AA17CR33

AS (2017) CR 33

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-third sitting

Wednesday 11 October 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 Kyriakides, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.30 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Joint debate:

Call for a Council of Europe Summit to reaffirm European unity

and to defend and promote democratic security in Europe

Defending the acquis of the Council of Europe:

preserving 65 years of successful intergovernmental co-operation

      The PRESIDENT – The first item on the agenda is the joint debate on two reports from the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. The first is titled “Call for a Council of Europe Summit to reaffirm European unity and to defend and promote democratic security in Europe” (Document 14396) presented by Mr Nicoletti; and the second is titled “Defending the acquis of the Council of Europe: preserving 65 years of successful intergovernmental co-operation” (Document 14406) presented by Mr Kox.

      We will aim to finish this item by about 6 p.m. I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.25 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Mr Nicoletti, 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.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – The report is the culmination of a long process lasting two years. I thank all the national delegations that have participated in one way or another. Alongside the report, there are a number of appendices that contain the documents that various national delegations have contributed to the process. That is a valuable resource that the Assembly might want to dip into. I also thank the representatives of governments, the ambassadors, the non-governmental organisations and the excellent staff here who have helped me with the report.

      Why do we call for a summit? Because a summit is not something that happens every year in our Organisation; it is an extraordinary event. Our Assembly felt some years ago that we were living through extraordinary times that called for extraordinary responses. Even more so today, we can say that the situation is a serious one that calls for a serious response.

      We all need to remind ourselves of our shared responsibility for a common European house. We all have our own political and national histories behind us, but here in the Assembly we sit in alphabetical order. That reminds us constantly that we represent not only nations and political families, but a common European house.

      I certainly feel a huge responsibility for Europe – not just for the Council of Europe, but for Europe. What other institution in Europe can assume responsibility for Europe as a whole? We have seen the travails surrounding the European Union of late: one country is leaving and there are difficulties in the dialogue between the European Union and countries that previously seemed on the point of acceding to it. I believe that the Council of Europe has to hold high the European ideal and the historic necessity that is a united Europe. It is not just a geographic idea; it is a lifestyle based on respect for the dignity of each and every individual and on respect for the rule of law and democracy.

      With some pride, we stressed in the report the idea of a European ideal. We went back to the words of Rougemont in 1948, when minds met in the aftermath of the Second World War. You will find these words at the end of the report: “Europe is threatened, Europe is divided, and the greatest danger comes from her divisions.” I have always been struck by those words, written by people who had suffered totalitarianism and war. As far as they were concerned, the greatest danger came from a divided Europe: “Europe’s mission is clear. It is to unite her peoples in accordance with their genius of diversity”. I draw your attention to that wonderful expression, the “genius of diversity”. We need to rediscover a taste for our diversity and, within that diversity, to seek unity.

      Throughout Europe, peoples and minorities are suffering because they have been forced into a mould that wants to make them uniform. We see aspirations towards self-determination and the unleashing of mad centrifugal forces. If we want to grapple with all this, we have to ensure that the genius of diversity shines through, so that we may remain different and, at the same time, call for freedom and respect for the equal dignity of all.

      Given that, we need to ask ourselves whether the Council of Europe can put forward ideals, drawing on its system of conventions, which is rightly referred to in the report of my colleague Tiny Kox. What about the internal mechanisms within the Council of Europe that enable us to speak out, to coexist and to live together, while at the same time respecting the genius of diversity and holding high the values of human rights?

      In the past couple of days, we have discussed some important reports, including that of Mr Liddell-Grainger, which helps us enhance some of our internal mechanisms. We have found certain weaknesses, for example, in combating corruption. We live in times of terrorism, poverty, modern slavery, conflicts and violations of international law, including within our community – we heard President Poroshenko’s testimony this morning. In response to all that, we have mechanisms that are sufficiently robust to enable us to face up to difficult times.

      Over the years, we have found difficulties with liaison or co-ordination in our Organisation. The various organs of the Council of Europe – the Committee of Ministers, the Court, the Parliamentary Assembly – have to be autonomous. Separation of powers is a cardinal principle of the rule of law and we would be ill advised to tamper with the balance that has been struck.

      We face major challenges, conflicts and violations of our rules. We therefore cannot afford to proceed in an unco-ordinated way; we need greater co-ordination between the Council of Europe’s various organs. The Joint Committee is a statutory body comprising the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly and there we can engage in a common debate. It is important to do that, rather than bury our heads in the sand, ostrich-like. We must have the courage to grapple with difficulties. We do not know where the debate will take us – the various organs will decide that – but we must have the courage to conduct that discussion while respecting our different institutions, and not with a view to lowering the Assembly’s standards. There have been moments in the history of this institution when the statutory bodies have been able to get their act together to a greater extent, to co-ordinate and make important decisions. For example, decisions were made about Greece and Turkey that were salutary when it came to restoring harmony.

      The draft resolution contains a proposal which calls on heads of State and government to reiterate their commitment to this Organisation. It also calls on the Parliamentary Assembly to do all that is required to strengthen its own internal mechanisms.

      The PRESIDENT– Thank you, Mr Nicoletti. You have just over two and a half minutes left.

      I call Mr Kox to present the second report. As always, you have 13 minutes in total.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Kyriakides. Once again, I congratulate you, and I also congratulate all of us on having an excellent new President.

      I compliment my colleague, Michele Nicoletti, on presenting the draft resolution that calls for a new Council of Europe Summit, “To preserve and further strengthen the” unique “pan-European project” that the Council of Europe is.

      In the report and recommendation that I have the honour to present to the Assembly, I fully support a Fourth Summit of Heads of State and Government, with the full participation of the Assembly. I propose that the Assembly call on the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to add to the summit’s agenda the unique Council of Europe convention-based system because it has substantially helped improve the function of democratic institutions, develop the rule of law throughout Europe and promote and protect the rights of all European citizens and inhabitants in the past seven decades – something of which we should be really proud.

      From the beginning, in 1949, the raison d’être of the Council of Europe was, as our Statute states, “to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress,” thereby focusing on the three major pillars of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. To that end, the Statute established the principle of intergovernmental co-operation, which has been central to the Council of Europe’s operations. That co-operation between member States focuses on the development of common standards in conventions and their effective implementation in member States to ensure continuity and to achieve the objectives set out in our Statute.

      More than 200 conventions have been produced since 1949, and they are now the main source of the Council of Europe acquis. They cover human rights, social rights, minority rights and protecting women and children. They counter the financing of terrorism, money laundering and human trafficking. They improve the legal structures of our member States, deal with match fixing and doping in sport, and forbid torture and degrading treatment and organ trafficking. They regulate child adoption, counter threats of public health and ensure data protection. I am convinced that those conventions have a direct impact on European citizens and the legal framework of our member States. That unique common heritage, which effectively and substantially contributed to the real de facto uniting of our continent, must be recognised, asserted, defended and, as necessary, further developed to the benefit of all European citizens and inhabitants and others, to whom the conventions are or could be applied.

      The Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe’s executive organ, must formally approve any initiative to draft a new treaty. The Committee of Ministers may ask the Parliamentary Assembly for an opinion on any draft treaty and, since 1998, it consults the Assembly on all draft treaties. The Statute states that conventions and agreements shall be considered by the Committee of Ministers on the Assembly’s recommendation or on the Committee’s initiative. Many of the treaties have been drawn up at the instigation of the Assembly, which is therefore often and rightly described as the Council of Europe’s political engine.

      The Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, together with member States, bear responsibility for creating, protecting, implementing and further developing this unique convention-based system in Europe, which now regulates many aspects of our societies. The lives of more than 835 million European citizens have been influenced by all the conventions.

      At the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government in Warsaw in 2005, the need to strengthen the effectiveness of the convention-based system was underlined and measures to achieve that were stipulated. Many steps have been taken since then and improvements have been made, such as a radical reform of the Organisation’s activities, as well as substantial reform of the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights and a review of conventions.

      However, despite those reforms, big gaps remain between what member States and the Organisation want and what we do. Ratification of conventions is often delayed, thus preventing their coming into force. Implementation of conventions in domestic law is often slow and inaccurate, and domestic legal frameworks are often dysfunctional. There are many reasons to be proud of what has been achieved in seven decades, but there is no reason for complacency or ignorance. Everything that has been built in seven decades could be torn down in far less time if we do not maintain and improve this unique convention-based system.

      Throughout Europe, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are under pressure and in dire need of revitalising. To help counter those developments and continue to do what is agreed in Article 1 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the instruments and institutions of our Organisation need to be modernised and made more effective.

      The upcoming Summit of Heads of State and Government, which is under preparation, should therefore, on the basis of a thorough evaluation, discuss among other things how to improve and reinforce the convention-based system of the Council of Europe. First, I therefore invite this Assembly to call on the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to add the Council of Europe’s convention-based system and its future to the agenda of the upcoming Summit of Heads of State and Government, and to adequately prepare in due time before the summit an in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing conventions and their monitoring mechanisms and proposals to substantially strengthen the convention-based system.

      I also call on them to prepare, secondly, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the assistance programmes for the implementation of the standards set out in the conventions and an assessment of improvements needed; thirdly, proposals for how to strengthen the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights; fourthly, proposals for how to broaden the scope of the application of the European Social Charter to all members and how to make it the main reference and common social rights benchmark to the European Union’s Pillar of Social Rights; fifthly, a general evaluation of the relations between the Council of Europe and the other main European organisations; sixthly, a consideration of the desirability for a European Union-Council of Europe memorandum of understanding on the participation of the European Union in Council of Europe conventions; seventhly, a road map for European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, in line with the obligation formulated in the Lisbon Treaty; and eighthly, proposals for how to reach out to citizens and let them participate more in the decision making of the Council of Europe.

      I also invite this Assembly to call on the Committee of Ministers and the governments of our 47 member States to ensure that sufficient financial and human resources be allocated to the convention-based system and intergovernmental activities, in which all member States should be able to participate on an equal footing. I call on the Committee of Ministers to involve this Assembly in the preparatory activities of those evaluations and reconsiderations, in the light of article 15a of the Statute, and to involve the Assembly appropriately in the upcoming Summit of Heads of State and Government.

      The prospect of a Fourth Summit of Heads of State and Government should be an opportunity for the Committee of Ministers to properly reflect on our Organisation’s future, bearing in mind that defending the Council of Europe’s acquis depends on preserving the unique system of co-operation, which enables all member States to agree on common positions and co-operate on an equal footing for the benefit of all. I invite the Assembly to call on Council of Europe member States to abstain from any voluntary actions that would result in weakening the intergovernmental co-operation that has contributed so much over the past decades to effectively unite the European continent.

      In conclusion, I thank wholeheartedly the staff – Yann, Kateryna, Valérie and Anna – and all the great experts who helped me do this work, and without whom I could not have written the recommendation. I also thank our interlocutors in Spain, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Of course, I also thank our Deputy Secretary General and Mr Jörg Polakiewicz for their comments.

      I hope that this Assembly will be able and willing to support the recommendation, and I look forward to hearing members’ comments.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. You have just under three minutes left.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia, spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their excellent reports. The EPP Group fully supports the draft resolution and recommendations.

      I will start by addressing Mr Nicoletti’s report. I welcome the initiative to organise a Fourth Summit of Council of Europe Heads of State and Government. It is driven by objective necessity. As the rapporteur correctly says, terrorist attacks, the rise of Euroscepticism, nationalism, populism and xenophobia, and persistent conflicts and other evils risk the unity of our supranational Organisation.

      As well as those external threats, unfortunately we also face internal exertions. Given that terrorist attacks are becoming commonplace, and given the atmosphere of hatred and intolerance, we cannot afford internal conflicts in our Assembly. We should remind ourselves of our core values, why this Organisation was created and its purpose. The fourth summit can be a great platform to remind ourselves of our mission and that, on joining this respected Organisation, we all make particular commitments that should be preserved unchanged. We do not have the right to step back from them.

      Our co-operation with the European Union is a tangible prerequisite for success. It should be tailored more to people’s needs and harmonised. Making standards more coherent will improve the effectiveness of our goals and the way in which they are implemented.

      Speakers at the previous summit in 2005 praised the fact that our continent is living through the best years in its history, and said that never before had Europe been so strong and safe and so close to being united and valued and admired throughout the entire world. Can we make the same claim today? I hope that, after taking action, we will be able to do so. We need to unite around our values of protecting human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. The summit will give all of us an opportunity to look back at our achievements and failures, and to shape future actions. Therefore, I support the idea of organising the fourth summit with the active involvement of the Assembly.

      Ms DE SUTTER (Belgium, spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – The two reports are very timely and important, given what is happening to Europe and our own institution. Various internal and external events are threatening the integrity of Europe and of this Organisation, and it is high time that we go back to and revise the fundamental values we all share. As Robert Schuman said 67 years ago, only a united Europe can save us from war. Those words are, unfortunately, very topical again, as we observe what is going on today.

      We need to acknowledge and discuss the acquis of the Council of Europe and strengthen the instruments we dispose, as discussed in Mr Kox’s report. We also urgently need the summit proposed by Mr Nicoletti’s report. Both reports are excellent and deserve our full support.

      I want to make two points. First, Europe is about values, and the conventions of the Council of Europe are unique instruments to defend and strengthen those values. On the other hand, we need to regain the trust of citizens, whom it is all about. Our work is to defend their rights. The discussion should not be about us politicians, but about our citizens. Only if they are convinced that our institutions defend their rights will trust in a united Europe be restored and will this Europe have a future. Citizens therefore need to be consulted and participate much more directly than at present.

      Secondly, collaboration between different institutions in different parts of Europe must be strengthened. The Council of Europe’s role is different from that of the European Union and work should not be duplicated in the domains of human rights, rule of law and democracy. If the European Union develops a Pillar of Social Rights, that should be done in accordance with the European Social Charter. The European Union should adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights as soon as possible and be enabled to sign up to the European Social Charter. The Council of Europe needs to reclaim its unique mandate in its core domains, and that should be acknowledged by the European Union, with good collaboration and understanding.

      Finally, within our own institution, dialogue and collaboration between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers should be strengthened in mutual respect, but in full acknowledgement of the independence, principles and role of the Parliamentary Assembly. We represent European citizens. This summit should be about the question of where the whole of Europe – I stress that it is about the whole of Europe – is going in the future. It is about our “vivre ensemble” – living together in solidarity and peace for the security of our citizens and their children and grandchildren.

      Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I join others in warmly congratulating you, Madam President, on your new office. I also congratulate Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox on their very useful reports. Each calls for a summit to enable certain necessary adjustments, so that the good effects of the Council of Europe since 1949 may further consolidate and endure.

      In my remarks today, I would like briefly to connect three considerations: what the achievements have been; how much they owe to the wisdom of a far-sighted, subtle and even paradoxical approach in the first place; and why, as stressed by the rapporteurs, any future adaptations should therefore be made in that context.

      While in Europe current levels of peace and stability are not least to be attributed to our respect for human rights and the rule of law, they also reflect an appreciation of how peace, democracy and economic stability best relate to one another. Since 1949, perception of those aims and their relationship has altered. Within our own States, improved economic performance remains a desirable national outcome, but within the Council of Europe, economic stability is correctly identified as a means towards a greater end and thus is subservient to the wider priorities of European peace, the political stability of countries and the collective wellbeing of communities. Europe’s economy has benefited enormously from the single market and the European Union. Nevertheless, the extent to which the wider priorities of peace and stability have been served is the measure of the success of our consensus to ensure that they are served. It is also the measure of the success of the Council of Europe of 47 States. We have always urged that those priorities should be advanced within that affiliation.

      These Council of Europe achievements owe much to the wisdom of the far-sighted, subtle and paradoxical approach adopted in the first place. One such example is the unprecedented and unique function of the European Court of Human Rights. It allows a single citizen to take on and, if relevant, seek legal redress, not only from other individuals or institutions, but from a European State itself. However, infrequently that may happen is beside the point. What matters is that the right is acknowledged and protected. That demonstrates a radical change in attitude in Europe towards the perception of State and citizen and a dramatic and welcome departure from traditional political theory, which has put the State before the citizen. Through the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, the concept is now entirely different: that as much as possible State and citizen should be on an equal footing.

      There will clearly always be fresh challenges confronting Europe. That is why regular summits are necessary and why the rapporteurs are right to call for the next one to happen soon. Recent new problems to be addressed are the increases in terrorist attacks, xenophobia, far right-wing parties, corruption and anti-migrant sentiment and prejudice. As observed by the rapporteurs, there is also a need for the gaps to be closed between Council of Europe conventions and their realisation in practice and for the Assembly to review its working methods and monitoring performance.

      For the attention of the next summit, there are a number of excellent facilitators with scope for constructive intervention – l will refer to only two examples. The first is the Venice Commission. I will not elaborate other than to draw colleagues’ attention to its recent successes in the field of constitutional reform. The Council of Europe’s Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation has also played a key role in assisting education about human rights. There are many opportunities for constructive adaptations. Yet avoiding imposition they must be implemented through our continuing Council of Europe consensus of mutual resolve, support and respect.

      Mr M. A. JENSEN (Denmark, spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I congratulate Mr Kox and Mr Nicoletti on their work. First, Mr Kox’s report is a nice report, and I do not have that many comments about it. Mr Nicoletti’s report has a fine title that we can all agree on. It has lots of very nice diplomatic words, and having a summit is a good idea, but it also includes worrying suggestions that we, in the ALDE Group, are very much against.

      If we look behind the diplomatic words, the report suggests in principle that the Assembly’s power to impose sanctions on countries should be removed. We all know that in, the past couple of months, and perhaps the past years, some members have been pursuing an operation to bring the Russian Federation back through some kind of back door. We have the Russian Federation’s latest attempt to blackmail this Organisation by withholding its annual subsidy, which has added more fuel to that operation. We, in the ALDE Group, are very much against that, especially because the Russian Federation has so far blatantly ignored any resolutions we have made regarding their blatant disrespect of all the core values of this Organisation. There is still no solution on the Minsk agreement. They have not fulfilled that at all. They are still supplying troops and equipment to the separatists in eastern Ukraine. They annexed and still hold a part of Ukraine, which is a member State. Their blatant disrespect continues.

      That is why we believe it is so important that we stick to our principles and the ideas behind the Council of Europe. The idea back in 1949 was that we should be a beacon of democracy. We should therefore never waiver in that. We should never go out and say, “It is so important that we have all the European countries in the Council of Europe, especially a large country like the Russian Federation, so we should talk about making some kind of agreement so that they can be let back in.” If that happens, we can throw out all the fine ideas about what this Organisation stands for. If that happens, it will mean we do not stand for anything so long as the country is big enough and pays a big enough amount of money in subsidies. That is why the ALDE Group is very worried about the precise proposals. We will say so in the Joint Committee and later on today. I hope that the Assembly will stand firmly on its principles. That is more important than ever.

      Mr LOUCAIDES (Cyprus, spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – There is no need to repeat how proud we are that you have been elected as the President of our Organisation, Madam President.

      First, l express the support of my group for the proposal in Mr Nicoletti’s report to convene the Fourth Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. That would give a new impetus to the Organisation’s mission and address the challenges facing the European continent. Such a summit would make a significant contribution to the unity and democratic security of the Council of Europe area. It will also contribute to the defence of the Organisation’s acquis from its 65 years of successful intergovernmental co-operation. That issue is addressed in the excellent report of our colleague, Tiny Kox.

      In that context, allow me to put forward some thoughts on the prospect of convening a fourth summit. As the UEL, we believe that the fourth summit should be used to reaffirm the principle that human rights are in practice universal, interdependent and indivisible. In particular, while the Council of Europe and its greatest achievement – the European Convention on Human Rights – are considered the most advanced system for the protection of individual rights, that is unfortunately not the case with the European Social Charter, as it does not have the same acceptance and resonance. Consequently, as stated in the recommendation, we consider it highly important that all member States of the Council of Europe join the European Social Charter. It is also important to strengthen the charter’s monitoring mechanism and use that as the foundation for the social rights pillar that the European Union is seeking to formulate.

      At the same time, we believe that such a summit must give a collective and comprehensive response to the issue of immigrants and refugees seeking a better life in our continent. Instead of building a “fortress Europe” of the sort that has resulted in many thousands of human lives lost in the sea, the Council of Europe must act in a uniform way with effective policies based on solidarity, humane treatment, safeguarding the internationally guaranteed right to asylum, and the establishment of legitimate and safe routes for refugees.

      The summit must also be used to make the Council of Europe a positive factor in ending the confrontation between the west and the Russian Federation. The restoration of parliamentary political dialogue within the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly will help towards this end. At the same time, the Russian Federation should withdraw its unacceptable decision to suspend its financial contribution to the Council of Europe.

      We believe that, with the setting up of correct priorities, with good preparation and the necessary boldness, and willingness to defend our principles and values, the fourth summit can and must become a historic milestone in our Organisation’s course towards the future.

      The PRESIDENT – The rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate, but do Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox wish to respond at this stage? No. I call Ms Hopkins.

      Ms HOPKINS (Ireland) – As Ireland was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, we would be very supportive of a Council of Europe summit in 2019 to mark the 70^th anniversary of its existence. This would most definitely be an important opportunity to reflect on the good work that has been done, and also to strongly reaffirm the Council of Europe’s commitment to build greater unity between its members and to strengthen its values in the interests of the people of Europe.

      The core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law remain as relevant today as they were 70 years ago. These values remain under challenge across Europe. There are so many serious issues facing us, like the migrant and refugee crisis, climate change and the rise of terrorism, which demand our response and our intensive input. We also know that within the European Union, we face major challenges with the United Kingdom leaving. Brexit undoubtedly has the potential to have a major detrimental impact, most particularly on Ireland. The ideals of the Council of Europe, to which Ireland is very committed, must be defended. We must ensure that we understand that working together is better. By working together, we can make progress.

      These reports, following the culmination of a very long process, as described by the rapporteurs, outline how the Organisation may function better. We need a joined-up approach in the face of difficult times. We must ensure that we succeed in achieving a political solution that does not compromise our values. The Council of Europe must be the forum for dialogue where people can peacefully coexist and gain an understanding of each other’s positions.

      Mr BLANCHART (Belgium)* – The role that our fine institution plays is as important as it is rather unknown in the European and supranational context, which is sometimes too complicated for the public at large to understand. I am sometimes inclined to say that because the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have a binding, crucial role in the defence of human rights in general, freedom of expression and combating discrimination in particular, these institutions sometimes disturb people. All countries call into the question the case law and wish to be free from its binding force when we talk about respect for human rights. There are also many conventions, such as the one on national minorities in my country, which are not ratified, or judgments that are not implemented. Obviously there needs to be a democratic debate, and a State should be able to amend its legislation. However, given the diversity of our 47 member States and the 820 million citizens concerned, the European Convention on Human Rights and the oversight it establishes should be viewed as presenting opportunities and not hindrances. It is often said that fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms are the red lines of the cement of our European civilisation – freedom of expression, repeal of the death penalty, respect for privacy, and the right to a fair trial.

      None the less, I am troubled. In recent months and years, European values have been flouted by several member States with the adoption of national legislation that is flagrantly at variance with the European Convention. We cannot just look idly by. This calls for an appropriate, robust response by the European institutions, but I see no strong response at present. The pre-eminence of the law and its respect everywhere is not up for negotiation. The French expression is État de droit – rule of law. No one was compelled to enter a supranational body such as our own. We are not talking about excluding or forgetting pragmatism or calling into question the sovereignty of a country – its own history, language or culture. One can only endorse the European project if one respects its fundamental values and moral values. This is a guarantee that the European Union and our Assembly may be a project that is common to all citizens who are part of it. It is only through the European conventions and treaties, and through the European Union, that we can achieve what we wish to achieve. Introspection has shown that there will be challenges to these European common values.

      Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – I would like to convey to you my satisfaction with today’s debate, which is a continuation of the ideas expressed in the Sofia declaration of the Assembly from 27 November 2015. In commending the work of the rapporteur, I appreciate his advisory procedure with the national delegations in which 31 delegations and several international non-governmental organisations favoured the idea of the fourth summit. I appreciate particularly that our rapporteur, Professor Nicoletti, has mentioned and incorporated into the report my next motion, which raises the issue of the role of the Council of Europe in the contemporary European political architecture.

      I firmly believe that we should not hesitate to debate the unprecedented problems that we are facing at this time. It is of primary importance that the fourth summit confirms the principles of European unity and co-operation. I am convinced that more than ever the future of Europe is our affair. We must stand together to avoid the perils threatening Europe’s unity, as the rapporteur so pointedly mentioned. Facing the problems of the continent, we have to pursue jointly common policies in order to succeed. United we can be stronger and more able to achieve our goals.

      There are ongoing discussions at the European and national levels as to whether this should be a one-speed, two-speed or multi-speed process. First, we have to reach an agreement after transparent debate and public involvement on what is the desired destination of the European process. The outcome of this discussion should not be to pressurise, but to reach out and convince people to accept a united Europe as their own.

      Now we are witnessing the evolution of several concepts about the goal we want to reach. Often they contradict one another and create tensions. Should Europe be an international or a supranational community? And to what extent, and how? There are tangible differences between the member States from northern Europe and those from the south, east and west of Europe. We should adapt our common values through dialogue and mutual understanding, on which the Assembly in 2008 passed Resolution 1640, on the use by Assembly members of their dual parliamentary role. I am convinced that, only then, will we avoid tensions within our European family, and we will be stronger as we face today’s challenges.

      There is no alternative to European unity. It is our destiny, and I dare to believe that, after the summit, all European citizens will firmly believe it, too.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – This is an important debate for our Assembly and for Europe as a whole. At the heart of our discussion are issues such as the threats hanging over our democracies, the risk of eroding our system for protecting rights – a system that is unique in the world – and the need for a new political initiative, leading to the call for a fourth summit to consolidate citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions and democratic values.

      I will speak briefly on three issues. First, in spite of all the risks and crises, as Mr Nicoletti said, there has been progress. A concatenation of unhappy and possibly unhealthy circumstances threatens our institutions and even our values and common future. We are aware of those dangers because we are aware of the huge amount that has been achieved by our peoples and countries over the past few decades, such as our procedures for reconciling our differences, for addressing challenges and for giving primacy to the law over the use of force. There is shared prosperity based on local development, and everything else that has been achieved in Europe over the past 70 years.

      That is not to deny the dangers of the situation, but we are ready to defend what we have achieved. We see it as natural, knowing that each element of the progress we have achieved is based on ancient hopes: representative and lasting democracy; the right of expression; diversity; and the preservation of political liberties and civil rights. We have made progress on all that, and it is no accident that we have achieved it, but it is not self-inherent that we will be able to protect it all in the future. We must keep working at it.

      Secondly, we must tackle doubts. Our fellow citizens have their doubts, as do our politicians and officials, about the goals of our co-operation, about the primacy of our democratic values, about the desire to combat the sources of inequality, tension and conflict, and about the desire to address violent ideological threats. Some people need it to be pointed out that we should not rest on our laurels. We need to work together, both inside and outside the European Union, to deal with these crises.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their reports. Europe urgently needs a Council of Europe Summit, as proposed by the rapporteur. Our Organisation is the only regional organisation that has the tools required to confront the new challenges arising at our borders. Its standard-setting role and its monitoring mechanisms make it stand out from other regional organisations in Europe, such as the OSCE and the European Union, inter alia.

      The choice of subjects to be discussed at the summit would have to be carefully worked out and developed in such a way as to harmonise and streamline the efforts of member States in the international arena. It is important that we discuss in advance the themes to be taken up at the summit. First and foremost, the Council of Europe should make an active contribution to resolving the refugee crisis, while fully respecting international solidarity and the rule of law.

      It is urgent that we share responsibilities and burdens with countries that have taken in Syrians. The Syrian conflict is a global problem that requires a response from the international community. We must also support diversity and pluralism in our societies, which means that we must recognise that religious beliefs and faiths play an important role in the lives of many citizens in our member States. We must therefore actively combat hate speech, Islamophobia and discrimination against young refugees from Muslim backgrounds.

      The Council of Europe and our Assembly must extend clear-cut and determined support to member States as they combat terrorism. Fundamental human rights must be guaranteed for all residents of our continent.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Even though I agree with the first part of the draft resolution, which highlights our values and the Assembly’s effect on member States, I cannot agree with the second part, from paragraph 13. I am sorry, but such paragraphs undermine everything we are doing. They state that our Organisation is counterproductive. Is it counterproductive that members of this Assembly are working on reports and defending human rights? I cannot agree with that.

      The position of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is that the provisions in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 are dangerous, because they undermine our independence. I am afraid that we might destroy the values we previously held. Of course, there are a lot of rumours that the provisions were proposed in order to bring back the Russian Federation without it fulfilling all the Assembly’s resolutions and demands.

      The Russian Federation does not want to return to a normal democratic process. It undermines the work of the Council of Europe and its bodies. At first, the Russian Federation used frank lobbying and backstage arrangements, and then it threatened to suspend the Organisation’s funding. Now, the Russian Federation has turned to open financial blackmail of the Council of Europe, and we are welcoming it with such draft resolutions. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the last paragraph, which I am afraid will undermine our values and our work.

      Mr REISS (France)* – Dear colleagues, having been born in 1949 in Alsace, I am the same age as the Council of Europe, which is a source of pride for me when I look at what this institution has given the European continent. Mr Kox, you are right to stress the exceptional acquis, especially with regard to the conventions. Aside from the Court and its flagship Convention, in all areas affecting human rights our Organisation has managed to create a core of conventions, some of which have even been ratified by non-member States. I refer to social conventions, and the social charter, which has the vocation of becoming the pillar for social rights in Europe. There are also conventions on social assistance and the social security code, which seek to foster equality among nationals and people from other member States, especially when ill. Too few States have signed those conventions, and a lot still needs to be done. As with the social charter, complex mechanisms are difficult to apply in practice, and European Union law does not always take into account the rights championed by the Council of Europe in certain areas where it has not created its own text. In future, inter-organisational dialogue must be bolstered, and that will doubtless be one aspect that we address at the summit.

      To give one example, the directive on detached workers runs counter to all Council of Europe social conventions that advocate equality between nationals and migrants. The finest acquis is undoubtedly our ability to engage in dialogue and build the common European home that Mikhail Gorbachev fervently called for in 1989. We managed to unite the European continent after the fall of the Berlin Wall, yet today – as you said, rapporteur – I regret that the Russian Federation is no longer present in this Assembly. Ever since 1991 and the break-up of the USSR, the Council of Europe has contributed so much to progress and enabled so many reforms. Notwithstanding what Mr Porochenko said this morning, it is right to say that the Russian Federation has made progress, thanks to our acquis. That does not make it an exemplary democracy – far from it – but the message is powerful: belonging to the Council of Europe is an asset and a key with which to enter into the rule of law.

      What has made our Organisation so strong is its ability to provide support through the Venice Commission and to engage in dialogue in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The next summit must take account of that. As someone born in Alsace, I believe in reconciliation, even among those who loathed each other in the past. France and Germany have shown the way, and while nationalism and hatred have often featured on the agenda of our sessions, I venture to believe that we will recall what we said after the Second World War: never again.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia)* – I think we can all agree that Europe in 2017 is radically different from Europe in 2005 – Europe has changed, and therefore the challenges that we face have changed too. Some 72 years after the Second World War, Europe is not free from open and latent conflicts. As colleagues have said, we are seeing nationalism, xenophobia, Euroscepticism, a lack of solidarity, terrorist threats – those are just some of the problems that a modern Europe now needs to resolve. I am concerned because it seems that the great pan-European ideal – the idea of a European family of peoples building their future together – is slowly losing momentum.

      For that reason, a summit is necessary as that would reaffirm European unity and the readiness to prepare democracy and security in Europe. A summit would be a way of proclaiming a new vision for Europe, and it is good that such an initiative stems from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as we are thereby shouldering our parliamentary and social responsibilities in the face of the challenges before us, as well as reaffirming our commitment to the European ideal. Our institution also faces challenges, and in future I would like to see more rather than fewer parliamentarians sitting in our midst.

      I will conclude my statement with a quote from Winston Churchill, who said in 1946 at Zurich University that “we must recreate the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe”. I therefore say to the Assembly: let Europe rise. Let us hope that adopting this resolution will be a step in that direction.

(Ms Schou, Vice-President, took the Chair in place of Ms Kyriakides.)

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I thank both the rapporteurs, and I also have some remarks about the report by Mr Nicoletti.

      Unity and integrity are very important for the Council of Europe in these times that are full of different challenges for all European States. Those challenges include terrorism and hybrid aggression against member States, the annexation of territories, the rise of separatist movements, the gradual increase of pure populism, problems caused by uncontrolled migration, and the flow of refugees. Such matters require an immediate and appropriate reaction by Council of Europe institutions, and that should be done in line with the Statute and the European Convention on Human Rights. We all have reasons to believe that we can be successful in addressing such challenges, as long as we stay united and committed to our common values.

      I am grateful to all those who reacted in a proper way to Russian aggression against Ukraine by imposing necessary measures as a response to brutal trespassing against international law, and the violation of Council of Europe values and principles. Values are crucial for the Council of Europe and the Assembly. We should always bear in mind that neither financial nor political considerations should be installed at the core of our decisions and actions, and instead we should focus on the fundamental values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Those are the only pillars on which our Organisation stands, and if we compromise on them, the whole Organisation and this Assembly will also be compromised.

      The Council of Europe was created 60 years ago by 10 founding States to ensure economic and social progress. Every State that joined the Council later did so by accepting the principles of the rule of law within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Every possible step that we take to derogate from those key values undermines the reputation and credibility of the Council of Europe. If we have to meet the requirements set by time and current conditions in Europe, that does not mean that we have to tolerate a member State that does not share the values of the Statute or respect its obligations. We should not succumb to any kind of blackmail, or accept a decision not to pay the membership fee. Obligations are equal for all, and that includes both principles and technical requirements.

      If the Assembly decides to compromise with one State that is violating its obligations, that will prompt a domino effect. Other States will receive a clear message that intolerable behaviour can be tolerated, and that will undermine the whole system of democracy and the protection of human rights in Europe. The Assembly will be strong and influential only if it maintains unity and adheres to its values. Over the past 60 years, the Council of Europe was the strongest and most respected Organisation for the protection of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, not only in Europe but in the entire world. In the coming years we should keep defending our values in the same manner as before.

      Mr G. DAVIES (United Kingdom) – Europe is on the edge of democratic disaster. Our human rights face historic threats, and the rule of law is under fundamental question. Now is the time for a summit to reassert our fundamental values of democracy, solidarity, the rule of law and human rights. We see right-wing populism in Brexit Britain also taking hold in France and Germany, fuelled by inequality and migration. We also see the militant separatism, that is given false hope by Brexit, burning from Scotland to Catalonia, and to Belgian Flanders, the Spanish Basque Country, French Corsica and even to ethnic Germans in northern Italy. Arguments over national borders, self-determination, and minority rights have come back to haunt Europe after so many generations, and after having caused so many wars in the past.

      I say this to the people of Catalonia: be careful what you wish for. Wait and watch Britain’s Brexit nightmare unfold into poverty, isolationism and internal division before you unwittingly move forward. Yes, we all know that the people of Catalonia were subjected to indefensible brutality at the hands of the Spanish police force for holding a peaceful referendum. That was a stupid, counterproductive response, but now is the time for peaceful co-existence and a negotiated devolution like we have seen in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in Britain. Yes Catalonia needs more space to breathe, we understand that, but unlike Scotland it has no judiciary, no tax-raising powers and no facility for immediate independence.

      We are stronger together. Every day that passes, evidence emerges in Britain about how we are weaker economically and politically from separation, with a £40 billion divorce bill costing every family thousands. Everyone’s assets and incomes have been devalued by 15%. Investors, banks and companies are moving to Europe. Our seat has been removed from the negotiating table. Standards on everything from flight safety, food, medicine and the environment, not to mention trade and security co-operation, are in crisis. I am fighting for the United Kingdom to have the final say on a vote on the European Union exit package so that, if people do not like what they get, they can remain in the European Union.

      Let the bitter experience of Brexit be a lesson across the Council of Europe that we are stronger together. Yes, in any close relationship, there are stresses, strains and needs for compromise, but as a dangerous and uncertain future for all of us unfolds, let us hold hands as we walk the journey together, bonded by our values of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, because remember: the eyes of Beijing, Washington and Moscow are looking at our resolve; they are looking at our mettle, and our unity. We need to reaffirm loud and clear our values to help shape a better future for Europe and a better future for the whole world to share.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Madame President, the European political landscape is changing in many ways, regrettably not for the better. In his report, Mr Nicoletti mentions a lot of challenges. Some of the most severe are the many attempts to undermine the authority of our European Court of Human Rights. Through hard work, the Court has been able to reduce the number of pending cases. That is a positive thing. On the other hand, we face a growing lack of political will to respect and implement the judgments of the Court among newer, as well as founding, member States of the Council of Europe.

      Among the threats to our societies, the report mentions terrorist attacks and the rise of xenophobia, nationalism and populism, as well as open and frozen conflicts between member States and even war. Another cause of great concern among our citizens is the lack of solidarity within Europe in handling the refugee crises. Yesterday we heard the Secretary General warning about another and even larger refugee crises emerging in sub-Saharan Africa if we do not act immediately. So far, there are few signs of action in this respect. According to our Secretary General, geopolitical confrontation is at its strongest since the Cold War. We have a President in the Unites States who some fear might tweet us into war. On top of this, we have the threat of climate change.

      A minor but nevertheless important issue is the unresolved issue concerning the Russian Federation and its participation in this Assembly. So far we have seen a new practice: a member State unilaterally deciding to take part in the Committee of Ministers but not the Assembly. Should we allow this to continue? Which member will be next? The Council of Europe is not a menu from which members can pick and choose according to their own wishes. Either you are a member or not. As a member, you undertake certain obligations. Therefore, it is regrettable that some member countries are still under monitoring after approximately 20 years of membership. One member has even gone in the wrong direction – back – under monitoring.

      With all these challenges hanging over us, I fully support Mr Nicoletti’s proposal to hold a summit to strengthen the treaty system and reaffirm our commitment to the Council of Europe’s standards. The Norwegian delegation has already decided to initiate a broad debate about the content of such a summit in our national parliament. I urge all colleagues to do the same.

      The PRESIDENT – Sometimes, but very seldom, the Secretariat makes a mistake. For the speakers of the political groups, the speaker on behalf of the Free Democrats Group was not given the floor. I will give her the floor now before the next speaker.

      Ms GAMBARO (Italy, spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – With today’s resolution, we wish to reaffirm forcefully the importance of the presence of Europe’s institutions. Very often we hear or read on the web so much fake news. We are told that European institutions are a waste of money for the coffers of individual countries, created to carve up political authorities and weigh heavily on the budgets of those countries that participate.

      With today’s vote on the subject of a summit, we need to relaunch the importance of our institutions and the values on which they are based as never in the past, with exasperating forms of nationalism and growing inequality in the wealth of citizens in our countries. Countries have to face up, with scant resources, to migratory flows of whole peoples on the move, fleeing war and conflict. That has dealt a heavy blow to the very foundation and bedrock on which organisations such as the Council of Europe are based, not to mention the growing threat of terrorism that leaves masses of citizens helpless. All these phenomena have led to great instability and a loss of confidence in Europe’s institutions.

      Nevertheless, the time has come to pick ourselves up and talk with pride of the importance of this Organisation and the principles that have always governed its activities. This spirit should be heard loud and clear when we are called upon to take decisions such as this. For more than half a century, the conventions of the Council of Europe have made a huge contribution to improving the functioning of democratic institutions throughout Europe, promoting the rule of law and developing the rights of us all, with no one being excluded. Therefore, at the forthcoming Summit of Heads of State and Government, we need to reaffirm all this loud and clear. There is a need for urgency. I hope this resolution will be unanimously supported.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – I stress the fact that the subject we are discussing is very important and topical. I agree with Professor Nicoletti and Mr Kox. It is important and very necessary to have a fourth summit, but at the same time, to have real democratic institutions, appropriate political, social and economic conditions must be put in place.

      We know that the international press has already referred to the opinions of States with hate speech. That has to be eliminated in the future, but it must be subject to an impartial political and judicial assessment. Concrete mechanisms that enhance responsibility must be put in place; otherwise we will be like ostriches hiding their heads in the sand.

      What is the solution? Taking away the voting rights of the Azerbaijan delegation would not be a constructive approach, but the President of Azerbaijan has not hesitated to use his wealth to undermine the integrity of various European politicians. After the drop in the price of oil, levels of corruption may decline, but I do not think that we can develop and form real democratic institutions – the fiction has exploded in our face.

      Mr GRIN (Switzerland)* – Madam President, dear colleagues, for more than 65 years – indeed, it will soon be 70 years – discussions regarding the conventions and recommendations of the Council of Europe have strongly contributed to improving the functioning of democratic institutions in Europe. On our continent, the Council of Europe is the main organisation for the defence of human rights, advocating freedom of expression, freedom of the media, freedom of assembly, equality and, above all, the protection of minorities. It has contributed in a major way to the abolition of the death penalty in all member States and has launched several campaigns on various issues.

      Admittedly, the picture of the Council of Europe’s acquis, after seven decades of inter-governmental co-operation, is not a completely cloudless sky. Certain member States have not always abided by many conventions, but we should always look at the positive aspects and the many democratic improvements that many countries on our continent have benefited from. The dream of European unity, which the founders of this Council so eagerly wished for, has not been completely fulfilled, but we must work to ensure that one day it becomes a reality. The raison d’être of the Council of Europe is not in question, especially given the new threats from terrorism that confront all our countries. There is still a lot of parliamentary work, conciliation and persuasion to be done owing to the new, emerging problems in various parts of our continent, most recently in Spain.

      The two outstanding reports that we are discussing today remind us of the background and organisational aspects of our Council. Mr Nicoletti’s report calls for a Fourth Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe’s member States to be held. That proposal has the merit of allowing the Council of Europe to launch itself into the future through concerted discussion among heads of State and government, in order to continue giving political impetus to a number of Council of Europe actions and recommendations, and insisting on follow-up to those actions and resolutions and, above all, avoiding financial blackmail.

      The dangers for future years are not the same as in 1948, and neither are the divisions, but they still pose a grave threat to our European unity. It is important to reaffirm European unity and to defend and foster the democratic security of Europe. The two reports by our colleagues Mr Kox and Mr Nicoletti run along the same lines and both bear the same leitmotif: they recall the past in order to build the future. To do that, inviting heads of State and government to a forthcoming summit is desirable to recognise, assert, defend and, as necessary, further develop and financially support the conventions on which the Council of Europe is based in an adequate fashion. That is all in the interests of the inhabitants and citizens of our continent.

      Thank you rapporteurs, and thank you colleagues for your attention.

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – Madame President, distinguished colleagues, in this important joint debate, our colleagues Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox have both presented full reports that both deal with the acquis of the Council of Europe and our Organisation’s future prospects. Moreover, I think that those reports will become reference texts.

      This afternoon, our Assembly will decide whether we wish to hold a Fourth Council of Europe Summit in 2019, on the 70^th anniversary of the Council. It is already uncontested that we will respond positively to the question. I favour a summit, especially as it would take place during the French presidency of the Committee of Ministers. It would be a strong, symbolic message for France, the host country of the Council of Europe. I remember that in this Chamber in October 2016, President François Hollande stated that France was ready to organise a Summit of Heads of State and Government in 2019. The new French Government will have to reconfirm that commitment.

      When it comes to the question of why a summit is necessary and what expectations would hinge on it, the evidence is not so strong. It seems to us that a fourth summit would be nothing out of the ordinary, not least because our Assembly launched that idea in 2009 and has harked back to it many times since. The Secretary General was absolutely right to raise the issue once again. I think we need to share some serious thinking on what results we expect from a summit. Although the Vienna Summit in 1993 defined a new political mandate for the Council of Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the enlargement that followed, what was added by two further summits – the Strasbourg Summit in 1997 and the Warsaw Summit in 2005 – was more modest.

      Seventy years after the Treaty of London, 60 years after the Strasbourg Court began functioning and 30 years after the fall of Berlin Wall, our European values are being contested. The authority of the Court is sometimes scorned and our system of Council of Europe conventions has been left partly unimplemented. A fourth summit could reaffirm the unity of our European continent around those values, the scope of which remains universal. However, let us make sure that the summit will not have the opposite effect to what we are counting on. Growing Euroscepticism could give rise to a public display of disunity and an attempt by some member States to question all that we have achieved. That is why this summit is worth preparing for very carefully and, to that end, the proposal from Mr Nicoletti seems extremely relevant.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – First, I deplore the words of my colleague from France, Mr Reiss, who essentially put an equals sign between the victim, Ukraine, and the aggressor, the Russian Federation. Nobody did that in 1940 between France and Germany.

      The key difference between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers is that the Assembly arrives at decisions through democratic debates, whereas the Committee is a consensus-based body. The founding fathers of this Organisation devised the Parliamentary Assembly as an autonomous political body with the mission of scrutinising member States against human rights standards. The adoption of paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the draft resolution would simply abolish the institutional independence of this Assembly and allow the Committee of Ministers to veto Assembly decisions that belong to exclusive competences of the Assembly, such as the sanctioning of delegations. Let us assume that democracy undergoes a dramatic backsliding in a member State – that that member State does something outrageous or that it simply sends a delegation here comprised only of male members. The Assembly would never be able to sanction that member State because the member State could easily veto that decision through the Committee of Ministers, which, as I said, is a consensus-based organisation.

      As has been mentioned, it is an open secret that this discussion is partially about the Russian Federation, which continues to exercise formidable influence in this Organisation. We know that the Secretary General and many people here are strongly in favour of bringing the Russian delegation back. I asked him at our discussion yesterday, and I want to ask Mr Nicoletti, whether he is aware of any serious forces in the Russian Government – there is no opposition in the Russian Parliament – that are in favour of complying with the demands put to the Russian Federation by this Assembly. Is the answer yes or no?

      I conclude with a rhetorical question. It is an undisputed fact that the Russian Federation occupies 20% of the territory of my country, Georgia, and has expelled half a million people from their homes. The Russian Federation is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine and is responsible for 10 000 deaths. What else does the Russian Federation have to do to get itself expelled from the Council of Europe?

      Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – First, I congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox, for their very important and topical reports. They have really put their fingers on the pulse of the major political challenges that threaten our unity today.

      We are concerned about the future of our Organisation. The daily risk of terrorist attacks, growing Euroscepticism, xenophobia, wars and the reappearance of division – increasing day by day – are real threats for Europe and its integrity. It is difficult to admit that, after 70 years of existence, the Council of Europe is confronted with the need to reaffirm its raison d’être.

      There is a time for stones to be thrown and a time to pick them up and gather them together. That second time has come. Unfortunately, in recent times on a number of occasions, we have stepped back from our principles, have set aside or denied our own values, or have put them at the service of political advantage. The time has come to be innovative and creative, to avoid double standards and to ensure the consistency of our standards and values. The Council of Europe can and must act with courage and determination on the basis of its pillars of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Member States must reaffirm their will to continue to share those common values and to turn their internal differences and divergences into advantages, to really live together and show that unity in diversity is meaningful.

      We must make sure that the general situation within the Organisation today does not have a counterproductive impact. The recent reforms implemented by our Assembly take us in the right direction and consolidate our Organisation, but in order to raise up high the banner of the Council of Europe as the protector of democracy and the rule of law, and in order to improve the effectiveness of the system of protection of human rights, holding a Summit of Heads of States and Governments of the Council of Europe member States is an indispensable step, and the preparation of the summit should address its historic mission and its creative role.

      Ms TOPCU (Turkey) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their comprehensive reports. We have been in a process, in which the whole world has been through a fundamental transformation. That transformation will be recorded as a milestone and deserves to be a matter for debate. The idea that globalisation would foster prosperity did not lead to the expected results, and the liberals behind that idea became scapegoats. As a result of rising populism and complicated governmental management crises, there has been a tendency towards authoritarianism. The global crisis, regional developments and populist waves are raising questions about the future of the European Union and the failure of the European ideal. Those criticisms affect the attractiveness of the Union and increase the sense of fragility of the project.

      The fall of the Berlin Wall was a revolutionary turning point for European integration and democracy. However, if we look specifically at Turkey–European Union relations, with rising hostility to Islam and opposition to Turkey, the Union contradicts its own values. That contradiction poses a great danger – there is no way European policy protects and preserves democracy. The rise of the extreme right and the failure of humanitarian policies on the migrant issue increase the number of those who wish to divide Europe with ideological walls. We have been warning Europe for a year about ideological Berlin Walls.

      Today, the European Union is standing at a critical point in its struggle against hate crimes through democratic, ideological means. In that respect, we should clarify that the European Union’s need for Turkey is no less than Turkey’s for the European Union. Although we have been through some transnational problems, it would be safe to say that the European Union and Turkey’s mutual interests are indispensable. The European Union and Turkey share a long history that cannot be sacrificed to temporary domestic politics and populist waves.

      I conclude my speech with a wish for the greater co-operation of both parties, within a framework of democracy and European values, especially as a response to humanitarian and hate crimes.

      Mr de BRUYN (Belgium) – I draw your attention to another human rights issue: the rights of LGBT people. As far as LGBT rights are concerned, the European Court of Human Rights has led the way. As far back as 1981 in Dudgeon v. UK, the Court found that the criminalisation of sexual relations between men in Northern Ireland violated Article 8 of the Convention. The next two decades saw all those member States with similar laws implementing the judgment, leading to decriminalisation in no fewer than 23 jurisdictions. A huge burden was lifted from the lives of millions of people.

      Since the late 1990s, the scope of the Court’s judgments on sexual orientation and gender identity issues has continually expanded, covering among other things the age of consent, employment in the armed forces, hate crimes and hate speech, legal recognition of same-sex couples and the rights of transgender persons. For example, earlier this year, in a case against France, the Court found that requiring trans people to undergo sterilisation before they could change their official documents was a violation of the right to private life. Approximately 20 member States still make that a requirement, so the judgment will have far-reaching consequences as member States bring their legislation into line with the judgment.

      The Assembly has also been leading the way, with its first resolution on lesbian and gay rights in 1981 and many resolutions in subsequent years – for example Resolution 2048 on discrimination against transgender people.

      Following the lead of the Court and the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers adopted its first legal instrument on the rights of LGBT people, the recommendation on combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, in 2010. That acquis is far more developed than those of any other regional human rights organisation, or indeed of the United Nations, but remains to be completed in such areas as trans rights, intersex rights, and the rights of same-sex families. Ultimately, I would like to see such rights codified in a binding convention. That is a long way off, and in the meantime, vigilance is needed to counter those forces that would like to see them weakened or even rolled back.

      Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Honourable rapporteurs and members of the Assembly, a lot of good work has been done, but I rise to express my reservations. My reservations relate to several paragraphs of Mr Nicoletti’s report. I have nothing against the idea of a summit or against our common activities on the Joint Committee and in many other forums; I just have reservations about paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, which have been criticised by other colleagues.

      It seems to me that this is a hidden attempt to change our rules or to give our autonomous right to the Committee of the Ministers. Yes, we want all members to be in both bodies – the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly – but we also want our member States to fulfil their obligations. At the moment, we have certain sanctions in our rules to challenge the credentials of a delegation or to suspend voting rights.

      A lot has been said about the Russian Federation, so let me give another example. Twelve years ago, I proposed the suspension of the voting rights of the Azeri delegation. Your predecessor, Mr Nicoletti, as the chair of the Socialist Group was Mr Gross. He and I were the rapporteurs and we decided to send a strong message about stolen elections.

      Our proposal was not adopted, but there is a need to show our willingness as a parliamentary body to send a strong message. In some cases, voting rights have been suspended. That is not for every day, of course, but we must maintain our capacity to make such decisions if we are to continue as a parliamentary body and not some kind of puppet show.

      Mr A. STEVANOVIĆ (Serbia) – I have had many opportunities to hear different views about our common space in Europe. The reality is that there are two visions of Europe and we must learn to live with that. The first is a Europe of integration and core values. It is the space that made our lives great, and it is our values that made that space the most desirable place to live on earth. There is also the geographical Europe, which is different.

      There is something that may be called “core Europe”, by which I mean the European Union plus the countries that pretend to being part of that association of nations. The reality is that that will not be finished in the future. What we can do as core Europe is to always stick to our values, because it is our values that made us great – values such as freedom. Sometimes, we say that freedom is a given that cannot be challenged, but we who lived in countries under serfdom for decades know that it is not to be taken for granted, but must be fought for. We must fight for all our values in every aspect of our policy.

      The key thing when we discuss the future of this body and of the European space is therefore to know what our identity is and what our values are. We must not tire of the rule of law, our independent institutions, democracy or human rights and make bad decisions in order to solve some issues that cannot be solved easily or quickly. Rather, we should reaffirm our unity based on our best practices and on the things that made Europe great. We must insist on our values not just in Europe, but when we try to implement our policies and our values outside Europe. Without values, Europe is nothing. Values are the key ingredient of our success and our greatness.

      We definitely must find a way to relax our relationships with greater Europe – the geographical Europe – but we must do so with a realistic approach, because it is an issue that cannot be solved easily. There are no magic wands. In the meantime, we must always repeat and repeat our core values – nothing more, nothing less.

      Mr LUPU (Republic of Moldova) – I thank Mr Nicoletti and Mr Kox for their in-depth assessment of Europe’s democratic shortcomings, which require an immediate response from our Organisation.

      Since the last summit, Europe has faced and is still facing serious political and moral challenges, such as the rise of Euroscepticism and frozen conflicts such as the Transnistrian one. What was true before is not applicable today. The world order is changing and there are new, more sophisticated instruments that our countries must deal with.

      The nature of this challenging period is clearly revealed in Mr Nicoletti’s report. It assesses appropriately the health of the building blocks of democratic security and looks at tendencies that threaten our democratic structures and culture. It highlights the human rights challenges that are faced by Europe today and the added value that the Council of Europe is giving and can give to European stability. We must emphasise that the Council of Europe’s instruments and expertise are of paramount importance.

      We share the view that the European Convention on Human Rights remains the ultimate backstop for our democracies, preventing a slide towards an antagonistic and chauvinistic Europe. Our shared standards are the means of resolving disputes and building bridges. We need to rebuild the trust in institutions and to be resilient to the undermining of fundamental values.

      Dear colleagues, we will continue to attach great importance to the European Convention system and to judgments of the European Court of Human Right, in order to enforce the letter of the law. That is not a fanciful trend, but a reality; it is a responsibility to which all of us must contribute.

      The Council of Europe has the expertise and all the ingredients needed to move beyond the current challenges, but the Organisation must be supported by the will of its member States. That is more necessary today than ever. In that regard, we support the recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to call a Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe countries. At the same time, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe shall play an active part in the preparation of the summit to ensure that it results in an Organisation that is well equipped to prevent and respond to the threats that are posed to our core values.

      Mr VENIZELOS (Greece) – The pan-European constitutional acquis concerning democracy and the rule of law has proved more fragile than anticipated. The Council of Europe, as the guardian of those fundamental values, needs a new boost. The question is by what method the new boost can be achieved most efficiently.

      The simple answer is: through a new Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the member States. The summit is the most formal and powerful form of the intergovernmental character of the Council of Europe, with the correlation of power and the trade-offs that that entails. In my opinion, the special character and added value of the Council of Europe is found in the institutional procedures and mechanisms it has at its disposal to use its intergovernmental character to advocate the principles of the rule of law and the need to protect human rights.

      The added value of the Council of Europe derives from the European Court of Human Rights: the individual applications, the execution of the Court’s judgments and the role of the Commissioner for Human Rights. The authority that the Venice Commission has gained means that it now functions as an informal, pan-European constitutional council. The Parliamentary Assembly elevates the intergovernmental character of the Council of Europe and has created an institutional level of pan-European, parliamentary control in the name of common European values.

      A summit is a big event of great visibility, which is necessary to endorse new initiatives in the Council of Europe. I agree totally with the rapporteurs and thank them. However, critical to the genuine renewal of the role of Council of Europe are the mechanisms that give added value and elevate the intergovernmental nature of this body.

      Mr TILSON (Canada, Observer) – I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on the important issue of democratic security in Europe. I will focus on immigration in relation to democratic security and the Canadian perspective on that.

      As the rapporteur outlined in his excellent report, in recent years, Europe has reckoned with a migrant crisis that has threatened the security of your countries and remained high on the international policy agenda. Many host States face significant changes as they struggle to accommodate the newcomers. States that, despite those difficulties, have made efforts to welcome those seeking asylum and new opportunities should be commended. Some have responded to increased immigration with fear and, in some cases, hostility. Fears rooted in concern about maintaining security are understandable. However, we must remind ourselves that the vast majority of those seeking asylum are simply fleeing war-torn countries in search of safety for themselves and their families. While all countries are entitled to preserve and protect their borders, in the rapporteur’s words, we must make an effort to “avoid building new walls”.

      In Canada, immigration is widely seen as having mainly positive benefits, namely growing our diverse society, culture and economy. Our history of welcoming immigrants and celebrating diversity is a source of pride for Canadians. Indeed, one in every six Canadians was born outside Canada. As you may have seen, Canada is dealing with an unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants from the United States, though on a much smaller scale than the migrant crisis in Europe. As a result of that, the processing of legitimate asylum claims is delayed and our government resources are strained.

      In our globalised world, legal and illegal immigration is a reality for all countries. To ensure security, immigration must be conducted lawfully through proper channels. However, it is equally important to welcome newcomers who follow those proper channels to our countries, particularly those fleeing persecution and war. By continuing to work together through such forums as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, our countries will be better prepared to address today’s unique and complex changes and to reject ideologies and policies that seek to divide us.

      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 typewritten texts can submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      I call Mr Kox to reply. You have three minutes left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – The report and the recommendation were prepared over a long period, during which many people were involved and many experts gave their opinions. The Secretary General’s office has participated in the process, and all that has led to a recommendation without amendments. That shows great consensus on the need to have the convention-based system on the agenda of the upcoming summit, which will probably take place in 2019.

      I thank the Assembly for the many positive reactions during this afternoon’s debate. I hope that we can adopt the recommendation and that the Committee of Ministers and our heads of State and government will take into account the decision that we make today. As I said in my initial remarks, that would be in the interests of uniting Europe, as the convention-based system has done in the past.

      Again, I thank all the people who assisted me in drafting the report and recommendation, especially the staff, who have worked very hard, including during the summer, to complete them in time. My experience in preparing the report and recommendation was that we have a great staff. Without them, the report and recommendation would not exist.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox. Does the chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs wish to speak? Ms Maury Pasquier, you have the floor.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – The democratic institutions, the rights of citizens, the rule of law – all those values are being buffeted in many member States of the Council of Europe and beyond. We have seen the impact in the Assembly, which is affected by conflicts between several member States. More than ever, the fundamental values of the Council of Europe need to be reaffirmed. We need strengthened intergovernmental co-operation, and the convention-based system must be further improved. A Fourth Summit of Heads of State and Government of member States of the Council of Europe will be an excellent occasion on which to do that.

      This Organisation’s achievements over the past 70 years reside mainly in the conventions, many of which were developed by the Assembly. The Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and the member States are responsible for developing the system of conventions in Europe, and implementing and enforcing them. The two statutory bodies must continue to work closely together while preserving their individual prerogatives. Any proposals about harmonisation of rules must be conducted by the two bodies, with full respect for their respective powers and competences. The two reports are an opportunity to strengthen unity within the Assembly and the Council of Europe, with a view to consolidating people’s trust in this Organisation, on the basis that there is strength in unity in order better to defend democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

      The PRESIDENT– Thank you, Ms Maury Pasquier. I call Mr Nicoletti to reply. You have two minutes and 30 seconds.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this worthwhile debate, particularly those who have been critical, because they have given me an opportunity to clarify my thinking. I want to put their minds at rest: there is no occult attempt on my part to do anything. This is the house of the rule of law and transparency, and the only thing on which we will be voting is the text before us. If members are convinced by it, they should vote in favour; if not, they can of course reject it. It is the written text – and nothing else – that we are voting on.

      On the claim that we risk undermining the powers of the Assembly, I thank the Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for speaking out and repeating my argument. The report gives full respect to the autonomy of the two organs. We cannot say anything other than that. The Joint Committee does not have any decision-making powers. We are simply talking about launching a debate within it.

      I am grateful to our colleague from Estonia, Mr Herkel, for reminding us of the very strong message that has gone out from this Assembly in the past. I discussed the case of Greece and Turkey, and I would certainly not want to do anything to undermine the Assembly’s powers or authority. I am concerned – I am grateful to Mr Ariev and Ms Christoffersen for raising this – that certain members are tempted to pick and choose bits of the Organisation that suit their purpose, such that their participation is dependent on their particular interests. That is what I was referring to when talking about counterproductive matters. I want to put Ms Sotnyk’s mind at rest: we do not want to do that. We support discussion and debate within the organs of this institution.

      For as long as I have been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, I have not known the Committee of Ministers wishing to have any negative influence on this parliamentary body. We are two different organs but part of the same institution. I believe that the text will serve as a useful instrument to strengthen this Assembly and the Organisation’s mechanisms.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone from the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wish to speak? I call Mr Korodi. You have two minutes.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – This is a crucial moment for Europe, and one of the best answers is to tackle the problem together, with a united Europe based on the rule of law, democracy, human rights and minority rights. Our charters, conventions and resolutions have some very good instruments. I welcome the fourth summit – 12 years is a long time for Europe. For that reason, I am glad that my committee was involved in preparing documents for the summit. I thank Mr Nicoletti for doing such a good job – it was not easy – and our staff for their help. We need to provide perspectives for the summit. The debate must not stop here; it is now open within the Council of Europe. I hope the summit will have a good result – we need it.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 15 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which three amendments have been tabled.

      We will first consider the amendments to the draft resolution. I understand that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 3 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so, Mr Korodi?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      We will therefore now consider Amendment 4. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support Amendment 4.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – This important amendment notes the Russian decision to give its constitutional court the power to overturn the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. If we are saying that it is very important to reinforce the Court, we should react to such decisions and mention them in the report.

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – The content of the amendment is acceptable and Tiny Kox’s report also clearly says that one of the most important aims of our institution is to respect and implement the Court’s judgments. However, the first part of the draft resolution adopts a general discourse and we do not mention specific cases of individual countries. Therefore, I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support Amendment 6.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Paragraph 8.5 addresses problems in the Council of Europe, but it is important that we add the words: “open discussions regarding systematic violations of the Statute of the Council of Europe and the values of the Council of Europe by its member states, and mechanisms to deter and discontinue such behaviour by national delegations.”

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – Again, the reason for my opposition is formal. Violation of our mechanisms is a serious issue and it is addressed elsewhere in the draft resolution. Paragraph 8, however, discusses the role played by the fourth summit and our Organisation on the European continent rather than internally, defending human rights, social rights and so on, so I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      I call Mr Makhmudyan to support Amendment 18. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr MAKHMUDYAN (Armenia)* – The aim of the amendment is to make clear the links with the European Union. We once again draw attention to the report adopted in 2006.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is in favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Paragraph 12 of the report says that the Assembly regrets that the Russian Federation stopped its contributions to the budget, but that is not enough. We should say that such behaviour is absolutely inappropriate and is blackmail of the Assembly. Amendments 7 and 1 say that blackmail of the Council of Europe is inappropriate behaviour and that the financial contributions of all countries are unconditional.

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

      I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – Paragraph 12 relates to the inconsistency in the composition of the two statutory organs. The two main questions relating to the behaviour of the Russian Federation are clearly stated. The paragraph states that the illegal annexation of Crimea was the reason for the Assembly issuing sanctions and criticises the decision of the Russian Federation not to pay, stating that it is a clear violation of an obligation. I prefer to maintain the existing text, which is sufficiently clear.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support the Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – If we do not mention the Russian Federation’s behaviour in the report, I feel that we may be hiding a procedure to bring the Russian Federation back with all its credentials without fulfilling the sanctions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That concerns me, and others. We need to put the truth about the Russian Federation’s behaviour in the report.

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

      I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – The report is not about the Russian situation, but the summit and the proposal to harmonise our mechanisms. What it is essential to say has already been said. The formulation in the amendment does not help the report.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support the Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Paragraph 13 states: “The Assembly considers that the overall situation in the Organisation is today counterproductive” and so on, but we do not say why. We propose to add the words, “, due to the systematic violations of statutory obligations by some member states and their destructive actions towards the bodies of the Council of Europe,”. Without those words, it is unclear why the situation in the Organisation is counterproductive.

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

      I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – It is clear that we condemn the violation, but the reference to the situation being “counterproductive” relates not only to the violation, but to the overall situation. As I have said, the situation can produce this “pick and choose” mechanism in terms of membership of the Organisation, and that is not positive.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 14. If the amendment is agreed, Amendment 8 will fall. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Paragraph 15 goes completely against the principles of the division of branches of power. Parliamentary bodies should not be put in step with other bodies; they have to stay autonomous. The paragraph is the first step towards ruining the autonomy of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I suggest we delete the paragraph from the report.

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

      I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – The autonomy of the Assembly is clearly stated in paragraph 16, which talks about “fully respecting the latters’ autonomy.” In paragraph 15, we simply describe the situation that has been created where there is no coherence between the two organs. That is why, in paragraph 16, we discuss how we want to create the harmonisation.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support Amendment 8. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – The amendment is important. It is about the autonomy of our Assembly. It is one of the pillars on which our body is based. Yes, there are some words about autonomy in paragraph 16, but is it a problem to also add the words to paragraph 15? I do not see any problem, so our proposal is to add the words “adhering to the principle of the autonomy of the Assembly and”.

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

      I call Mr Nicoletti.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – We have nothing against adding those words, but the amendment proposes to replace words, not add them. Since autonomy is defended in paragraph 16, it is useful to say that there is no coherence between the two mechanisms in paragraph 15. I propose that we maintain the existing draft.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      I call Mr Ariev to support Amendment 15.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – We are referring here to an obligation not for presence in Council of Europe bodies but for values and meeting those values. If we go this way, we are going to step back from the ground values that the Council of Europe is based on. Moreover, the paragraph in question keeps trying to link the decisions of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers. That breaks down the principle of autonomy. It is mentioned in a very tricky way and I think we should keep it out.

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – I am quite surprised because this paragraph is important for the defence of the autonomy of the Assembly. The last sentence says that we have to “strengthen the sense of being part of a community and the obligations incumbent upon every member State.” So it is really important in order to preserve the obligations of every member State.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 15 is rejected.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support Amendment 9.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – In this amendment we propose to change the words about initiating a new procedure about “harmonising” and so on. We want to see the words, “within existing procedures” because we think that new procedures could be dangerous for us.

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – I understand the risk of new procedures, but the resolution does not propose a new procedure. We propose to have joint working with the committee, which is a statutory organ, and we propose not to have co-operation but “harmonisation”, which is a typical word of European law and which can strengthen our Organisation. Every organ will be independent and follow their own procedure eventually if they want to change the rules or to maintain them.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) - The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      I understand that Mr Goncharenko wishes to withdraw Amendment 10.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – That is right.

      The PRESIDENT – Amendment 16 tabled by Mr Kross is identical to Amendment 10. Does anyone wish to move Amendment 10 or 16?

      Amendments 10 and 16 are not moved.

      I understand that Mr Goncharenko wishes to withdraw Amendment 12. Does anyone else wish to move it?

      Amendment 12 is not moved.

      We come to Amendment 11, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 17, replace the words “on both the parliamentary and intergovernmental sides” with the following words: “in strict compliance with the current PACE resolutions”.

      I call Mr Goncharenko to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – We have an oral sub-amendment that is a compromise between us – the authors of the amendment – and the rapporteur, Mr Nicoletti. We propose to make an addition after the words, “on both the parliamentary and intergovernmental sides”, so that there is reference to strict compliance with their obligations and resolutions. We agreed the oral sub-amendment at the meeting of the Political Affairs Committee, where it was supported and adopted.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Nicoletti wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, as follows: in Amendment 11 after the words “in strict compliance” insert the words “with their respective obligations and resolutions” and delete the words “with the current resolutions by PACE resolutions”.

      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 Nicoletti to support his oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – The oral sub-amendment substantially accepts the proposal of Mr Goncharenko and other colleagues. There is only a slight difference. We maintain the words “on both the parliamentary and intergovernmental sides” and we speak about “respective obligations and resolutions” because we are talking about two different organs – not only the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe but the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. It is a formula that is more respectful of the two bodies.

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

      That is not the case.

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The sub-amendment was accepted unanimously in the committee in the name of compromise.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment as amended?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      We will now vote on the draft resolution in Document 14396 as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now consider the amendments to the draft recommendation.

      I understand that Amendment 5 was unanimously approved by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. However, as it would fall if Amendment 13 were adopted, it must be discussed in the usual way.

      We therefore come to Amendment 17, which Mr Nicoletti moves formally.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is in favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – Amendment 5 has been unanimously agreed to.

      The PRESIDENT – I note that, but if Amendment 13 is agreed to, Amendment 5 will fall, so we must deal with Amendment 5 separately.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – This amendment has an unhappy number, and it is a lone voice in the wilderness. We welcome good rules, but adopting this call to the Committee of Ministers will open the way to a system in which, instead of member States having to meet the requirements of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe will have to follow the demands of member States. Decisions would then be adopted in a different way. We make decisions on a majority and the Committee of Ministers works on consensus, and the two will be difficult to harmonise. I recommend that paragraph 4.2 be deleted.

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

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy) – As I have said, we propose a procedure in which the two statutory organs have a discussion, and we will try to harmonise the mechanisms while fully respecting the autonomy of both.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is against by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 5. I call Mr Goncharenko to support the amendment.

      Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – This is a technical amendment.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – The committee is unanimously in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14396, as amended. A two thirds majority is required, counting only affirmative and negative votes.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has presented a draft recommendation to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14406. A two thirds majority is required, counting only affirmative and negative votes.

      The vote is open.

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

2. Joint Debate:

Venice Commission’s “Rule of Law Checklist”

New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The first is titled “Venice Commission’s ‘Rule of Law Checklist’” (Document 14387) presented by Mr Philippe Mahoux; and the second is titled “New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples” (Document 14405) presented by Mr Bernd Fabritius, which will be followed by a statement by Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).

      The debate must conclude at 8.30 p.m. I will interrupt the list of speakers at around 7.50 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.

      I call Mr Philippe Mahoux, 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.

       Mr MAHOUX (Belgium)* – Dear colleagues, I welcome – and I will do so again when he comes in – the President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law, Mr Gianni Buquicchio, who will honour us with his presence today. This is also an opportunity for me to congratulate the Venice Commission as a whole on its remarkable work. The co-operation between our Assembly and the Venice Commission is close and longstanding – that has often been said, but I think it worth repeating.

      Membership of the Council of Europe is based on three pillars: the principle whereby any person placed under the jurisdiction of a member State of the Council of Europe must be guaranteed the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the rule of law, and the presence of a genuine pluralistic democracy. The achievements of the Council of Europe in human rights, in guaranteeing the rule of law, and in strengthening democracy, are unparalleled. Our Assembly cannot fail to repeat its attachment to those three founding principles, especially given the circumstances that are ravaging some Council of Europe member States.

      I welcome Gianni Buquicchio to the Chamber – I have just said how much we respect the Venice Commission within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, we should always have the ambition to go further and beyond the acquis, and not to rest on our laurels. Unfortunately, under current circumstances, that is not our only challenge. On the contrary, we are confronted with the necessity to defend the acquis and prevent any regression.

      The Venice Commission has developed an innovative and practical tool that could help us in that task – namely, the “Rule of Law Checklist”. The draft resolution stresses that the very existence of such a checklist is the end result of a debate initiated by our Assembly in 2007. We can be very pleased with that result in several respects, so let me briefly set out six reasons why we should welcome such a result. First, the “Rule of Law Checklist” fills a gap. Secondly, it is a functional tool, and thirdly it is a relevant tool. Fourthly, it is accessible to all – that is important – and fifthly it offers a fantastic opportunity for mutual understanding. Finally, it has the potential to become a product that the Council of Europe might export beyond its member States.

      Let me start with filling the gap. The concepts of the rule and the pre-eminence of law are repeated regularly in the major political documents of the Council of Europe and its conventions and recommendations. However, the Council of Europe has never defined those concepts in any text, and neither has it set up a special mechanism for monitoring in that respect. Wishing to ensure that the concept of the rule of law is operational, and given the lack of practical tools to monitor it, the Venice Commission decided to develop the “Rule of Law Checklist”. That checklist is a functional tool for evaluating the rule of law in a given State on the basis of objective criteria. The Venice Commission has observed that, despite the absence of a formal definition of the concept of the rule of law, there is nevertheless consensus about its essential characteristics – namely, legality, legal certainty, the prohibition of arbitrariness, access to justice before independent and impartial courts, respect for human rights, and non-discrimination and equality before the law.

      On that basis, the Venice Commission developed a tool for monitoring respect for the principles of the rule of law – a tool that hitherto did not exist. The list is a permanent tool that allows for thorough evaluation. It covers all main aspects of the concept of the rule of law, and it is objective and transparent as it expressly refers to national and international standards. It is fair because the criteria and standards set out are the same whichever country is being evaluated. I see it not just as a monitoring tool, and perhaps first and foremost it is a preventive tool. It is important to stress that this tool is not cast in stone and it will evolve. That is important because the rule of law can change conceptually as time passes. Such a tool is relevant and necessary given current circumstances, because the rule of law is currently being threatened, attacked and flouted in many Council of Europe member States. Attacks on the rule of law are often submitted to the Venice Commission for its opinion. Sometimes we see in our everyday work in the Assembly that the very essence of the rule of law is being threatened.

      The “Rule of Law Checklist” is accessible to all involved and set out in clear terms that are easy to understand. The Venice Commission is always thorough and clear cut when setting out concepts, and that is useful for us parliamentarians. If the “Rule of Law Checklist” has been accepted by a number of committees, including the Committee of the Regions, it is also appropriate for it to be adopted by national parliaments as that would underscore the validity of those criteria and the fact that they constitute a benchmark. This is a fantastic opportunity because it is a way for us all to speak the same language when we talk about the rule of law. In our different languages there have perhaps in the past been various different interpretations, but those differences were only semantic. The objective of the Venice Commission was to take those semantic differences and turn them into language that is so clear cut that it means the same thing for everyone.

      The “Rule of Law Checklist” is a product of the Council of Europe that could be exported. During this part-session, I have learned from the Venice Commission that membership of that body is not limited to the titular Venice Commission members who come from member States of the Council of Europe. In fact, the Venice Commission includes representatives from Latin America and North American countries, and there are also close contacts with countries in Asia. Such is the objective of the work that it could well go beyond the Council of Europe and become one of its exports, usefully to be taken up by others who are interested in monitoring and evaluating the rule of law.

      The objective of this report is clear: we would like the Assembly to express its political support for this important work by the Venice Commission that has resulted in the “Rule of Law Checklist”. We wish not only for the Assembly to express political support, but for it to take advantage of the checklist when assessing the rule of law in individual States.

      In closing, I thank the Venice Commission and its president, and I underscore that co-operation between our Assembly and the Venice Commission is exemplary. I do not know whether “client” is the right word, given that we are parliamentarians, but we are certainly partners and the addressees of many of the opinions of the Venice Commission. We are not the only ones who turn to the Venice Commission, because many member States when confronted with constitutional uncertainties appeal to that commission for interpretation. Sometimes they are reticent to implement some of the opinions or follow them. They criticise the Venice Commission, but that is not fair because it is objective, fair and rigorous in its work, which it does in a fully impartial, independent and neutral manner.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you rapporteur. You will have two minutes to respond to the speakers. I now give the floor to Mr Fabritius, the rapporteur for the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the second text.

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany)* – President, ladies and gentlemen, we started work on this nearly three years ago when I was rapporteur on the reforms to the legal systems in south-eastern Europe. My initial intention was to focus on the situation in south-eastern Europe following the developments in Poland and the failed putsch in Turkey. In 2016, I decided to table a new motion on new threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States. In November 2016, the Bureau decided that the motion should be integrated into my existing report. In April 2017, our committee agreed on the title of the report, which became “New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples”. In September, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights decided in Paris, following a lengthy discussion, to adopt the document as it exists. We now have this to vote on.

      During my work on this report, I organised hearings from experts from Bulgaria, Poland and Romania and undertook a fact-finding visit to the Republic of Moldova and Romania. I was also going to visit Turkey, but just a few days before I planned to depart, and following on from the Parliament Assembly’s decision to put Turkey back under the monitoring procedure, my meetings in Turkey were cancelled.

      The work I undertook directly related to the mandate of the Council of Europe. The principle of the independence of the judiciary is vital to what we do here. The term “the rule of law” has not been defined in any text, but in Europe numerous texts have been adopted relating to it. The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly have done work, as have the Venice Commission and the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.

      Having approved various resolutions on threats to the rule of law and corruption in different member States, we have the Venice Commission checklist, which we are debating today. I thank Mr Mahoux, the rapporteur, for his work, which grants more visibility to the Rule of Law Checklist.

      In my work, I have focused on five member States: Poland, Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Turkey. My aim is not to compare these countries – I want to make that clear. I have investigated violations happening in these member States and I have seen that in these countries the rule of law is threatened to differing degrees. There are clear criteria relating to the rule of law, arbitrariness and access to justice, and we are seeing violations.

      In Turkey, attempts have been under way to politicise the judiciary. In Poland, the independence of the judiciary is also threatened by civil servants and other bodies. In Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Romania attempts are under way to limit the judiciary and bring it under executive control. I am concerned by the Romanian Government’s use of emergency decrees. Furthermore, corruption is still very common in Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Romania, even though we can say that real progress has been made.

      I am particularly concerned about the situation in Turkey, where we see threats not just to the rule of law but to democracy, and where human rights are being undermined. I call upon the Turkish authorities to maintain the principles of the Council of Europe, to end the state of emergency and to guarantee reforms confirmed by a legitimate parliament. This is in line with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

      I call on the authorities of Republic of Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria to step up their work to combat corruption. They also need to step up their efforts to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

      I welcome the fact that, in July, the Polish President rejected two important draft legislative steps. These have been redrafted. In this context, I call upon the Government of Poland to guarantee that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are maintained, and to make use of Council of Europe standards. I encourage it to work together with the Venice Commission. The decisions of the constitutional court and what is happening to it need to be reviewed once again.

      Specific recommendations for these countries can be found in the draft resolution. When confronted with any new threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States, the Parliamentary Assembly needs to respond swiftly. It needs to avoid promoting a political culture that could threaten the rule of law. I appeal to you to support the draft resolution with the proposed amendments.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. You will have speaking time at the end of the debate.

      In accordance with our order of business, we shall hear a speech by Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the Venice Commission. I welcome you to the Assembly.

      Mr BUQUICCHIO (President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law) – President, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we have reached an important stage when it comes to this checklist for the rule of law. We have two reports before us, which are the culmination of a process of approval by the different entities of the Council of Europe. They constitute a major step forward in the practical implementation of the checklist because we have in these reports a specific case analysis suggested on the basis of the criteria contained in the checklist.

      For a long time, the rule of law was, if you like, the poor relation of the three principles of the Council of Europe compared with democracy and human rights because it was not something we paid much attention to. We did not have a specific assessment of the rule of law. To date, it has been rather difficult to assess its efficiency. Now it has become possible, thanks to the Parliamentary Assembly, which has thereby confirmed its pioneering role. It is what lies at the basis of the drafting of this document and is also very much in the vanguard when it comes to implementation. We have a win-win synergy between the Parliamentary Assembly as a think tank and the Venice Commission, which is there to offer solutions. The principle of the rule of law has become truly operational thanks to this synergy.

      For a long time, we decided that it is not necessary to arrive at a shared definition of the principle of the rule of law. That is not our purpose, which is to work on the recognised and salient aspects of the concept of the rule of law. I shall not dwell on what this principle does not mean. For instance, it does not mean rule by law, nor does it mean rule by the law, nor is it tantamount to what one might call law by rules. It is none of the above. If we were restricted to any purely formalist concept of the pre-eminence of law, which would mean that any act carried out by a public agent needs to be authorised by law, the very concept of the rule of law would be distorted.

      Dr Mahoux and Mr Fabritius have given you an outline of the criteria contained in the “Rule of Law Checklist”, so I shall not dwell on that. I will, however, touch on two aspects: the specific nature of the criteria in the checklist and the importance of their implementation. In particular, I will consider the role that national and European Parliaments can play.

      The document under consideration is tangible and specific. The Venice Commission has developed two important examples to illustrate that point: corruption and conflict of interest on the one hand and, on the other hand, data collection and surveillance. We have not plucked those topics out of thin air; they are key questions in dealing with the rule of law. Corruption leads to arbitrariness, which leads to abuse of power – after all, it is a denial of the very principle of the rule of law. Surveillance is by no means a new challenge, but we must acknowledge that it has taken on a new form with the exponential growth in data-gathering possibilities, thanks to information technology. Big Brother, which is the archetype of totalitarianism and thereby a negation of the rule of law, is not that far off if the necessary safeguards are not in place and defined.

      A number of detailed questions have been taken on board in the checklist that help us to illustrate these points. Let me take the first example – corruption and conflicts of interest. About 15 different questions in the document address that point, dealing with preventive measures that can be taken to stop corruption from occurring in the first place, as well as repression and observation in respect of the effective implementation of measures, either of prevention or repression.

      For example, under preventive measures, we find specific rules of conduct that would apply to State agents. There are also rules pertaining to conflicts of interest; for instance, the declaration of a potential conflict of interest before the problem arises. Some State agents have to provide a declaration of their income and assets, both at the beginning and end of their term of office. There are measures for prevention and repression. Their effective implementation requires criminal sanctions and proportionate administrative sanctions – in other words, those need to be deterrents. The bodies that are entrusted with the fight against corruption and preserving the integrity of the public sector need the necessary resources and capacities and the necessary powers of investigation to act independently, both of the executive and the legislative branch of power. That is what they need to be operational. There is also the question of individual access to those entities. People are entitled to sound the alarm when such cases occur, which is why we need to bear in mind whistleblowers and how whistleblowers need to protected against reprisals, whether at work or elsewhere.

      The first question on the effective implementation of preventive measures and criminal measures is to do with perception – the extent to which the measures are perceived by the public. Corruption is not the only domain in which appearances are important. That holds true for the judiciary or the field of justice altogether. Is the judiciary perceived as independent? Does the public believe that the political power can exert their influence or manipulate the nomination or promotion of judges and prosecutors? Does the political branch of power have an influence on decisions that might be taken in certain cases? Those are important matters of appearance.

      In our analysis of the rule of law, we should be looking not only at the texts, but at implementation. We need to bear in mind that the general public are the addressee of this “Rule of Law Checklist”, and they should be able to use it. I refer to the two reports that have been put before the House and very much hope that they have demonstrated that the checklist is not some kind of a learned tome that you should occasionally praise or dust off from the back of your library. Rather, the checklist is a manual – a vade mecum – meant for the broader public.

      Let me come to my presentation’s second part, in which I will address a couple of questions. Who exactly are the public? Who are the checklist’s users? In the end, who is responsible for the implementation of the rule of law? Like any vade mecum or manual, the checklist on the rule of law contains two aspects: first, normal functioning, and secondly, problems or possible dysfunction. We address those two points from the other side – not in the usual way. Any problems have to be identified to guarantee that a State functions in line with international standards. In other words, identifying dysfunction constitutes the first step towards solving problems. You need legislation to conform or comply with national practice and international standards on the rule of law, as Mr Fabritius referred to in his report. It is a crucial, absolutely necessary step. As Dr Mahoux rightly pointed out, a disease cannot be pointed out if it has not been diagnosed. The first part is the identification of problems, which falls under the public remit, broadly speaking. State bodies and international organisations also have a central role to play in that regard, as does civil society. As Members of Parliament, you have a pre-eminent role to play in this exercise.

      That said, diagnosis is useful but it does not treat or cure the disease. We therefore have to ask an even more important question: who is the doctor who is responsible for the good health of the rule of law? Is it the legislator, the executive branch of power, the judiciary or civil society? The Venice Commission is convinced that the rule of law falls within the remit of not only all State institutions, but all citizens. If you really want the pre-eminence of law, you need a sustained effort in all our established democracies. Constitutional and legislative reforms are often necessary. That is a matter for Parliament, which must guarantee that those reforms are as they should be. The executive branch of power is also responsible for taking the necessary initiatives to identify and remedy any shortcomings. Hopefully, the checklist will serve as a useful tool for them in that exercise.

      The rule of law does not just require legislative reforms; it is only alive if it is implemented at all levels. Parliaments make essential choices, but the interpretation and application of the law falls within the prerogative of the executive and the judges. Laws adopted by Parliament will need to be interpreted in a way that is compliant with the principles of the rule of law. Legislators therefore need to grant a margin of discretion to the executive branch of power and to the judiciary. As for the administrative and judiciary powers of discretion, they need to be exercised while respecting the rule of law and, particularly, the principle of lawfulness.

      Allow me to add one more point. The rule of law can only be implemented in a country where individuals feel collectively responsible for the implementation of the rule of law politically, socially and legally. The rule of law is a forma mentis – a state of mind – and a shared responsibility for all of us to safeguard. The purpose of the checklist is to institutionalise the principle of the rule of law through the establishment of structures, processes and appropriate mechanisms, but in addition, we aim to democratise the concept and make it understandable for all stakeholders. Our purpose is to develop a culture of the rule of law; that is our general aspiration with regard to enforcement. For all that to be possible, we need to ensure that politicians step up to the plate and exercise their role as promoters and guarantors of the rule of law. We need a motivated leadership, and we need to be motivating and enthusiastic in our leadership, inspiring others.

      Ms President, if I may use 30 more seconds of your time, I have just found out that Philippe Mahoux is to leave the Assembly in the near future. I want to take the opportunity to say in public, before his colleagues and members of the Assembly, how much I have appreciated his work. I say that on my own behalf, as well as on behalf of the Venice Commission. Mr Mahoux has been observing and participating actively in the Assembly and has represented you wonderfully well. My dear Philippe, I would almost say that you have become a member of our commission, because you have been following our work so closely for such a long time. We have really appreciated working with you and I wish you all the best.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you for your speech and for those comments. I am sure that everyone listening found the comments very interesting indeed.

      We now move to the general discussion. I would remind members that, at the Monday sitting, the Assembly decided that speaking time would be restricted to three minutes.

      Mr EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus, spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – First, allow me to thank Mr Fabritius and Mr Mahoux for their competent, well-elaborated reports and useful insights.

      The concept of Europe is an area of freedom, justice and democracy where the rule of law and human rights of all citizens prevail, despite the diversity of different legal systems in each member State. What we have in common at the end of the day is, or has to be, the sincere will for a shared commitment to the core values of this Organisation, primarily the supremacy of the rule of law.

      Despite all the progress achieved in emphasising, promoting and safeguarding the importance of the rule of law, experience has shown that a relation of interdependency and negation continues to exist between national and supranational priorities. The challenge lies in how to reconcile those prima facie opposing dynamics, which are in fact not conflicted but complementary to each other.

      In order to avoid stagnation, we ought to establish some objective criteria for us all to use, bearing in mind that our diversity is our strength. That is the reason we have welcomed all the different advisory and expert monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe – in particular the Venice Commission, but also the Consultative Council of European Judges and GRECO, which must be given all the political support necessary to carry out their mandates.

      In that context, we fully endorse the checklist provided by the Venice Commission, which will undoubtedly prove to be a very useful tool in assessing and evaluating the quality and scope of the rule of law in a transparent, objective and fair manner. Most importantly, we need to assess the rule of law in relation to the practical effects that the measures can deliver, and in so doing, increase the coherence between the Organisation’s internal practices and external procedures. In other words, promoting the rule of law should also have visible and positive effects in the ordinary lives of our citizens.

      We fully understand that some colleagues may feel uncomfortable or even offended when referring to the shortcomings of their particular countries, but we have to do it if we want the rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy to prevail. Both reports reflect that concern and the need to be firm on the priorities I mentioned. That is why we fully support the recommendations that the Council of Europe be mandated to step in, exert the necessary political pressure, push through with reforms and assist countries from a technical standpoint in addressing the non-respect of the rule of law.

      A continuous assessment of the status of the rule of law in every single country, based on the same objective methodology, would also be a proactive rather than a reactive approach. Similarly, when identifying weaknesses and deficiencies, we should expose and rectify them, as both reports have done – we fully agree with that.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Let me say straight away that I welcome the checklist. The Venice Commission has set out a very clear benchmark in this list, against which the rule of law can be measured and evaluated. There were those who thought this was an impossible task, but I think it is useful and the commission has done a very good job. It is a very good starting point from which to begin our deliberations.

      If one were looking for the next edition, I would like to see something at the front that addresses the political aspects of what is being said. Of course, I accept that it has to deal with both civil law and common law jurisdictions, and can be extended to that. If we take for example the current submission of the Ukrainian education law to the Venice Commission for an opinion, on one side you have a government that intends to do good things for its people and, on the other, you have people complaining that it does not do good things for its minorities. There is perhaps no right answer in the middle of that. I mean something about that kind of situation and how it is dealt with.

      One of the things the report contains is the need for flexibility, which is absolutely important. It is essential if we are to make sure that we do not create a rigid structure that will act as a legal straitjacket for the future. For example, access to justice starts with the right to access justice. Does that depend on State help for access to justice, or simply on the availability of justice and on that justice being fair? The situation with equality before the law is similar.

      The law is itself changing. The report concentrates on courts, but decisions in legal judgments are moving away from courts into alternative dispute resolution forums. That takes place in Dubai, Singapore, Australia and, I would argue, in the European Court of Justice. What that does is to move away from the central role of the justice system. It is not just for small commercial issues, but actually for very large cases. In the next edition, we need to see that included and some reference to how it can be incorporated in the future.

      Mr MARUKYAN (Armenia, spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) –First, I would like to thank the rapporteurs of both reports and the Venice Commission for their extraordinary work and the important tool, the “Rule of Law Checklist”, which helps to introduce a new, uniform benchmark for measuring compliance with one of the founding principles of the Council of Europe. This practical tool is surely going to become an effective monitoring and preventive instrument. It is obvious that there are serious threats to the rule of law even among the member States of the Council of Europe. Where the findings of an analysis using the checklist give rise to concerns, they should trigger a firm reaction on the part of all those involved in promoting and strengthening the principles of the rule of law.

      Of course, we can see the “Rule of Law Checklist” as a practical tool for not only the Council of Europe but other national and international stakeholders, be they national or local State institutions, other international organisations or civil society. It will become a guiding document for all States in their path to democracy through law.

      Let me make a reference to the work of Aristotle on the rule of law, which is still influential in this period of history. Though he asked whether it was better to be ruled by the best man or the best laws, he approached the question realistically, noting that it depended not only on the type of law one was considering, but also on the type of regime that enacted and administered the law in question. That is why I raise my greatest concern, which is the decay of liberal democracies, where the rule of law is losing its fundamental meaning. Increasing populist forces are trying to implant vague formulations within the law that will later allow them to act against democratic principles while acting according to the law, thus trying to coerce us into bending our principles. Should we apply the “Rule of Law Checklist” to such a case, there would be no room for misinterpretation and damage to democracy.

      The checklist should become a binding document for all member States and others who are trying to achieve the implementation of our values, and should become a reference point for all. It is our obligation to remain committed to the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law, and to show our real and shared identity as full members of the Council of Europe. I call to all institutions of the Council of Europe to use the checklist as a monitoring tool and to fight for the values for which this respected institution stands for and to continue to be a role model for all States in their path to democratisation.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent reports. On behalf of the UEL, I will focus on Mr Bernd Fabritius’s report. I congratulate the rapporteur on his work, which highlights a general trend of deterioration in the rule of law among Council of Europe member countries and brings that alarming situation to the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly.

      As a citizen of Turkey and an opposition deputy in the Turkish Parliament, I find myself in an awkward position vis-à-vis the major focus of the report. On the one hand, the report, far from singling out Turkey as a Council of Europe country where the rule of law is under threat, provides abundant evidence that the rule of law is disrupted in at least four other countries. In that respect, the report can by no means be stigmatised as Turkophobic or Islamophobic, thereby stripping the ruling AKP of a major pretext to which it frequently resorts to refute international criticisms pertaining to breaches of the rule of law in Turkey. Further, the report verifies the criticisms that we have raised domestically regarding the collapse of the rule of law in Turkey, where 2% of MPs are in prison, including my party’s co-chairs Mr Demirtaş and Ms Yüksekdağ.

      On the other hand, the report provides abundant hints that, by applying similar criteria, the rapporteur could have included many other Council of Europe member countries in a longer list of places where the rule of law is under threat. I can think of reports that we have dealt with in this session, reports that we will handle tomorrow and many others that we have discussed over previous years. This situation is a source of concern to the people who suffer from breaches of the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. Questions are justifiably raised about how people can count on an international human rights organisation that contains many member States that have become a major source of violations of rights and freedoms.

      Nevertheless, that apparent contradiction may generate further strength, as long as members of the Parliamentary Assembly, as the representatives of the people, speak out boldly on every platform, at home and overseas, in the name of the people against the defects of their own States. I therefore strongly support the recommendations of the rapporteur directed at the Turkish authorities: that the state of emergency should be lifted, given that the coup d’état has failed, the active elements are crushed and tens of thousands of suspects have been jailed; that the government should stop exploiting the emergency cases as leverage for setting up a lawless dictatorship; that the constitutional amendments secured in the fraudulent referendum of 16 April 2017 should be annulled, as this is surely an attempt to establish a dictatorship in the midst of the Council of Europe; that the judicial system should be liberated from the yoke of the executive, which is unlawfully headed by the President; and that the nine HDP deputies and co-chairs and one CHP deputy should be released immediately and the cases against 150 parliamentarians suspended, because the place for parliamentarians is the parliament.

      The PRESIDENT* – Rapporteur, if you wish you may respond immediately to the comments made by the spokespersons of the groups. You have four minutes. As you do not wish to do so, you may respond at the end of the discussion.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – I congratulate Mr Mahoux on his excellent report and fully support the adoption of his resolution. Philippe, I wish you all the best for the future.

      I welcome the President of the Venice Commission, Gianni Buquicchio, to the Chamber. We have worked together in the past. The co-operation between the Venice Commission and my country has been close and very correct, sometimes in complicated circumstances. I thank you for everything you have done with us.

      I also congratulate the second rapporteur, Mr Fabritius. However, I am disappointed by some of the content of the second report and draft resolution, and by the modifications made to it in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights a few hours ago. I am disappointed because it is rather selective and subjective on the part of the rapporteur to pinpoint just one particular region of Europe. He has been very critical in his approach, whereas he could have approached matters in a different spirit. Of course we have serious cases, but such cases might arise in other countries too, so I am disappointed by that.

      I am also disappointed that the rapporteur caved in to temptation and adopted a rather partisan line. In this instance, the political battles in my country have been transferred here to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

      Thirdly, I am disappointed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I submitted a text that spoke of the need to fight corruption. That is essential for all member States, including my country. I said that that should go hand in hand with scrupulous compliance by prosecutors and investigators, because they too have to abide by the principle of the rule of law. It is important to bear that in mind at a time when almost every week and every day we discover through the media, public opinion and the judiciary shocking cases of the abuse of power by prosecutors, including the anti-corruption prosecutor. Criminal cases are conducted by some prosecutors against others. Rulings have been handed down by Romanian courts and even by the constitutional court that talk about the anti-corruption department violating the principle of the separation of powers. Unfortunately, my text was rejected by the committee, so that is a disappointment.

      That said, I welcome a number of aspects of the report. I am happy that I was able to introduce respect for the constitutional court. That court has an essential role to play, but it is being attacked right now in my country and criticised by certain actors in civil society. That has been the case since 2012, as I am sure the President knows. That is a very important aspect. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights talked about an equal footing between prosecutors, anti-corruption prosecutors and the constitutional court. I think that that is unprecedented from a legal point of view. In fact, I think that it is unacceptable. That was disappointing, but I am satisfied that I was able to introduce some text about the implementation of rulings handed down by the constitutional court on the criminal code and so forth.

      For all the reasons I have given, I am sure you will understand, Madam President, that I cannot take part in the vote on the second resolution.

      Ms HOFFMAN (Hungary)* – I am sure that many colleagues will agree with me that the Venice Commission, which was established by the Council of Europe in 1990, has become one of our most prestigious institutions. It has made a significant contribution to reform in member States and in other States. The commission provides valuable assistance through its opinions, studies, seminars and all the other kinds of information that it provides on the functioning of democratic institutions and on fundamental rights, with particular reference to the judiciary. We know that significant reform is needed in many of those areas, particularly in countries that are in transition.

      Now we have the “Rule of Law Checklist”. I would like particularly to highlight respect for human rights. We respect dialogue-based work. We understand that the commission does not try to impose formulaic solutions in its opinions. We must always be objective and we must never allow ourselves to stray from the narrow path of justice. When looking at the human rights situation in any country, it is imperative that we do not merely study legal or judicial rules. We have to do more than that: we must gather practical examples to be convinced that rights are respected in everyday life. We must listen to all those involved and cast aside any pre-conceived ideas.

      Since 2011, Hungary has been in consultation with the Venice Commission about a dozen times. Each time, we have found it very useful for both sides. In most cases, we have reached agreement and in others, we continue to think about the issues involved in a very professional way. Opinions from the Venice Commission are important benchmarks for governments. We therefore applaud the fact that the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has recently called for an opinion from the Venice Commission about the new Ukrainian law on education that was adopted at the end of September.

      I agree with the rapporteur’s conclusion that the Venice Commission has done an outstanding job and I wish to associate myself with the draft resolution. I will vote for strengthening the Venice Commission and its work.

      Ms ŞAHİN USTA (Turkey)* – This particular report is undoubtedly important, but some of the examples that have been presented, particularly about Turkey, are fallacious. They are really not correct.

      On the politicisation of the judiciary in Turkey, I remind the Assembly that there is a high level of what I would describe as non-politicisation of the judiciary in the country. The examples that have been given are therefore inaccurate. Any measures that have been adopted in the country have targeted the Fethullah Gülen terrorist organisation and the PKK, the Kurdish organisation. Let us not forget the level of infiltration of the judiciary by the Fethullah Gülen organisation. It had gone on for a long time, and the purpose of the various reforms that have been instituted was to root out those elements and create a balanced judiciary. It was part of the effort to fight terrorist organisations. I emphasise that that terrorist organisation had penetrated the very depths of the system. The reforms were therefore made to create a more unbiased – or totally unbiased – judiciary, without those subversive elements polluting the judicial environment.

      When we have discussed the Václav Havel prize, the pre-eminence of the rule of law has been mentioned. That aspect has been emphasised as underlying the philosophy behind the prize. I therefore underline the fact that the Turkish authorities are making an effort to institute the pre-eminence of the rule of law.

      It is also important to consider discrimination. There has been open discrimination against Turkish citizens and measures have been adopted against four Turkish members. That is totally unacceptable. It is important that we focus on the discrimination that has been displayed towards certain Turkish citizens; it is the Assembly’s role to raise its voice against those measures.

      It is important to work together. A concerted effort will lie behind any success. If we work together effectively, we will achieve the pre-eminence of the rule of law throughout the Council of Europe.

      Mr DÍŞLİ (Turkey) – I, too, thank the Venice Commission for the checklist, and Mr Mahoux and Mr Fabritius for the reports.

      I would like to raise some questions about benefiting from the Venice Commission’s expertise. As we all know, the Venice Commission is an advisory body, which supplies legal opinion on the request of certain bodies. It can in no way be seen as a judicial authority over the actions of national legislative bodies. Logically, its expertise can primarily be requested by national institutions. That is the rationale behind co-operation. My country, Turkey, also took that path when drafting laws until recently.

      The Venice Commission nowadays is becoming an instrument in efforts against certain countries, including mine. The latest figures show that the Venice Commission has adopted nine opinions about Turkey in the past two years. The Parliamentary Assembly requested all those opinions, and only one of them formed part of a resolution that we adopted in plenary session.

      I do not challenge the Parliamentary Assembly’s working methods or the Venice Commission’s authority, but I believe that reacting to whatever legislative work is under way in certain countries in a way that results in an automatic request from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for an opinion from the Venice Commission is counter-productive. The Venice Commission should not be used to exert political pressure on Turkey and other countries. That goes against genuine co-operation and what is expected of the Venice Commission. The parliamentarians of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should review that practice. Insisting on it will further politicise such a unique body – the Venice Commission – and its credibility will be put at risk.

      Certain countries are singled out in the report in the way in which I mentioned earlier in my speech. That practice should be avoided because it runs contrary to the methodology of the check list.

      I say nothing to Mr Fabritius because he refused all our suggestions, reasoning that the experts to whom he spoke were against them.

      Mr VENIZELOS (Greece)* – I congratulate Mr Mahoux, Mr Fabritius and the chair of the Venice Commission.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      The Council of Europe has retained its importance and authority as an Organisation that symbolises the wider Europe. It not only declares the importance of democratic institutions, the rule of law and the protection of human rights, but has practical mechanisms for checking member States. Of course, the paramount mechanisms are the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the individual applications and the possibility of taking political measures for the compliance of member States with the Court’s judgments.

      The second major mechanism is now the Venice Commission, which has achieved great institutional authority and, despite its advisory character, has developed into an informal European constitutional council that acts as the guardian of European constitutional traditions and values. The Venice Commission therefore relates to the European constitutional acquis by which all national constitutions, legal orders and political practices of member States should abide.

      The European constitutional acquis is, unfortunately, fragile, and violations both great and small are frequently made against it in the name of national sovereignty, national security and national identity. The European Court of Human Rights provides that, under strict conditions overseen by the Court, there can be a derogation due to an emergency. There is no other justification for a derogation from the European acquis of democracy and the rule of law.

      It is therefore really important that the Venice Commission has codified that enormous acquis in the form of the “Rule of Law Checklist”. We should congratulate the Venice Commission and all those who have contributed to the elaboration of the checklist. The text does not belong to soft law; it codifies the criteria, rules, principles and standards that derive from the European Court of Human Rights, the intergovernmental conventions signed in the Council of Europe, and conventional and customary international law. The checklist therefore contains rules that belong not to soft law, but to hard law and jus cogens.

      Ms GORGHIU (Romania) – I thank the rapporteur for his report, which sheds light on the threats to the rule of law in some Council of Europe member States. It is difficult to get the big picture of that phenomenon by looking at selected examples, but nevertheless I commend Mr Fabritius’s bold initiative.

      My country, Romania, is one of the examples mentioned in the report and draft resolution. The outcome of investigations by the national anticorruption directorate – also known as DNA – turned that State body into a success story and an example of best practice in Europe in the fight against corruption. Despite all obstacles, the work must continue in order to strengthen our achievements in fighting corruption.

      As a member of the National Liberal party, the main opposition party in Romania, I assure the Assembly of our firm commitment to use all necessary means to keep the ruling party accountable for any actions that could lead to weakening the rule of law in Romania. The people who took to the streets of Bucharest in the largest street protest for 25 years gave a strong signal that no compromise would be acceptable. During spring, the government tried to adopt controversial pieces of legislation on redefining the criminal offences of conflict of interest and abuse of power, and on the granting of pardons, but it had to abandon those initiatives, which were the subject of criticism.

      Today, however, it has new, curious legislative proposals relating to the prosecutor general in the prosecutor’s office, which is attached to the high court of cassation and justice, the DNA and the directorate for the investigation of organised crime and terrorism. It proposes that chief prosecutors, who are currently appointed by the President of Romania, should be appointed by the superior council of magistrates, on the proposal of the minister of justice. It further proposes that the judicial inspection unit, which currently belongs to the superior council of magistracy, should in future be subordinated to the minister of justice, who is a politically appointed government member. Such changes would certainly lead to serious political interference in the judiciary. We need strong institutions, no abuses and responsible magistrates.

      The state of rule of law in a society is a benchmark for the strength of a democracy, and that includes Romania.

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – I commend and thank Philippe for all his work and determination. His work focuses on the rule of law, the primacy of democracy and the inalienability of human rights, and examines our interest in a shared standard. By evaluating the rule of law in a given society, he has provided us with tools to examine the situation in other societies.

      I want to address three issues. We must defend the rule of law. It cannot be taken for granted. As Tom Bingham said, any person or public or private body is obliged to respect adopted legislation that may take effect in the future and that has been publicly applied by the courts. What does that mean for States organised in that way? It is clear that citizens’ aspirations create a shared need – this idea is spreading, at least – for a protective law, to which States must respond. Lifestyle changes mean that there is a convergence of that need.

      Secondly, it is vital to acknowledge that convergence is happening in different States. We must examine the reasons for that, by looking at whether the rule of law is being maintained at all levels. We need to guarantee the integration and use of organisational rules, and they have to be shown to be effective. It is vital that we provide a definition of a raft of criteria and demonstrate to citizens the social benefit of States evaluating other States not only through international agreements, but through examining case law and through bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights. Case law provides a practical evaluation of the rule of law in all co-operative countries.

      Finally, it is vital to guarantee more visibility for the checklist and its principles. The rule of law is a founding value of the international order and a majority of States have signed up to it, even if they do not always respect it. Our vote will guarantee increased visibility for the checklist when a State does not entirely protect its citizens.

      Mr UYSAL (Turkey)* – The Venice Commission checklist is extremely valuable. The standards intend to ensure that the mechanism works effectively and that it is complied with. That is extremely important. It also boosts the credibility of this institution and is significant for the co-operation between the various institutions set up for the purpose of the rule of law.

      Turkey has worked with the Council of Europe and met all demands and tried to fill any gaps. Certain issues and conflicts have developed from time to time, but Turkey has worked constructively to overcome any differences or problems, and to resolve any issues.

      Now the commission has set down a number of different points with regard to Turkey and has mentioned the various problems that have emerged following the failed putsch, but many of the points of criticism have led to great disappointment on the Turkish side. Let us not forget that there are certain idiosyncrasies to the situation. In the report, the rapporteur specifically mentioned Turkey and the various lacunae that exist and the various issues that have been raised, and that all requires closer scrutiny. Because of the terrorist activities in Turkey, a very particular situation prevails, and that has led to a particularly difficult situation that the government has had to deal with. The idiosyncrasies have not been taken into consideration in the course of the investigation, the analysis of the situation and the criticisms that have been made.

      We have to work much more productively, taking all the various issues in Turkey into account and offering the country the opportunity to meet the various demands in a spirit of co-operation, but with constructive criticism. We want to operate a democratic system, and for us to do that, certain reforms have to be instituted. I once again call for the Venice Commission and the rapporteur to take into consideration the idiosyncrasies of the country. We have to do that to have a proper assessment of the situation.

      Mr GHIMPU (Republic of Moldova)* – A country that authentically has the rule of law is characterised first by having a democratic regime governing the country based on the supremacy of the law, human rights and fundamental freedoms without those things being subsumed to one person.

      I will talk about the situation in the Republic of Moldova. At this very moment, the prosecutor’s office is being used by Vladimir Plahotniuc – he is the president of the Democratic Party of the Republic of Moldova, which is the governing party – to intimidate political opponents, including deputies and local elected representatives. The most recent example is the arrest of the president of a district because he did not agree to join the Democratic Party. In this way, the Democratic Party has grown from the 19 MPs it had elected in 2014 to having 41 MPs and controlling more than 55 MPs. Four of those were from the Liberal Party, of which I am the president. The Democratic Party had 300 mayors in 2015. Today, it has more than 600. In April and May 2017, two leading members of the Liberal Party – the Transport Minister, Iurie Chirinciu, and the mayor of Chisinau, Dorin Chirtoacă – were arrested without any evidence. The reason was the Liberal Party’s refusal to support several shady pieces of legislation, including the change to a uninominal electoral system.

      Dorin Chirtoacă, first vice-president of the Liberal Party and vice-president of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, was charged with two criminal cases without proof. The whole case is based exclusively on false statements made by certain subordinates only after having been put under arrest themselves. He has been under house arrest for more than four months. He has also been illegally suspended from his position as general mayor. Moreover, a few days after his arrest, the prosecutor removed Mr Chirtoacă’s lawyers. The court has not yet examined the general mayor’s complaint regarding the transgression. Instead, the prosecutor has been decorated.

      The Court of Appeal examined all the appeals for the cancellation of the arrest without seeing the actual case files, relying solely on the prosecutor’s statements. More evidence of Mr Chirtoacă being politically harassed is the fact that he was charged with a second criminal case, again without any evidence. The case is based on city hall offering financial assistance to judges, prosecutors and police officers instead of living space as a result of poor decisions. Moreover, there was a great violation of the law when a full-scale procedure to hold a local referendum on the dismissal of the general mayor was initiated. The fulfilment of commitments assumed by the Republic of Moldova in the association agreement with the European Union does not just mean good laws voted for by the parliament, but their implementation and strict respect of them.

      In conclusion, as former acting President of the Republic of Moldova, I can say that the Republic of Moldova has good laws, but not all of them have worked as intended. The selective and biased justice system in the Republic of Moldova has no place in a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I truly wish that that issue could have been included in the resolution.

      Ms DURANTON (France)* – The draft resolution submitted by our colleague Mr Mahoux is intended to allow our Assembly to endorse the Venice Commission’s “Rule of Law Checklist”. I thank the commission for that list, and I unreservedly support the text. Our Assembly has been asking for that list for a long time. Through the list, our institution will have clear and objective criteria to evaluate the situation in member States of the Council of Europe and in candidate States. Our recommendations will become more credible, because they will all refer to the same criteria for each State. Of course, those criteria may be supplemented or further clarified, but it is important that we have a basis on which to work. The reports before us today emphasise the extent of the threat to the rule of law in some member States of the Council of Europe. The main fear relates to the independence of the judiciary, which is essential if we are to guarantee the rule of law.

      I recently visited two of the countries concerned: Turkey and Bulgaria. I went to Turkey for a number of reasons and in particular to observe the elections on 16 April. At that time, the people of Turkey were asked to express a view in a referendum on a draft constitutional reform. The purpose of that was to enhance the control that is applied by the executive to the judiciary. Indeed, the president will now appoint six of the 13 members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, and the other seven members of that council will be appointed by parliament. That means that no member will be appointed by anyone from the judiciary itself. After having dared to denounce the conditions in which the elections were conducted, I was described as a terrorist by Turkish authorities. Colleagues, you have before you a terrorist, and that says a great deal about the way that word is bandied around in Turkey today. It was the word that was used to justify the suspension of 4 000 members of the magistracy in that country.

      My other visit was to Bulgaria, in November 2016, to observe elections. On that occasion, they were presidential elections. Bulgaria has undoubtedly made considerable progress since its accession to the European Union in 2007, but the constitutional revision in 2015 did not make it possible to put in place all the recommendations made by the Venice Commission to improve the way in which the judiciary operated. At the time, it resulted in the resignation of the Minister of Justice. The European Court of Human Rights frequently condemns the excessive length of court proceedings in Bulgaria. Given the challenges we face, some governments are tempted to call into question the rights and liberties guaranteed by the European Convention. In fact, we need to be even more vigilant.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Blanchart. He is not here. I call Ms Hovhannisyan. She is also absent. I call Mr Hajduković.

      Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – The rule of law is not only at the core of values promoted by the Council of Europe but at the very foundation of modern democratic society. By undermining and threatening the rule of law, one undermines and threatens democracy. It is therefore crucial for us as part of the Council of Europe to be vigilant and draw attention to anyone and/or anything challenging this legal principle.

      This report by honourable colleagues Mr Mahoux and Mr Fabritius focuses on examples from a few countries only. Nevertheless, these countries are not the only ones that face the same or similar problems. Indeed, we would be a very fortunate Organisation if only the countries mentioned were affected by this malady. Unfortunately, none is immune. I therefore urge those countries mentioned not to mistake this and similar reports as an attack by or hostility on the part of the Parliamentary Assembly but rather as constructive criticism and concern for you as valued and crucial parts of our Organisation. Your triumphs in preserving the rule of law in your countries are the triumphs of our entire Organisation.

      Once again, thanks and congratulations to Mr Mahoux and Mr Fabritius on their work and contribution to the Parliamentary Assembly’s being a staunch defender of the rule of law in all our member States.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – I would like to say a few words about this report – this checklist – but first I would like to ask you, dear colleagues, to look around you. How many of us are present here now in this Chamber? We are discussing the most important, fundamental rights and fundamental values – the rule of law. How many of us are here? How many German delegates are present? Can you raise your hands? None. How many French delegates do we have in here? Thank you very much – there is one. Well done – you have your honour. You are representing the whole nation. Where are the rest? If the rule of law in Poland is so important for you, where are you, dear Council of Europe? Where are you? It is all about paper. You should be here to discuss this. Percentage-wise, most delegates present are Polish. Raise your hands, please. Look, Polish delegates are here because we are open for debate and for dialogue, not for the PR and the politicians’ attacks from Germany.

      On the rule of law in Germany, I would like to ask about your judiciary. Who appoints the judges? Is it your Minister of Justice? Of course it is. I would like to ask about the judiciary in France, where the suburbs of Paris are in flames now. This is about the rule of law – the values we are fighting for. You are thinking about Poland, where the democratic government was elected and promised reforms, not looking at yourself in the mirror. Look at yourself, and see that we are here and we are open for a discussion. We want to be your partners, but do not treat us as children. Do not treat as the one who can be told, “You will not get your pocket money because you didn’t clean up your room.” We are open for a discussion. We want to be partners but we are not small children. Before you judge us and point at us with your finger, look in the mirror and then ask yourself what the judiciary in your system looks like. What about the Dutch? What about Mr Timmermans in Holland? The tribunal court does not exist – they do not need it – but they are pointing at Poland for a constitutional violation, as they say. Again, look in the mirror and ask yourself whether maybe you need reforms. We are equal in the European Union and equal in the Chamber of the Council of Europe. As a proud Polish nation, we are open for a discussion. That is why we are here. We want to be part of the European Union and we want to be part of the Council of Europe as a partner – treat us as a partner.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Fabritius, on the important report that he has presented. Although it covers five countries, as a Polish parliamentarian in the opposition and a professor of economics, I would like to concentrate on the impact on the threats to the rule of law that we could experience in Poland if all bills yet to be debated are implemented in the manner in which they are being presented today. There is no disputing the fact that reforms should be carried out in the legal system. They should be conducted owing to the fact that the judging of processes is taking too long. The proposed projects go beyond democratic rule and interfere in the Polish constitution. Poland stands to lose in many respects if the plans to reform the legal system are implemented as proposed by the Law and Justice party. Poland would end up losing the tripartite division of power – judiciary, legislative and executive. Lack of trust in the legal system would be the consequence. There is the threat of 100% control of the legal system concentrated in the hands of one politician. Fortunately, the president temporarily blocked the process by vetoing two of the bills passed by the ruling party. The lack of a stable legal system could lead to worsening conditions for micro, small and medium enterprises doing business in the country. It would also lead to the limiting of domestic and foreign investments which would reduce the potential to create jobs.

      We therefore call on the Polish authorities, first, to refrain from amending the Act on the national council of the judiciary in a way that would modify the procedure for appointing judge members of the council and establish political control over the appointment process of judge members; and secondly, to refrain from implementing any legal provisions that would terminate the office of judge members of the national council of the judiciary in Poland or of the first president of the supreme court. We are for reforms, but reforms that will bring the concrete rule of law.

      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 typewritten texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      I call Mr Buquicchio to reply. You have three minutes.

      Mr BUQUICCHIO (President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law)* – Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind words. You have almost all been so kind about the work of the Venice Commission. I think this is one of the most important pieces of work we have ever done. I heard some speakers make useful contributions. Mention has been made of the need to flesh out the checklist to make it more complete. Indeed, that was our mission – our purpose. We knew, of course, that this would not be the culmination of our work on the rule of law: it is a living instrument and we are therefore open to new ideas. For example, I remember Mr Howell saying that we need to talk about private actors and take them into account as well. We had already thought of that, in fact. There will be future updated versions of the checklist and we will no doubt bear in mind these very helpful contributions.

      There were comments on the impartiality of the Venice Commission and the fact that there might be political influence brought to bear on it. I am worried about that, and I can categorically deny such allegations. The Venice Commission is made up of more than 100 men and women – all legal and constitutional experts. There are 61 member States, as Mr Mahoux pointed out, so it goes well beyond the confines of Europe. Africa, Asia and the Americas are on board. No doubt all those individuals have their political opinions but, importantly, they are lawyers, and they read and talk about the law. We are not a court, but our purpose is to look at democracy through the law, and we are therefore not subject to any kind of political influence – that is not something that impinges on our work.

      I thank the Assembly for the confidence it has shown in the work of the Venice Commission. In a way, the Parliamentary Assembly is our best partner.

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany)* – I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for their support over the past three years, and I thank the experts who have provided us with in-depth information on the situation in their own countries. They have underscored the core values of the Council of Europe and have supported its bodies, particularly the Venice Commission, and I support what has been said.

      Mr Howell, you made some valuable points, and I share your opinion about the strong reaction to any threat to the rule of law. You will find that the recommendations are balanced, because we aim not to attack countries but to accompany them and help them to improve. Mr Kürkçü, there is no stigmatisation of Turkey. The report aims not to stigmatise but to examine the situation. There was also a proposal to extend the list of states, and in my introduction I explained how we came to our list of countries, but there is an idea to examine other countries.

      I regret that Mr Corlăţean is no longer here. He also regrets that more countries are not on the list, He accused me of fighting a political battle against a particular country. No, the contrary is true. We wanted to prevent the political battle in Romania from being dragged into the Chamber. If he were still here, I would ask him to look at article 3, paragraph 2. We could then use that to discuss the conflict of interest and decide which politicians in Romania should have their immunity lifted. That would be helpful where politicians are being protected by their own political party.

      Mr Corlăţean also mentioned legal procedures relating to the constitutional court, which has been included in the report. He also spoke about the anti-corruption authority in Romania, where there are examples of best practice. There is good work in Romania to address corruption, and there are leading politicians in that country who are very unhappy with that work. In response, they are trying to discredit the anticorruption organisation, so we need to take a clear position.

      Ms Şahin Usta said that the examples relating to Turkey are wrong, but the experts have confirmed that that is not the case. Unfortunately it was not possible for me to meet representatives of his country – I would have liked to meet them. It was explained to me why it was not possible for me to travel, but it speaks for itself when a country does not admit a rapporteur. He criticised the selection of countries, but I have already said what I have to say about that.

      Mr Venizelos, you congratulated me and made a valuable point, and I say the same to Ms Gorghiu. The conclusions of the report have been confirmed by other colleagues. The anti-corruption authority in Romania is extremely important. Ms Gorghiu, you also referred to Romanian citizens, for which I am grateful. We know that civil society is developing in Romania, and it is working to guarantee that the rule of law cannot be abused by any political party. I thank you for your work in Romania. You referred to the shameful incident involving the Justice Minister. Any steps to bring the judiciary under the authority of the executive should be avoided, and this is an important issue for the post-report phase. We have to keep our eye on what is happening.

      Mr Ghimpu, you spoke of Mr Plahotniuc and what is happening in your country. The mayor of Chisinau has also suddenly been arrested, so we are seeing that the report’s recommendations are important for the Republic of Moldova.

      Mr Hajduković, you also said that the report examines too few countries. You have recently become a member of the Assembly, so I suggest that you get active in the committees and suggest other countries where we should examine the situation relating to the rule of law. Mr Tarczyński, you put on an interesting show, and I agree with what the President of the Venice Commission said. You have previously made jokes about sharia in the Council of Europe, which you posted on YouTube – I am glad you did not do that again. You confirmed what experts told us about Poland, and I have included those points in my report.

      I call on the Assembly to approve the resolution, which we amended in committee.

      Mr MAHOUX (Belgium)* – This discussion has demonstrated as clearly as possible why we need this “Rule of Law Checklist”. It has to be part of the way we work in the Assembly, in the Monitoring Committee and in the Legal Affairs Committee. The checklist has to be a benchmark for all of us. That does not mean we cannot judge situations for ourselves and see whether criteria have or have not been applied in different countries, but at least we will all be referring to the same thing. That would be a big step forward, as this discussion has proved. The checklist is not a little grey book that will lie and moulder on a shelf somewhere, becoming covered in dust before falling apart as it is eaten by bookworms. No, it will be a living instrument that is used.

      There are several ways in which people can try to weaken, undermine or cast doubt on the work of the Venice Commission, and we have heard some examples in this discussion. The first thing people do is to try to criticise its objectivity or neutrality – they really try to criticise its neutrality – but they are just trying to weaken the commission. When the Venice Commission is asked for an opinion, its response will not be liked by everyone but it will be based on legal analysis, which we have to recognise.

      People have talked about funding cuts being another way of endangering the work of the Venice Commission. If people cut off funding, the commission will not be able to do as much as it would otherwise do.

      Let me end by recalling that the work is done by people who are not making a lucrative living out of it; it is done on the basis of funding that is required for this very necessary work. We regularly call on the Venice Commission to do many things, so we should also provide it with regular and consistent funding so that it can continue with its valuable work.

      The PRESIDENT – Does the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wish to speak? You have four minutes.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – On behalf of my committee, I wish to say that we are proud of both these professional and profound reports. The report on the Venice Commission and the “Rule of Law Checklist” is important because the rule of law is not abstract any more. We have just a small book, but in reality it is very precious. We can now find a particular basis for, or elements of, the rule of law, and we can read and understand its pillars and how to follow them. I agree with the President of the Venice Commission that this Chamber should not just endorse the implementation of the checklist, but follow it. We should encourage our member States to follow it, and to monitor the checklist according to decisions made by the Venice Commission. I remind the Assembly of the history of this issue. In 2012, the Venice Commission decided to set up this work on the checklist and, in 2016, we received some really profound material. Thank you very much.

      I pay tribute to the honourable committee member Philippe Mahoux. This is his last appearance in the Assembly, but he has always been a pillar of both the Assembly and our committee. We are really grateful, and on behalf of the committee I thank him for his valuable contribution to our work. The report was unanimously adopted by the committee, and we totally respect and agree with everything mentioned in it. There are no amendments to the draft resolution, so I hope that the Assembly will support it.

      Mr Fabritius enjoyed the full support of the committee throughout his mandate, and his report is in many ways a concrete example of the application of the Venice Commission checklist. He has taken on the difficult job of identifying practical issues and addressing concrete recommendations for five countries. Dear colleagues, let us not blame him or our committee for the choice of those five countries. We all know that other countries also have problems with the rule of law – perhaps even worse problems that those mentioned in the report – but the choice of countries to be covered was ultimately made in this report. Mr Fabritius has the full support of the committee, and this afternoon we took a position on the amendments tabled to the report. I hope that the Assembly will support it.

      The PRESIDENT – The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which no amendments have been tabled.

      We will now vote on the draft resolution in Document 14387.

      The vote is open.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution to which 23 amendments have been tabled. The committee unanimously agreed Amendment 10. However, I must call that amendment separately as a sub-amendment has been tabled.

      Each amendment will be taken individually in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Ms Sotnyk to support Amendment 10.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – We view the amendment in light of the oral-sub amendment that has been tabled, so that it states only that Assembly is deeply concerned by cases in certain member States in which national judiciaries are used to silence political opponents and to repress those who disagree with government policies.

      The PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Mr Fabritius wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, as follows:

      “In Amendment 10, delete the second, third and fourth sentences”In

      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 Fabritius to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany) – I am in favour of this oral sub-amendment, because it clarifies that we do not say anything to a country that is not in the report. If it is a general position that is okay and I am in favour of the sub-amendment.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – The committee is in favour.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15. I call Mr Tarczyński to support the amendment.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – The amendment is tabled to the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the draft resolution to replace the word “five” with “four”. It is obvious that we cannot be put with the other countries.

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

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – It is very sad to admit, but it is five, not four, countries. Poland is together with Bulgaria, Romania, the Republic of Moldova and Turkey. It is among the countries where the rule of law is put at risk. Changing “five” to “four” will not change that or hide the fact that the government is limiting the independence of the judiciary.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 15 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 16. I call Mr Tarczyński to support the amendment.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – Amendment 16 is to the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the draft resolution to delete the word “Poland”. I do not see the logical explanation why Poland is put in the same place as Turkey or others. It should be discussed separately. That is why, if Poland is there, it should be discussed separately.

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

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – Deleting Poland will not hide the fact that the government is limiting the independence of the judiciary. I appeal to the ruling party of Poland, the Law and Justice Party, to stop breaking the law in Poland. Europe is looking at it.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 20. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 17 and 18 fall. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DIŞLI (Turkey) – This is supposed to be a thematic report. It does not properly serve the purpose of the report to single out a number of countries. It should identify threats related to the topic and make a general recommendation to all member States instead of singling out countries.

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

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany) – The report reflects exactly the results of the hearings and what experts told us, so I am against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 17. I call Mr Tarczyński to support the amendment.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – Amendment 17 is to the third sentence of paragraph 5 of the draft resolution to delete the word “Poland” after the words “mainly in Bulgaria”. If it is mainly in Bulgaria, what does Poland have to do with it? I do not see the logical explanation.

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

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – I disagree. The Polish Government is doing everything to limit the independence of and politicise the judicial council and the Supreme Court. The government was stopped only because of the extraordinary mobilisation of the people, who protested and protected their courts.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 17 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 18. I call Mr Tarczyński to support the amendment.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – Amendment 18 is to the third sentence of paragraph 5 of the draft resolution to delete the words “or attempts to do so (Poland)”. What kind of description is that? “Attempts” in what way? If there is no explanation and no reason to say “attempts”, I would like to delete it.

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

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – Again, you cannot deny facts. You cannot say that there was no attempt in Poland for a massive revocation of judges. There was, and Europe luckily saw the civic movement stop it, but because of the manifestation it is not all lost yet. These are only attempts, but I am afraid that, the next time we meet here, we will be talking about not attempts, but a massive revocation of judges.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 19. If the amendment is agreed, Amendments 12 and 13 fall. I call Mr Tarczyński to support the amendment.

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – The amendment is to delete paragraph 8.1 of the draft resolution. The paragraph begins, “The Assembly calls on Polish authorities to”. Calls in what way? How do you want to call us? Are we partners or not? You want to call us for what? There is no explanation of what you are calling for. We are partners and discussing or you are calling us, unless you want us to call you.

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

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – Why are you scared? The Assembly calls on the Polish Government to refrain from conducting any reform that would put at risk respect for the rule of law. From the member’s own words we can clearly hear that he is not planning that, so there is no need to be scared and fight against this paragraph. Keep it and let us observe.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Against.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12. I call Mr Truskolaski to support the amendment.

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – The President’s draft law on the National Council of the Judiciary in Poland states that it will be up to the Parliament to select judge members of the council. Such regulation is not in compliance with the Polish constitution and would widen political control over the process of appointing members of the council.

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

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – It was a little bit hard for me to understand Mr Truskolaski’s English but I do not even understand his political thoughts. I am sorry but it is true. He is not a constitutional tribunal. He is not the one who is going to tell us whether it is right with the Polish constitution or not. That is point number one. Point number two is that we had a presidential veto, so why do we have this amendment when the bill did not even pass through the Parliament? It does not make sense. This bill was vetoed so I cannot understand why we are discussing it and why we are hearing that it is against the constitution when the bill does not exist.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – Approved.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Truskolaski to support Amendment 13.

      Mr TRUSKOLASKI (Poland) – The terms of office of the members of the National Council of Judiciary in Poland and the first president of the Supreme Court are guaranteed by the constitution. Any legislative attempts to terminate these candidacies should be treated as steps towards limiting the judges’ independence.

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

      Mr TARCZYŃSKI (Poland) – There is no single piece of proof or example showing that Polish judges would be limited in any way. How can we discuss the limitation of Polish judges when no Bill has been passed through the Parliament? Again, those Bills are still in the President’s office. He will present it after the amendments, so I do not really understand why we are discussing this when it does not exist.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Mr Mahoux to support Amendment 14.

      Mr MAHOUX (Belgium)* – This is simply a proposal to turn again to the Venice Commission and ask it both to deal with an issue relating to penal law and to look at the issue of the constitutional court.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 1.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I take this opportunity to thank the President of the Venice Commission, Mr Buquicchio, and Ms Simona Granata-Menghini for the fantastic work that it is doing. I also thank our colleague Phillippe Mahoux. He will not be in this Chamber next time.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      Thank you, Phillippe, you have done a wonderful job of work.

      (The speaker continued in English).

      Amendment 1 would add “and adopt clear criteria for this, respecting the recommendations of the Venice Commission”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 2.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I propose to insert the sentence, “focusing on the fight against corruption and the abuse of authority, by implementing the recommendation of the Venice Commission and GRECO”. It is really important that those two bodies are mentioned.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 3.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I propose to insert the following words: “refraining especially from abusive law-making by emergency ordinances”. I do not think I need to explain anything further on that.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 4.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – In reference to the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, I propose inserting the word “remarkable”, so that its “remarkable work” is mentioned.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      If Amendment 5 is agreed, Amendment 23 falls. I call Ms Brasseur to support Amendment 5.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I propose replacing the words, “the latter should respect fundamental human rights during criminal investigations” with “respecting the legal framework and the need for an effective fight against corruption and the abuse of authority”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – In favour by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 has been agreed, so Amendment 23 falls.

      We come to Amendment 6. I call Ms Brasseur to support the amendment.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – In the draft resolution, I propose to insert after the word, “Court” the following words, “and the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA)”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It is approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 7. I call Ms Brasseur to support the amendment.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I propose to replace the words, “Romanian society”, with, “political parties”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It is approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8. I call Ms Brasseur to support the amendment.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) – I propose to add just one word, “possible”, and delete the rest of the sentence so that it should read, “lift the state of emergency as soon as possible.”

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It is approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 21. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – We want paragraph 10.2 to be deleted because reconsidering the constitutional amendments means the reversal of the referendum, and having the referendum again needs the approval of parliament.

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

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany) – I am against the amendment. We have the problem in Turkey, as related by experts, that we need the separation of powers.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It is rejected by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 21 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 22. I call Mr Dişli to support the amendment. If the amendment is agreed, Amendment 9 falls.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – Dismissing public servants who have taken part in activities of the FETO terrorist organisation is a legitimate and necessary measure, if they participated in the attempted coup. Furthermore, an inspections commission was established with the aim of monitoring the actions taken as part of the decree laws to enable judicial review.

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

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany) – I am very against the amendment. We have the situation in Turkey of the dismissal of tens of thousands of people. It is not part of a State operating under the rule of law to dismiss tens of thousands of people and tell them after that that they can wait until a political commission checks the case. I am against.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It was rejected by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 22 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9. I call Ms Finckh-Krämer to support the amendment.

      Ms FINCKH-KRÄMER (Germany) – The amendment is a clarification that it is not only judges and prosecutors, but also civil servants who were dismissed.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It was approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – Great. I shall now put the amendment to a vote. The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 11, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11, to insert the following words: “The Assembly regards with great disappointment the fact that, in 2015, the Russian Federation introduced a legal instrument to enable the overturning of rulings by the ECHR.”

      I call Ms Sotnyk to support Amendment 11.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – The amendment should be read in light of the oral sub-amendment and would therefore read: “The Assembly regards with great disappointment the fact that some Member states are discussing and introducing legal instruments to avoid implementing rulings of the ECHR.”

      The PRESIDENT – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 11, which was tabled by Mr Fabritius on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 11, after the words “the fact that”, to delete the rest of the sentence and insert the following words: “some Member states are discussing and introducing legal instruments to avoid implementing rulings of the ECHR.”

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules. However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Fabritius to support the oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr FABRITIUS (Germany) – I do not need 30 seconds. I support the oral sub-amendment, because it makes it clear that we should not refer to a country that is not the subject of the report. Instead, it makes an important general statement.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee on the oral sub-amendment?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It was approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the main amendment, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 11, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment, as amended?

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – It was approved by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We will now vote on the draft resolution in Document 14405, as amended.

      The vote is open.

3. Next public business

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

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Joint debate

Call for a Council of Europe Summit to reaffirm European unity and to defend and promote democratic security in Europe

Defending the acquis of the Council of Europe: preserving 65 years of successful intergovernmental co-operation

Presentation by Mr Nicoletti of the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Document 14396

Presentation by Mr Kox of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, Document 14406

Speakers: Ms Hovhannisyan, Ms De Sutter, the Earl Of Dundee, Mr M. A. Jensen, Mr Loucaides, Ms Hopkins, Mr Blanchart, Ms Grozdanova, Ms Karamanli, Ms Yaşar, Ms Sotnyk, Mr Reiss, Mr Hajduković, Mr Ariev, Mr G. Davies, Ms Christoffersen, Ms Gambaro, Mr Melkumyan, Mr Grin, Mr Fournier, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Rustamyan, Ms Topcu, Mr de Bruyn, Mr Herkel, Mr Stevanović, Mr Lupu, Mr Venizelos, Mr Tilson

Draft resolution in Document 14396, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14396, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14406, as amended, adopted

2.        Joint debate:

Venice Commission’s “Rule of Law Checklist”

New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples

Presentation by Mr Mahoux of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14387

Presentation by Mr Fabritius of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14405

Statement by Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)

Speakers: Mr Efstathiou, Mr Howell, Mr Marukyan, Mr Kürkçü, Mr Corlăţean, Ms Hoffmann, Ms Şahin Usta, Mr Dişli, Mr Venizelos, Ms Gorghiu, Ms Karamanli, Mr Uysal, Mr Ghimpu, Ms Duranton, Mr Hajduković, Mr Tarczyński, Mr Munyama

Draft resolution in Document 14387 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14405, as amended, adopted

3.        Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement. Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BARNETT, Doris [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

BLANCHART, Philippe [M.]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]

BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr]

BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CIMOSZEWICZ, Tomasz [Mr] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DAVIES, Geraint [Mr]

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.] (KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms])

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

FABRITIUS, Bernd [Mr] (OBERMEIER, Julia [Ms])

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (ZZ...)

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FISCHER, Axel [Mr]

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GODSKESEN, Ingebjørg [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]

GRECH, Etienne [Mr] (CUTAJAR, Rosianne [Ms])

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

GROTH, Annette [Ms] (WERNER, Katrin [Ms])

GROZDANOVA, Dzhema [Ms]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

GUZENINA, Maria [Ms]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HERKEL, Andres [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])

HIGGINS, Alice-Mary [Ms] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

HOLÍK, Pavel [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms] (PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr])

LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]

LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (BERTUZZI, Maria Teresa [Ms])

LUPU, Marian [Mr] (BULIGA, Valentina [Mme])

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr]

MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme])

MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr])

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (ZELIENKOVÁ, Kristýna [Ms])

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Jasmina [Ms] (BOJIĆ, Milovan [Mr])

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ABAD, Damien [M.])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme] (JORDANA, Carles [M.])

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms]

SALMOND, Alex [Mr]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STELLINI, David [Mr]

STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

TAQUET, Adrien [M.] (TRISSE, Nicole [Mme])

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.])

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

ULLRICH, Volker [Mr] (HENNRICH, Michael [Mr])

UYSAL, Burhanettin [Mr] (BABAOĞLU, Mehmet [Mr])

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms])

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

WALLINHEIMO, Sinuhe [Mr] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WURM, Gisela [Ms]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BYRNE, Liam [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr]

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms]

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms]

Observers / Observateurs

TILSON, David [Mr]

WHALEN, Nick [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

EL FILALI, Hassan [M.]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]

HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK