stick to the original text.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – By a close margin, against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 2.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – Of our five amendments, only Amendment 4 was not supported, but we need support for all five. The arbitrary nature of decision making in parliament is a problem here. There should be an independent authority to supervise recognition of religious dominations, and the possibility to appeal against any decision. That is why we ask for support for all five of the committee’s amendments, including Amendment 2.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I make exactly the same argument as I did regarding the previous amendment. This is covered in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. We should stick to that and to the wording that took some time to come together, rather than adding or cherry picking extra pieces.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Flego to support Amendment 11.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – Our amendments are factual, and Amendment 11 sums up the opinions of the Commissioner for Human Rights and of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – I do not disagree with Mr Flego that the amendment is factual. What he is saying may well be true, but it is not within the scope of the report. The report is about constitutional and legal changes that have taken place in Hungary. It is not a commentary on extremist organisations and others, including extremist political parties, who take part in Hungarian life. The amendment does not belong in the report. It probably belongs in a report by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, and I look forward to reading such a report in due course.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Harangozó to support Amendment 9.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – In this paragraph, instead of quoting the comments made by political parties, the Assembly should primarily stick to the facts by highlighting the main findings of the OSCE/ODIHR election observers, which were presented after the parliamentary election last April. We would like the paragraph to quote, word for word, the findings of the OSCE report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The amendment cherry-picks from some of those reports. I have covered the views of the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission in the text of the report. If there is, as I recommend, and as the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission recommend, an independent electoral commission in Hungary, all the issues that have been mentioned will be dealt with. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go in and start cherry-picking various items from reports.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      I call Mr Díaz Tejera to support Amendment 4.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I know that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has said no to Amendment 4, and of course I respect the committee. Nevertheless, I think that if the Assembly adopted the amendment, the text would be improved. The National Judicial Office has arbitrary and excessive power if it can decide not to appoint the most highly qualified judge and if there is no right of appeal against such a decision. I told my Hungarian friends that it would be far better for them if the report were improved in such a way.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Significant changes have been made to the role and the powers of the chairman of the National Judicial Office. Effectively, he can block an appointment only if there is something technically wrong with it. He cannot block the appointment of a highly qualified judge. It is not correct to say, as does the last sentence of the amendment, that there is no appeals process, because there is a right to appeal against decisions of the chairperson of the National Judicial Office.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      Members should know that a revised compendium has been issued. Amendment 7 will be considered before Amendment 13. If Amendment 7 is agreed to, Amendment 13 will fall.

      I call Mr Harangozó to support Amendment 7.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – If we read the whole report as amended, I believe it is obvious that it is about how the Hungarian Government failed to fulfil the requirements that were placed on it. At the end of the report, I cannot understand how we can conclude that we should stop any further evaluation of the Hungarian situation. We should not send the message to Hungary that the developments of recent months are a move in the right direction. On the contrary, very threatening things are now happening in Hungary, and we should reflect that in the conclusion of the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – The amendment is an attempt to negate the conclusion of the report, and as such I must ask the Assembly to reject it, however it is dressed up. The Monitoring Committee will be looking at Hungary, as it will be looking at other countries. We have looked at Hungary and addressed the problems, and the Hungarian Government is conscious of what needs to be done. It is unnecessary for the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to continue this examination.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

       Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee was against, but by only two votes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Rapporteurs should say only whether the committee was against or in favour. I call Mr Conde on a point of order.

      Mr CONDE (Spain)* – This is something new. The chair of the committee has given us not the opinion of the committee, but the result of the vote. Will we do the same in future, and will we change the rules accordingly?

      THE PRESIDENT – I do not know whether you heard me, but I said exactly the same thing before I gave you the floor. The rapporteur’s obligation is only to say whether the committee was in favour of the amendment or against it.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 13, which has an oral sub-amendment. I call Mr Flego to support Amendment 13 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – If in our resolutions we do not dare to mention previous resolutions, decisions and the opinions of our experts, we could come across as frightened. The amendment talks about the opinions of the Commissioner for Human Rights and of the Venice Commission on the media situation in Hungary.

      THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Walter wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as follows: “In Amendment 13 to delete the words: ‘In the draft resolution, paragraph 3, replace the last sentence with the following sentences’ and replace them with ‘In the draft resolution, insert at the end of paragraph 2.5 the following sentences’.”

      The effect of this oral sub-amendment would be to insert the proposed new words from Amendment 13 at the end of paragraph 2.5, and to retain the final sentence of paragraph 3.

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Walter to support oral sub-amendment.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Amendment 13 from the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media negated the final paragraph of the draft resolution, but it has validity none the less. I therefore suggested that it is more appropriate for the amendment to be placed in the section of the draft resolution concerning the media, so the words of the amendment would be inserted after paragraph 2.5, so that the resolution reads as a coherent whole and that paragraph 3 is left as is.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mr Flego.

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – If my recollection serves me well, the change was not discussed at the committee. We discussed making an amendment to paragraph 2.5, but not to reword the amendment. I am puzzled about what to do now.

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

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The opinion is that the Amendment 13 should be kept as it is.

      THE PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy is obviously in favour.

      I call Mr Agramunt on a point of order.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain) – This situation is not true. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has not met since the oral sub-amendment was presented in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. There is no opinion from the committee.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Flego, are you personally against the oral sub-amendment because there was no meeting of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media?

      Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – I am personally against it. I do not have the mandate of my committee to accept any change, but I believe that the committee would be against it as it was not discussed.

      THE PRESIDENT – So it is clear that it was a personal opinion and that the oral sub-amendment was not discussed at the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

      The vote is open.

      I am interrupting the vote to give the floor to Mr Walter.

      Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Were you asking for the opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the oral sub-amendment? If so, I can tell you that the committee was in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – It is obvious that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy is in favour of the oral sub-amendment because it was proposed by the committee. I said that at the beginning.

      The vote is open again.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 13, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13806, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      I congratulate the rapporteur and everyone who participated in the debate.

4. Joint debate: Increasing transparency of media ownership and

Media responsibility and ethics in a changing media environment

      THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. The first is titled “Increasing transparency of media ownership”, Document 13747, which will be presented by Ms Gülsün Bilgehan. The second is titled “Media responsibility and ethics in a changing media environment”, Document 13803, which will be presented by Mr Volodymyr Ariev.

      In order to conclude this debate by 8 p.m., I must interrupt the list of speakers at around 7.30 p.m. to allow time for replies and votes. I remind members that speaking time is limited to three minutes. Also, the Secretary General has a reception at 8.15 p.m.

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

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – After the draft resolution was tabled, I was appointed rapporteur for the committee on 25 April 2013. As I have spent my life between journalists and politicians, I am aware of the interests and sensitivities––

      THE PRESIDENT – I ask colleagues to keep order as we would like to be able to hear what is being said.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – As I was saying, my working life has put me at close quarters with journalists and politicians, so I am aware of the sensitivities in the relationship between those two worlds. Coming from Turkey where freedom of expression is discussed a lot and is high on the agenda, I also support pluralism and transparency of the media, as do all of you; it is vital for the proper functioning of democracies.

      In European organisations, there is a fairly broad consensus on this subject and a number of standards on transparency of media ownership have been drawn up at various levels over the years. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was the first to draw attention to the importance of this issue, inviting member States to ensure the public enjoy fair and impartial access to certain basic information pertaining to the media, so as to be able to form their own opinion about the value to be ascribed to the information, opinions and ideas conveyed through media outlets. In other words, transparency of the media must be guaranteed by having declarations of interests in relation to them. Although we do have some models of good practice among Council of Europe countries, the rules some member States currently apply on media ownership information do not allow the public to know who is the ultimate owner or beneficial owner. In most instances, the public are not guaranteed information on the ownership of the print media or online broadcasters. There has been a significant increase in competition for the digital media, and companies tend to be bought up by larger operators or wealthy individuals who find it more difficult to bring their influence to bear on independent journalists but who may also be motivated by economic considerations. In some countries, there is government interference with editorial freedom, and sometimes the editors have to sacrifice ethical interests to financial or other interests. That then becomes a vicious circle because the audience size will decline if people lose faith in the media outlet, so too much government interference is doomed to be self-defeating.

      Council of Europe members should review their legislation and ensure adequate transparency of media ownership. There must be a clear legal framework setting out mandatory standards for the audio-visual media, the analogue broadcasters and the print media, so we know who the beneficial owners and ultimate owners are. Free access to relevant information about media ownership must be granted to the public at large. I ask for the support of my colleagues and hope they will adopt this report, which I commend to them.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Ms Bilgehan. You can use your remaining time at the end of the debate.       I call Mr Ariev, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – This report was not easy for me to prepare. I am a politician now, but I am also a professional journalist. I know the price of press freedom. My friend Ukrainian journalist Georgiy Gongadze paid for it with his life; he was killed in 2001 and it was the first big tragedy for Ukrainian journalists. I investigated this case in detail and it pushed me to defend journalism in general in Ukraine. A few times, I personally walked on the razor’s edge during and after my experience as an investigative journalist; I had my own programme on Ukrainian television. I know what it means to be persecuted right up to facing criminal charges or personal threats, and I know how to fight against censorship and press freedom limitations as a co-founder and activist of the first independent media trade union in Ukraine, which was established in 2001.

      First, I thank the committee secretariat, which helped me a lot in making the report, because this is a very sensitive issue for politicians to discuss. It is a balanced report, committed to democratic principles and with full respect to basic rights, especially journalists’ rights.

      This report does not contain any proposal to limit true press freedom and fully respects the European Convention on Human Rights. The fast-developing media environment alone was a reason to undertake this report, which was conducted with the involvement of media experts. The main idea of this report is strengthening the role of self-regulation in the media sector and analysing its activity, thus avoiding State over-regulation.

      We analysed the existing codes of conduct for journalists and current challenges facing the developing new media. Our main goal was to highlight the imbalance between the existing self-imposed rules for regular media and new media and to draw attention to all factors influencing professional standards, including all types of pressure on journalists. It is important to underscore the role of press ombudspersons. This institution must be established in States, and must be strong both in States and internationally, as it can uphold a self-imposed journalists’ code of conduct. Politicians should not be involved in such a sensitive subject. It is important to separate press freedom from using the principles of press freedom to consciously misinform in order to cause harm, as the Russian media are doing. That is why the European Commission decided to employ Foreign Affairs Commissioner Mogherini to work out methods to resist it. That is a big and new challenge for the press across Europe.

      Before he was murdered, Boris Nemtsov prepared a report that included a large chapter about the lies and propaganda of the Russian media, who misuse all the principles of journalism. At lunchtime, we presented the report, along with its Russian authors, so this is a good time to mention a few sentences from it: “A landmark episode of this” information “war was Channel One’s show about the ‘crucified boy’. A woman was shown on the main news program of the main news channel claiming that in Slavyansk, from which the fighters of the separatist army had fled, the Ukrainian National Guard had crucified a six-year-old boy to a bulletin board. No confirmation was provided.” I quote that to show what the Russian media are doing. After that report, the real war in eastern Ukraine began. The use of faked facts causes thousands of deaths, which still cannot be stopped.

      Of course it is better when the media independently debunk deliberate lies. A bright example is a BBC report on a fake story in the Russian media about the so-called murder of small girl in Donetsk two months ago. Another example is when journalists make their own websites, such as stopfake.org, to detail fake stories. We can discuss it in future reports, but States must have the right to defend themselves from aggression abroad, including information aggression.

      A big challenge to democracy is using new media communications to distribute hate speeches in Europe, war propaganda, and the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence under Article 20 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We need to develop press freedom, along with the safety and working conditions of journalists. We had a conference on this subject, sponsored by the Council of Europe, in Kiev two weeks ago. The discussions were fruitful and very useful for parliamentarians. The main idea was not to interfere with the working of the press, but to help journalists to defend themselves. The report does the same thing by calling for the defence of press freedom in a fast-developing media environment. As a journalist, I urge members to support it.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Ariev. You have five minutes and 12 seconds left to respond at the end of the debate. I call Mr Franken to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP).

      Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands)* – Ms Bilgehan has written a very interesting report. I hope that she does not mind if I speak in English.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      He who pays the piper, calls the tune. That is the point of departure of the report. The idea of paying, however, has to be seen in a broad view. Whoever controls, owns, manages or structures the media, has, in most situations, an important influence on the product: the information, published ideas and opinions that are disseminated by the media. Ms Bilgehan pleads for openness – for transparency about the ownership, financing, management and editorial structures of the media. That is important, and, on behalf of the EPP, I fully adhere to the proposals in the report. The report has a list of the information that has to be disclosed about media outlets and it is recommended that the Committee of Ministers increases compliance with transparency standards in all member States. Again, I fully agree.

      I have some questions for the rapporteur: who will control the disclosed information and monitor the procedures? The rapporteur speaks about a national media authority, but who will appoint the members of the national media authorities in the member States? Who will guarantee the independence of their members? Will that be arranged by a supreme court nomination, or is an election by an international organisation of journalists the most appropriate way to guarantee independence?

      Mr Ariev’s report focuses on the behaviour of journalists themselves. With regard to the democratic transition in many countries, we all have to be aware that the freedom of expression can be used independently, but we must also be conscious of the truthfulness of facts and figures and the willingness to correct potential mistakes. In other words, journalists should be conscious of their professional qualities and protected from third-party pressures. In such a situation, self-regulation can be a relief, and would reduce the influence of the State and other sectors of society on the content provided by the media.

      We have to be careful, because freedom of speech may be limited only on the basis of a formal law to pursue a legitimate objective that is necessary in a democratic society and executed proportionally. The codes of conduct that Mr Ariev proposes can only be practical procedural rules or corporate codes of ethics. That is a good idea, but who will monitor and supervise the guidelines and codes of conduct? Will there be a task for a media ombudsman in each of the member States of the Council of Europe? Or, as I asked Ms Bilgehan, would that be the function of an international body of journalists? I would appreciate my questions being answered; the report would then be complete.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Zohrabyan to speak on behalf of the European Conservatives Group.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – I am a former journalist, and the issue we are debating is only too topical. As Mr Ariev just mentioned, in an environment of rapid change, the media, with serious financial problems, are becoming rather vulnerable in terms of professionalism. They have become dependent on those who finance them, and the result of the injection of funds can only be biased information and the serving of the political or economic interests of the person providing the funds. That is the problem of professional ethics and media responsibility that comes to the fore. The person who pays gives political orders, so there is no need for any more talk of freedom of the press or freedom of expression. A media dependent on third-party funding cease to perform their professional mission and become an instrument in the hands of those providing the funds.

      I of course welcome the declaration of principles on the conduct of journalists adopted by the International Federation of Journalists, as well as the codes of professional ethics adopted by journalists and the media at the national level in all member States. However, let us be honest: do the codes of conduct really resolve topical problems, such as those of professional ethics and the responsibility of the media? That is the main problem raised in this report.

      In Armenia, a body for monitoring the professional ethics of the media was created in 2007, and it has developed a charter of principles of professional ethics for journalists and the media. The body is still working today, with decent and professional people gathered together within it, and several Armenian media have signed the charter. However, some of those media have been the first to violate those standards of professional ethics.

      My approach is therefore slightly different. Until the media have financial independence and while they remain under the influence of various economic or political financial centres, we will regularly have to face this problem about professional ethics and the responsibility of the media. García Márquez was once asked how one can separate professional ethics from professionalism, and he replied that it is the same as trying to separate the buzzing from the fly. In other words, where there is a violation of professional ethics, there is no professionalism. That is axiomatic as regards freedom of expression. I am absolutely certain that it is the constitutional right of the citizen to obtain reliable information. García Márquez was speaking about the fact that professional ethics and professionalism are already inextricably linked, and it a question of personal choice for each journalist and each media.

      According to the information I was given about the recent demonstrations in Yerevan, there was violence against certain journalists, and that is unacceptable and unforgivable.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Garðarsson on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr GARÐARSSON (Iceland) – I thank both the rapporteurs for their good reports. I was both a journalist and media owner for up to 25 years, so I have experience from both sides of the table.

      Why does media ownership matter? Why do the public have the right to know who owns the media? Why do wealthy individuals invest in the media? Sometimes, they do so in the interests of freedom of expression or to increase the flow of information to the public. Sometimes, however, they do so for political, economic or religious reasons. They want to control the media so that they can influence public opinion and political debate.

      Being a politician means you have certain powers, but being a media owner can in some instances guarantee you much more influence in society, both politically and commercially. This is why transparency in media ownership is so vital. The public have a right to know not only where the information comes from, but who is behind it and who is responsible for it. That is the only way for the public to be able to form an opinion about the value of the information, ideas and opinions disseminated by the media.

      Media ownership has become more concentrated in recent years, which is a cause for worry. Media companies are fewer and bigger than before. Independent journalism is no longer the main goal, and journalists are under increasing pressure to follow the goals of the owners; otherwise they run the risk of losing their job. Many hang on to their journalistic integrity, but others do not, as everybody knows.

      Many of Council of Europe’s member States, including mine, have a legislature that demands that information on media ownership is made public. Media companies in Iceland must disclose information about their ownership, which is made public on the website of the Icelandic Media Commission. The commission is an independent administrative committee that, among others things, gathers information on media ownership in accordance with Iceland’s media law. There is every reason to encourage member States that do not already have such a system in place to set one up.

      Media ownership and ethics in the media are obviously closely connected. Journalists whose employers want to distort the information given to the public for their own benefit will surely have a hard time adhering to the principles on the conduct of journalists. Ever more journalists in Europe are working under conditions in which they are legally insecure and financially weak, which makes the situation very difficult.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Kavvadia on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Ms KAVVADIA (Greece)* – Now more than ever it is necessary to remind parliaments and governments in Europe that the media should be afforded the opportunity to establish their own rules of professional ethics, but we must also remind the media of their professional obligations in democratic societies based on the rule of law. We all know that the press has major clout, but when one has clout, one must also shoulder one’s responsibilities; otherwise that clout becomes dangerous.

      For several years, Greece has been experiencing a major economic, political and cultural crisis. During that critical period, the media have played a decisive role. However, the media are controlled by the elites, and they transmitted information that caused fear among the public. The way in which information was imparted was not neutral; they used psychological subterfuge to generate fear, so the choices made were those of the elites. That is why Syriza was elected the first time, but will not be a second time.

      Journalists are often used to serve specific interests. We must of course acknowledge that a journalist is no stronger than his or her newspaper editor or boss. Several economic and financial aspects are controlled by such individuals, so they have conflicts of interest. To deal with such conflicts of interest, we need to create associations that can protect journalists from their bosses when they are doing their job, with recourse to the law if necessary. Working as a journalist undoubtedly requires a national code of professional ethics, except for certain basic principles, such as respect for the truth, impartiality, justice and respect for the lives of others, plus the recognition and correction of mistakes.

      I ought to mention several major ethical issues, but I will concentrate on four of them. First, in relation to respecting an individual’s data, how can a journalist disseminate information, what information should be disclosed, what information should the journalist keep and what guarantees or safeguards should there be? Secondly, who is responsible for the accuracy and truth of information? Thirdly, who should apologise for mistakes, and what compensation is owed to those who have suffered injury? Lastly, can one exchange information, and if so, at what price? How can one guarantee free access to information? What information can an individual obtain, and with what guarantees? Our ethical position should be crystal clear. Our information and communication technologies are leading us to a major period of social upheaval.

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

      Ms HEINRICH (Germany)* – When we talk about press freedom, we are normally talking about countries in which the media are firmly in the grip of the State and where journalists and bloggers fear for their very lives. However, there are a number of dimensions to press freedom, and that is amply illustrated in Gülsün Bilgehan’s report, which is why I particularly want to thank her for it.

      Transparency of media ownership is an important aspect of press freedom, and one that we often forget. Transparency in media ownership is necessary because it enables the public to form opinions on the value to be ascribed to the information the media provides. In most member States of the Council of Europe, journalists do not have to fear censorship. Where media ownership structures are unclear, whoever owns the media outlets for which journalists work can influence whether and how information is processed or disseminated. Reporters Without Borders is therefore calling for the public disclosure of ownership structures.

      A report in Germany bemoaned the creeping erosion of media pluralism, because it means that the choice in sources of information is getting smaller and smaller for the consumer. Increasingly complex structures in Europe’s media landscape should not deceive us into thinking that media pluralism is not in danger, and that point is well made by Ms Bilgehan in her report. She calls for information on ownership, the size of shareholdings and co-operation agreements to be conveyed to national media authorities and to be published on a central online database. She also recommends that the Committee of Ministers reviews the standards of the Council of Europe, fleshes out the number of standards and co-operates with the European platform of regulatory authorities. Those are excellent proposals. If member States complied with those requirements, they would be even more credible vis-à-vis those countries that seek to limit press freedom.

      Transparency also means credibility in the eyes of media consumers. A lot of people believe that the press, radio and television are remote-controlled, and prefer to get their information from rather dubious Internet sources, but that is dangerous so far as opinion-shaping is concerned. More transparency on media ownership would contribute to the perception of independent reporting.

      Ms MAGRADZE (Georgia) – I thank Ms Bilgehan for her excellent report. We all agree that transparency in media ownership is necessary to enable members of the public to form an opinion on the value of the information, ideas and opinions disseminated by the media. We share concern over media outlets that are often owned and controlled in a non-transparent manner due to a lack of transparency obligations in the domestic law of member States.

      I will outline the major changes in Georgia’s legislation on broadcasting in relation to the transparency of media ownership. Those changes aimed to tackle two problems: first, those broadcasters registered in offshore zones that provide no access to their owners’ identities; and secondly, the hidden interests of local owners. The new regulations determine who can hold licences in the broadcasting sector. Those prohibited from holding licences include: public authorities, officials or other employees of public authorities, legal entities interdependent with public authorities, political parties and their officials, legal entities registered offshore and legal entities with shares or stocks owned by a legal entity registered offshore.

      According to the amendments to the Georgian law on broadcasting, the Georgian National Communications Commission, which is the State regulator, administers the declaration of compliance that should be enclosed in any licence application. The transparency obligation on broadcasters consists of several aspects. Broadcasters are obliged to provide the regulator with a declaration of compliance where the owners, stockholders, chairs or members of governing bodies and officials of a broadcaster change. The broadcaster is obliged to inform the regulator and to publish the declaration of compliance on its website.

      Every year and no later than 1 February, the broadcaster is obliged to provide the regulator and society with the following information: the declaration of compliance; any other licences held in the broadcasting sphere; any shares or stocks held in any other broadcaster; any ownership of shares or stocks held in periodicals or printed publications; any ownership of shares or stocks held in news agencies; and, any holdings of shares or at least 5% of stocks in any other company.

      Georgia’s legislation on broadcasting ensures compliance with the transparency standard on media ownership that is mentioned in the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – As the rapporteurs do not wish to reply at this stage, I call Mr Jenssen.

      Mr JENSSEN (Norway) – The freedom of the press is still under attack. That should not be the case anywhere, and certainly not in member countries of the Council of Europe. In January, this Assembly adopted a resolution in which we encouraged national parliaments to hold annual public debates on the State of media freedom in their countries. I am happy to tell the Assembly that a few weeks ago, the Norwegian Storting held such a debate. It was perhaps the first response to our Assembly’s call for such debates. The Norwegian Parliament upholds its strong belief in a free and independent media sector. Moreover, we stress the importance of transparency, as pointed out in Ms Bilgehan’s report.

      The public should be able to access information on who is behind the news and the storytelling. In our countries, we have a system of checks and balances to ensure that no part of the government becomes too powerful. Typically, we divide it into three: the legislative body, the executive branch and the courts. In Norway, the free press is sometimes described as an independent fourth body that takes upon itself the responsibility to reveal abuses of power, whether it is the abuse of government money, corruption or the little man being overrun by the system. It also has the responsibility to look at how States misuse information and mislead – or try to mislead – their own people or the international community.

      The propaganda war is all around us. Media companies are misused for such purposes, but we depend upon strong, free and independent newspapers, TV stations and others to shed light on what is actually going on, who is behind it and what their agendas are. For news to be trustworthy, the editors must be independent. To ensure their independence, we need to know who is behind them, and who their owners and benefactors are.

      In the report, Norway is one of the countries seen as an inspiration when standards of best practice and recommendations are drawn up. I am proud to say that we have clear legislation and good implementation when it comes to transparency in media ownership. In short, if the public wants to know who is behind a Norwegian newspaper, media group, radio or TV station, they have free and easy access to that information online. That is not a controversial issue in Norway, as it seems to be in other countries.

      The media as a whole, as well as specific newspapers or TV channels, play an important role in a free society. They also have power – legitimate power – to set the agenda and power to bring forward the misuse of power by others. They even have the power to bring down presidents and heads of State. Those powers require that the media and journalists work in a professional manner, under codes of ethics, and have self-regulatory bodies, as recommended in Mr Ariev’s report. We have that in Norway, and I thank both the rapporteurs for their excellent reports, which should be embraced by member States in the Assembly and by the Committee of Ministers.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – Thank you, Ms Bilgehan, for this most impressive report. We have more media now than ever before, yet at the same time incredible globalisation is going on in the sector. There is a change in the media landscape; what used to be known as traditional journalism has been overtaken by online media and social networks, and effects arise from that. We expect media ethics from a traditional media outlet, but online, including on social media, it is impossible to satisfy such expectations, in part because there is no time to check sources when they are flashed up instantaneously.

      On the call for press freedom, there are strong networks of proprietors and businesses with broadcasting departments, and there is significant cross-ownership. A single proprietor might own all sorts of media outlets – television, radio, daily print newspapers – which is why we need disclosure of ownership. In some countries of the Council of Europe, governments are the biggest advertising client – bigger than automobile companies or insurers, for example. In this globalised media world, we need proper press councils and self-regulatory ethics, which is what the rapporteurs call for in their reports. I was the editor of a magazine for 10 years, so I know the world of which I speak. The Council of Europe should be at the centre of a move towards such regulation.

      Mr NICOLAIDES (Cyprus) – I thank the two rapporteurs for their well written and balanced reports and commend the Assembly’s extensive work on these issues.

      At the heart of this debate is the subject of media freedom and plurality of information. Everyone agrees that a functioning democracy needs a variety of quality media outlets for the public readily to obtain balanced, unbiased and accurate information. The Assembly has striven to engage citizens on issues that affect their daily lives and to give them the ability to shape, by their involvement and contribution in politics, the future landscape of Europe.

      In that respect, access to information is crucial, as are questions of media ownership and potential vested interests. Public knowledge of owners, their identities and their interests is necessary to ensure that abuses of media power can be assessed, publicised and prevented. Only through transparency can inappropriate bias in the news be impeded. I commend those countries in our Organisation that have adopted comprehensive legal frameworks regulating, inter alia, the financing, management and ownership structure of media outlets and their obligation to disclose all relevant information to their respective national regulatory authorities. It should be underlined, however, that adequate legislation is not enough; legislation must also be implemented.

      As a standard-setting Organisation, we should ensure that our national legislation is in line with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and the relevant Committee of Ministers recommendations on media transparency, pluralism and diversity. I also remind colleagues that we have an obligation as parties to the European Convention on Human Rights to take positive steps to that end.

In countries facing increased budgetary constraints and/or economic problems, it is even more important for citizens – who have seen their benefits and privileges cut because of the economic crisis – to see that their national media, be it broadcast, print or online, hold their governments accountable for their actions and choices. It is equally important that regulatory authorities be bolstered in their ability to fine and sanction, whatever attempts might exist in the market to silence investigative journalism or stifle voices and narratives outside the establishment. Needless to say, these efforts are directly related and should go hand in hand with the creation of an environment conducive to independent journalism, the protection of whistle-blowers and the establishment of a rules-based system free from endemic corruption.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I thank the rapporteurs, Ms Bilgehan and Mr Ariev, for their excellent work.

      Free media and independent journalism have always been the cornerstones of democracy and, as the voice of the society, have always been granted privileges in order to fulfil their mission. With the development of the Internet and technology, the notion of the media has changed. It has become broader and now includes not only the traditional media, but online journalism, blogging and social media. The Internet has become the new forum for media outlets as well as for individual bloggers to make their voices heard, to post articles and to invite others to hold discussions and express opinion. Overall, this widens the spectrum of opportunities for the future development of the media, while placing more obligations and greater responsibility on digital media representatives. Owing to the specifics of the Internet, the digital media have become more interactive, minimising the gap between the media outlet and the reader.

The nature of modern journalism and the need to regulate online news sharing and the activities of the media outlets have broadened the responsibility of media outlets for the articles and comments they post on their websites. The latest – and possibly the most important – judgment bringing some clarity to the ongoing debate on media responsibility was recently made by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Delfi v Estonia. The Court stated that, given the mechanisms and abilities of a developed and popular media outlet, as well as its commercial nature, its active role in shaping the content of its website and the inability of automatic mechanisms to deal with obviously inappropriate comments, including hate speech, such a media outlet is responsible for the comments that users share under the articles posted on its website. That was a crucial judgment for all online media outlets. It calls for the reorganisation of the editing mechanisms so as to keep the balance between freedom of expression and defamation.

The above-mentioned recent development, as well as the difficulties and risks for media outlets operating on the internet, mean that, as mentioned in the report, ethical standards are crucial for the self-regulation of journalism. I hope that that will help the digital media to strike a balance between independence and the free flow of information and exchange of views and the protection of human rights and dignity. The mixed news and entertainment media we have nowadays requires the development and adoption of new ethical standards based on the changing environment and the specifics of the digital age and internet.

Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – I thank both rapporteurs for their interesting and timely reports, one on ethics and the changing media environment, the second on the need to increase the transparency of media ownership.

I come from Georgia, which unfortunately is having big problems with the intrusion and amplification of Russian propaganda tools. Unlike the Ukrainian case or the Moldovan case, in Georgia this happens not through the Russian Government-owned media – which are widely available since the change of government in Georgia in 2012 – but through the Georgian-speaking media, mainly newsletters, specifically one called “Asaval-Dasavali”, and a television outlet called “Obiektivi”. Those outlets have incited hatred against minorities, including religious and national minorities. They also spread opinions that are against the European Union. Georgians are free to express themselves as they wish, of course, but these outlets spread anti-Western and pro-Russian propaganda and sometimes incite violence against human rights defenders, including defenders of LGBTI rights, and with government funding.

I therefore believe that we need to consider increasing transparency about the ownership of such outlets. Not only should there be openness about the real owners, but governmental institutions should publish any information on contracts they have concluded with the media outlets, as well as the purpose of those contracts. We have to introduce legislation that obliges the government to provide information on financing and the media to do the same. We need to know whether there is a governmental interest in spreading anti-Western notions that are clearly against human rights and liberties.

      The other points I wanted to stress are covered in my amendments. I will explain those concerns when I speak to the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT – I see that Mr Conde is not here, so I call Ms Fataliyeva.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work. Media owners are chasing the audience – the numbers of clicks and the numbers of “likes” – and do not believe that it violates ethical standards. Although many journalists decide how much detail to provide about victims and whether to show photographs of corpses, for example, we need to admit that the standard of self-control within journalism generally is not acceptable. Journalists often try to be objective but certain negative images are often sent out. Bringing up children and teenagers is one of the main challenges of modern society. A number of factors influence the nurturing and development of children. These include their family, their environment, their school and the media. All those influence young people’s development, including the strength of their moral education. They play a special role in forming a child’s world vision and values. Mass media is part of the way children play.

      How to address this problem is on the agenda of every country. Traditional and new sources of information spread values that take root in people’s minds. Mass media can have both positive and negative impacts on young children. Mass media can be a source of vulgar information. Some recent movies, sitcoms and cartoons show violence. The adolescents’ subculture can become children’s subculture, with a lower quality of programming.

      Media sources create certain stereotypes and phobias. In some places, people suffer from religious and ethnic intolerance. One stereotype created by the media is a correlation of Muslims with terrorism. That is simply not acceptable. Children start exploring the Internet at an early age. It is like a small fish discovering the ocean for the first time. The Internet is convenient. It is entertaining. It makes it very easy to access information. By the age of two, children can play games on the Internet. Between the ages of eight and 12, they become more active on the Internet. They can create their own web pages and blogs. It is an integral part of modern life. However, children do not understand the threats presented by this global network. According to statistics, 90% of children between the ages of eight and 15 view pornography and 17% regularly access forbidden websites and programmes, not only on the Internet but through the television. About 5.5% of these children are ready to repeat what they have seen. There are some shortcomings that need to be addressed, such as the collection of data and failure to indicate age restrictions. As a result of their inexperience and underdeveloped values system, children can discover information that is more suitable for adolescents. It harms their physical and psychological health.

      A number of websites and television programmes contain content showing pornography, suicide and discussion of drug use. Propaganda about radicalism, terrorism, Satanism and various forms of violence can cause psychological trauma and change children’s behaviour. We must develop mechanisms to ensure not only media freedom but media objectivity and ethics. Several members have said that they who have the gold make the rules. That should never become the motto.

      Mr NISSINEN (Sweden) – I would like to focus today on Mr Ariev’s excellent report. I greatly appreciate the efforts that he and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media made to find the right balance between, on the one hand, the all-important need to guarantee full freedom of expression as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights; and, on the other, the requirement that the media should show themselves worthy of the responsibility that such freedom entails – namely to refrain from even giving the impression of in any way inciting hatred, violence, discrimination and the like – and that they should remain objective, well researched and truthful in their reporting.

      The recommendation that Mr Ariev and his committee made – and which I fully share – is for journalists to stand tall in these disquieting times and to continue to report on reality and events as they honestly see them, even on sensitive subjects that others would like to see kept away from public debate.

      The media must also try to ensure that a variety of opinions can come to the fore in their outlets, both by recruiting journalists with differing political beliefs, and by letting the general public contribute civilised comment without any fear of retribution. In this context, let us not forget that social media have also widened and intensified the public debate in our countries in many positive ways. I also support the draft resolution’s call for a “decriminalisation of defamation”, as well as the call in the draft recommendation, addressed to our Committee of Ministers to ensure a “right of reply” for people who feel themselves wrongly treated.

      Perhaps I may suggest a final idea for consideration by this Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, namely to examine the possibility of introducing, in interested member States, the so-called “intendant” system introduced with great success in Germany after the Second World War, and still in force. My time is up, so let me just congratulate once more the rapporteur and the committee, and recommend the Assembly to support and adopt the draft resolution and draft recommendation before us.

      THE PRESIDENT – Ms Leskaj is not present, so I give the floor to Ms Hoffmann.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Freedom of expression in the media has for centuries constituted one of the fundamental values of modern Europe. Were it not to exist, we would not even be able to talk about freedom or democracy. However, as is the case with all freedoms, there is one question that we need to address. Are there any limits to it and if so, where shall we place them? In order to come up with the proper and contemporary response, we need on occasion to concern ourselves with media regulation.

      That this is a vital issue today is amply illustrated by the current agenda of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where a number of reports deal with media issues. That is because in a global world it is becoming increasingly difficult to control or oversee diverging media content and lay down regulations. Freedom of expression is something that democratic societies have won for themselves. Given our memories of terrible dictatorships and our common history, we are very sensitive about the issue of freedom of expression, but although it is a fundamental right, it is a right behind which a number of dangers lurk. On the one hand, expressing one’s opinion freely and unreservedly can easily lead to hate speech. On the other, failure to regulate the profession of journalism, the differing levels of regulation that exist in member States and uncertainties about legal rulings can expose journalists to attempts by different social and political groups to bring pressure to bear on them.

      That is why we absolutely need to concern ourselves with media regulation, but self-regulation must lead the way. Ethical standards have to be generated from within the profession. Representatives of the profession of journalism know best the possibilities, limits, challenges and dangers of their job, but national parliaments also have a responsibility in enacting legislation and drawing up legal rulings. It is indispensable for both regulatory arms to continue a dialogue and seek consensus on all the issues that emerge. Only on that condition can we achieve peace in the media, in the interests of our societies.

      Perhaps I can add something in conjunction with the previous report on Hungary, for which Mr Walter was the rapporteur. It is important that Hungary supports a number of values – justice, truth, objectivity and the negation of double standards or unilateral conclusions. Respect for these values strengthens the value and dignity of the Council of Europe for as long as there are countries where journalists truly are threatened, imprisoned or even killed. That is of course not the case in my country, yet in the debate yesterday and today we heard a number of negative statements that are far removed from the truth. It is dangerous to make statements without any objectivity, because that injustice plays into the hands of extremist forces and that certainly cannot be our aim.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Díaz Tejera is not here, so I call Mr Huseynov.

      Mr HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – In one month, my country of Azerbaijan will celebrate one of its remarkable holidays. Precisely 140 years ago, on 23 July, the first newspaper of Azerbaijan was published. We now celebrate this date as a day of media. Moreover, 2015 is a jubilee year for us. When reading the pages of that publication now, you will come across a number of instructive articles that chime with those nowadays. A large number of issues essentially appear to be close to those that arose 140 years ago, such as freedom of expression, various kinds of censorship, political and moral bans, the problems of professionalism and the security of journalists, which are constantly debated by us.

      Hasan bey Zardabi, the founder of that publication, said that the insulting words written about him should be engraved on a stone and put on the roadside. He wanted it to instruct future generations, so that they could witness the hardships their grandfathers suffered to prevent such cases. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the grandfathers who imposed those pressures continue these same activities against the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the other grandfathers, who are now again the pen-owners. Unfortunately, this is the case in each corner of the world – more in some and less in others, but everywhere. It is simply that the methods and forms have changed due to the passing of time.

      Journalism remains a risky occupation and will evidently remain so for some time. Within the current terms and with technological opportunities offering a way to protect journalists and journalism, my suggestion is that we should increase professional solidarity and ensure an immediate reaction to any development, at least in our continent of Europe, thereby showing common solidarity.

      The Council of Europe could perform some useful actions in the pursuit of this goal. Through the organisational activities of the Committee of Ministers and the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, we could initiate – here in Strasbourg, one of the symbolic capitals of Europe – the publication of an electronic journal, “European Journalism”. It could become a contact place and a place of self-expression for journalists from the 47 member States and play the role of a laboratory for improving professionalism, as well as interrelating areas of journalism in our countries for information exchange. In those publications it could generate significant outcomes by constantly maintaining separate pages for each member State in that electronic publication, while leaving the presentation to them, as well as creating joint general units. This electronic publication could be a convenient bridge for holding visual debates and debates by correspondence relating to the problems of journalism in our countries.

      Mr ŠIRCELJ (Slovenia) – I congratulate both rapporteurs on the great work done on these reports, which consider a broad issue of the utmost importance to us all.

      It is necessary for all member countries to be aware of the value of the information, ideas and opinions disseminated by the media. Transparency of media ownership is essential to ensure media freedom, pluralism and democracy. Without transparency of media ownership, it is difficult to trust the information we receive, difficult to detect conflict of interests and almost impossible to protect against media concentration. However, in reality, media outlets are frequently owned and controlled in a non-transparent manner, which is often linked to political affiliations or the economic or religious interests of their true owners.

      I would like to point to an analysis in Europe done by Access Info Europe. This comprehensive survey found that in nine out of 20 cases it is not possible for the public to find out who the actual owners of the media are, either through media-specific reporting or company registers. Only in six out of 20 countries can the public access information on ownership of the media. Only in four countries did ownership information allow identification of the owner for all types of companies. Disclosure to media regulators of the beneficial owners of media outlets is not currently required in most countries.

      One of other problems we face with media ownership transparency is that even when public registers enable the identification of the owner, this can be hidden through numerous legal entities with seats in different countries. An example is one of Slovenia’s biggest TV broadcasters. Its direct owner in Slovenia is known, but nothing or very little is known about its indirect owners, only that they have a seat in the Bahamas. There is currently no clear standard, despite the recognition that the transparency of media ownership is important, so I believe there is a need for clarity on international standards and the legal framework required.

      I underline the fact that the non-binding recommendations that exist in some countries have proved ineffective. I conclude that the public availability of comprehensive data on media ownership is now an essential part of our democracies. People have the right to know who is speaking to them.

      Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their reports on an issue that affects all States and peoples. My country’s experience in recent years has certainly shown that a large section of the mass media has a biased political direction and an almost identical viewpoint regarding the economy and other important issues.

      Even though the overwhelming majority of journalists – particularly those who do not belong to the elite of the media – produce commendable and quality work, a large section of the media often performs a negative role. We strongly believe that the mass media in a democratic society should carry out the role of a public auditor, monitoring and scrutinising political and economic authorities for their actions and decisions, and shedding light on the real problems faced by society and people. However, the reality is quite different.

      In mature democracies, the ownership status of the mass media is objectively the decisive factor regarding the content and orientation of news editing and information. One wonders to what extent a media outlet that is sustained through the revenue and advertisements of banks can expose the depth of the banking crimes committed in Europe. Similarly, to what extent can a media outlet belonging to some wealthy media tycoon objectively present the social struggles against austerity, privatisations and inequalities? One can also question the ability of a newspaper or a television channel to exert due pressure and criticism on a politician when he or she has interwoven interests with the respective publisher or owner of that TV channel.

      It is obvious that the free market and all that it entails regulates the field of the mass media. However, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to legislate and shed light and transparency on these dark corners of interwoven interests, or at least to expose the extent of interdependency between the mass media on the one hand, and the economic and political establishment on the other. We must therefore enact legislation obliging the mass media to publicise at least their ownership status, the structure of their capital base and management boards, and the sources of advertising revenue; but also, to publicise the relationship that shareholders may have with banks or businesses that undertake public projects and public commissions. We need to promote modern legislative frameworks prohibiting the over-concentration of mass media ownership, which causes potential conflicts of interests with the executive power.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Yatim and Mr Kandelaki are not here so I now call Ms Gafarova.

      Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – Discussing these issues is important nowadays, because the most important characteristics of our era may be the transformation, transmission and domination of information. The changing media environment challenges journalistic ethics, and codes of ethics are not stringently adhered to by all journalists.

      In my capacity as a general rapporteur on violence against women and domestic violence, I stress the importance of journalistic ethics in the representation of women in media. Women are under-represented – almost invisible – in the media. At the same time, when they are represented, it is in a stereotyped way, confined to the roles traditionally assigned to them by society – at home, or as sexual objects, particularly in advertising.

      The media are a vital constituent of democracy and have a particular responsibility to promote respect for human dignity, the fight against discrimination, and equality between women and men. Something that should be clear to everyone is that sexism, just like racism and other forms of discrimination, has no place in the media.

On the other hand, the media can play a positive role in promoting gender equality. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe highlighted this potential as far back as 1984 in a recommendation to member States on equality between women and men in the media, which recommended that, in publicity campaigns sponsored by the public authorities, the dignity of women should be safeguarded and a positive image of them be projected. When the Council of Europe held in my country, Azerbaijan, in May 2010, a conference of ministers responsible for equality between women and men, the role of education and the media in combating stereotypes was on the table.

      Nowadays it is difficult to imagine the media without the Internet. Getting information is probably the biggest advantage that the Internet offers. In my country, Internet resources have been rapidly developing during the last decade. There is no problem using the Internet. Currently, more than 75% of the population use the Internet. The new project on the development of broadband Internet in Azerbaijan starts this year. The ultimate goals of the project are to provide the whole country, including remote rural areas, with high-speed Internet in the range of 10 to 100 megabits a second, and to increase the share of broadband Internet users to 85%, which will allow Azerbaijan to reach the level of other developed countries by 2017. I thank the rapporteurs for their reports.

      THE PRESIDENT – Mr Bereza is not here so the next speaker is Mr Zourabian.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – I want to bring the attention of the Assembly to the situation regarding TV media ownership in Armenia. To exclude any independent television channel from broadcasting, the Armenian authorities have artificially restricted the number of technically available frequencies to 18. They then gave most of the broadcasting licences to the son-in-law of the acting president and the rest to those affiliated with the government or parties of the ruling coalition. The presidential office keeps the network under strict control through emissaries, which decide what constitutes proper news coverage. Infringing the freedom of television journalists and putting them under presidential censorship is pervasive. The Assembly should be consistent in its efforts to establish pluralism and diversity of the media environment in accordance with its Resolution 1837. For this we need further digitalisation of TV broadcasting to enable multiple opportunities for those who have alternative views.

      Having said all this about freedom of speech and expression in my country, I cannot avoid mentioning the dramatic events happening in Armenia right now, as I speak. Last night, the Armenian police brutally attacked peaceful demonstrators who marched to the presidential office to protest against rising electricity prices. They also attacked all the journalists covering the event. Cameras and other media equipment were smashed, hundreds of protesters and journalists were severely beaten and 237 people, including four journalists, were arrested, prompting the angry reaction of Armenian society and harsh statements from the Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Facing resistance, the Armenian authorities have retreated, for now, from a violent stance and have released all those arrested. However, the protests continue and the situation remains tense and explosive. I call the Assembly to closely follow the developments in Armenia to ensure that its authorities do not violate the country’s commitments before the Council of Europe to respect the democratic freedoms of the Armenian people, as they unfortunately have done with impunity on multiple occasions in the past.

      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.

      I call the rapporteurs to reply to the debate. First, I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We are now sitting in the city where Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, lived in the 15th century. We have discussed important issues such as how to support the independent press and prevent the oppression of journalists. I am grateful for the compliments paid to me and my colleague Ms Bilgehan. Mr Nissinen underscored the importance of supporting independent journalism after the Second World War, and said that the German experience was important. Some years after the Second World War, West Germany cancelled the requirement for a licence for periodicals, which caused a boom in the development of the press. We are now looking to the future and following new types of electronic media. We should not attempt to license new electronic media and Internet media, because Internet users are smart enough to work out which sources distribute good information and which are manipulated.

      Financial questions have been mentioned. The financing of the media is important, and the report by my colleague Ms Bilgehan about the transparency of the media is also important. Ukraine has adopted its first legislation about the transparency of media ownership. We must remember that the weaker a State’s economy, the less independent will be its media. Ukraine, which has a weak economy at the moment, has been through two journalist revolutions. If journalists are united and organised, they can put pressure on the media owners and demand more freedom even in places where media owners have their own interests. Self-regulation in Ukraine is developed, and we even have an ethics commission consisting of famous journalists. Its decisions regarding journalists who use fake facts, lies or manipulation can do more to destroy their reputation than can the decision of a court.

      In answer to Mr Franken’s proposal regarding a code of conduct, a self-regulated organisation consisting of journalists could implement a press code of conduct. An ombudsperson could independently defend journalists from pressure from States or from those who have great influence in society.

I call on the Assembly to support this report and the report of my colleague, and I thank members for taking part in the discussion.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Bilgehan to reply to the debate.

      Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey)* – I thank colleagues for their valuable contributions, and I thank the secretariat and Mr Dossow who helped me a great deal in the preparation of the report. We held several meetings, including one in Istanbul. Even during the preparations, we were able to help some journalists. In Turkey, there were 100 journalists in prison, but now there are fewer. If even one journalist is in prison for doing their job, it is a bad show, but there has been some progress already. As regards Mr Franken’s question, self-regulation is the best means of regulation, and Norway was cited as a good example. It is also for States to decide how to establish an independent authority responsible for the media. I am optimistic about the endeavour, and I am sure that if we continue to co-operate internationally, we will be able substantially to help journalists in doing their job.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy)* – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent work. Transparency of ownership in the media is part and parcel of responsible journalism and is necessary in order to get genuine information and to avoid manipulation. I thank those who participated in the debate for their patience and for remaining here until now. I hope that you can all support the report.

      THE PRESIDENT – The debate is closed.

      We will now consider first the draft resolution and draft recommendation on “Increasing transparency of media ownership”, Document 13747.

      There are four amendments to the draft resolution. No amendments to the draft recommendation have been tabled.

      I understand that the Chair of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 4 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so Ms Gambaro?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      As there is no objection, I declare that the amendment to the draft resolution has been agreed.

      I call Ms Taktakishvili to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – The amendment’s aim is to point out – this is already in the report – that, alongside economic, political or other interests, there may be foreign political propaganda interests hidden in the secret or unclear ownership of the media.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Taktakishvili to support Amendment 3.

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – The amendment aims to point out the recent challenges in several Council of Europe countries. We have observed that the media has been used for foreign political propaganda purposes. We suggest that that does not come under this topic and is a separate important political issue that should be reflected on further by the bodies of the Council of Europe.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I understand that Ms Taktakishvili wishes not to move Amendment 2. Is that correct?

      Ms TAKTAKISHVILI (Georgia) – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone else wish to move it? That is not the case.

      Amendment 2 is not moved.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13747, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13747.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to the consideration of the draft resolution and draft recommendation on “Media responsibility and ethics in a changing media environment”, Document 13803.

      No amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution and draft recommendation.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13803.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13803.

      The vote is open.

      I congratulate both rapporteurs and thank everyone who participated in the debate.

5. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.45 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation – resumed debate

Speakers: Mr Bakradze (Georgia), Ms Zalishchuk (Ukraine), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Mr Badea (Romania) and Sir Edward Leigh (United Kingdom)

Replies: Mr Schennach (Austria) Mr Cilevičs (Latvia),

Amendments 5, 11, 14, 1, 2 as amended, 4, 10, 7, 8, 9 and 13 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13800, as amended, adopted

3. Situation in Hungary following the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1941 (2013)

Presentation by Mr Walter of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Doc. 13806

Presentation by Mr Díaz Tejera of opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Doc. 13831

Presentation by Mr Flego of opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Doc. 13832

Speakers: Mr Corsini (Italy), Mr Fischer (Germany), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Jónasson (Iceland), Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Németh (Hungary), Mr Le Borgn’ (France), Mr Tuzson (Hungary), Mr Destexhe (Belgium), Mr Corlăţean (Romania), Ms Mitchell (Ireland), Sir Edward Leigh (United Kingdom), Mr Sáez (Spain), Mr Harangozó (Hungary), Mr Reimann (Switzerland), Ms Kovács (Serbia) and Mr Gulyás (Hungary)

Replies: Mr Walter (United Kingdom) and Ms Guzenina (Finland)

Amendments 8, 3, 12, 5, 1 and 10, 2, 11 and 13 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13806, as amended, adopted

4. Joint debate: Increasing transparency of media ownership and Media responsibility and ethics in a changing media environment

Presentation by Ms Bilgehan of report on the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Doc. 13747

Presentation by Mr Ariev of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Doc. 13803

Speakers: Mr Franken (Netherlands), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Garðarsson (Iceland), Ms Kavvadia (Greece), Ms Heinrich (Germany), Ms Magradze (Georgia), Mr Jenssen (Norway), Mr Schennach (Austria), Mr Nicolaides (Cyprus), Ms Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Ms Taktakishvili (Georgia), Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan), Mr Nissinen (Sweden), Ms Hoffmann (Hungary), Mr Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Šircelj (Slovenia), Mr Loukaides (Cyprus), Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan) and Mr Zourabian (Armenia)

Replies: Mr Ariev (Ukraine), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey) and Ms Gambaro (Italy)

Amendments 4, 1 and 3 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13747, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Doc. 13747 adopted

Draft resolution in Doc. 13803 adopted

Draft recommendation in Doc. 13803 adopted

5. 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

Luise AMTSBERG*

Athanasia ANAGNOSTOPOULOU

Liv Holm ANDERSEN*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN/Ion Popa

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Egemen BAĞIŞ

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT/Geneviève Gosselin-Fleury

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Agustín Conde

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/Giuseppe Galati

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Piet De BRUYN/Sabien Lahaye-Battheu

Beata BUBLEWICZ*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Elena CENTEMERO

Irakli CHIKOVANI/Chiora Taktakishvili

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Henryk CIOCH/Helena Hatka

James CLAPPISON

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Bence Tuzson

Katalin CSÖBÖR

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Namik DOKLE

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Nicole DURANTON*

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Franz Leonhard EßL

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

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF/Marjolein Faber-Van De Klashorst

François GROSDIDIER*

Andreas GROSS

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR*

Gergely GULYÁS

Jonas GUNNARSSON

Nazmi GÜR*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Maria GUZENINA

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Hannes HANSO*

Alfred HEER/Maximilian Reimann

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Oleksii HONCHARENKO

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO*

Florin IORDACHE*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Guguli Magradze

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Josip JURATOVIC*

Anne KALMARI/Anne Louhelainen

Mustafa KARADAYI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Niklas KARLSSON/Eva-Lena Jansson

Andreja KATIČ*

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU*

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN

Željko KOMŠIĆ

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR*

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN/Andreas Schieder

Rom KOSTŘICA/Marek Černoch

Elvira KOVÁCS

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Julia KRONLID/Johan Nissinen

Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Andres Herkel

Marek KRZĄKAŁA*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU/Nicos Nicolaides

Serhiy LABAZIUK/Mariia Ionova

Inese LAIZĀNE

Olof LAVESSON/Kerstin Lundgren

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L’OVOCHKINA/Sergiy Vlasenko

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/Gábor Harangozó

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Olivia MITCHELL

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN*

Piotr NAIMSKI*

Sergey NARYSHKIN*

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Sir Edward Leigh

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Julia OBERMEIER*

Marija OBRADOVIĆ

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O’REILLY

Maciej ORZECHOWSKI*

Sandra OSBORNE*

Tom PACKALÉN

José Ignacio PALACIOS/Jordi Xuclà

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Judith PALLARÉS CORTÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Waldemar PAWLAK*

Jaana PELKONEN/Sinuhe Wallinheimo

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/Kåre Simensen

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/Egidijus Vareikis

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/Snežana Jonica

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ*

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN/Hans Fredrik Grøvan

Petrit VASILI*

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Dimitris VITSAS

Vladimir VORONIN*

Viktor VOVK

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Tom WATSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER/Gabriela Heinrich

Morten WOLD

Bas van ‘t WOUT/Malik Azmani

Gisela WURM

Maciej WYDRZYŃSKI

Leonid YEMETS/Svitlana Zalishchuk

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Sergey ZHELEZNYAK*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

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

Christian BARILARO

David DAVIES

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Diva Hadamira GASTÉLUM BAJO

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Miguel ROMO MEDINA

Partners for democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA