AA18CR03

AS (2018) CR 03

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(First part)

REPORT

Third sitting

Tuesday 23 January 2018 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

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

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

(Mr Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

      The PRESIDENT – This morning and this afternoon, the agenda calls for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 14444, and an opinion from the Sub-Committee on Human Rights of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Document 14455 Addendum 3. The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair.

      At 1 p.m. the voting will be suspended, and it will resume at 3.30 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of four tellers. I shall now draw by lot the four tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

      The names of Mr Amon, Mr Aktay, Mr Sobolev and Mr Oehme have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

      I now declare the ballot open. At 5 p.m. I shall close the poll and I shall announce the result before the end of the afternoon sitting.

2. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain. I refer members to the list of candidates and biographical notices, which are to be found in Document 14460, and an opinion from the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights in Document 14455 Addendum 2. The voting for both elections will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will reopen at 3.30 p.m.

      I shall close the ballot at 5 p.m. Counting will then take place under the supervision of the four tellers we have already drawn. I hope to announce the result of the election before the end of the sitting this afternoon. I now declare the ballot open.

3. Membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2018) 01 Addendum 2. Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

      They are agreed to.

4. The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe” in Document 14466, presented by Ms Rózsa Hoffmann on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. In order to finish by 12 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.20 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote. I remind members that there is a three-minute speech limit in this debate.

      I call Ms Rózsa Hoffmann, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between the presentation of the report and your reply to the debate. Take your time. You now have the floor.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – As the rapporteur on the document entitled “The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe”, I respectfully greet you, Mr President, and all members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is an honour for me to present my report to the Assembly, and I hope that you will see it in a favourable light.

      Language is not only a means of communication; it is the central feature in the cultural identity of individuals and communities. The protection of languages is part and parcel of domestic and European rules. The mother tongue is the most important in people’s lives. It is the language in which we learned our first words and in which we started to reflect, and its structure leaves a profound mark on our minds. The right to use one’s language – the protection of one’s language – is therefore essential in life. Guaranteeing this should be a constant responsibility for politicians, especially where minority or regional languages are present because of the quirks of history which have meant that countries’ borders were not shaped only by linguistic reasons.

      Only half of minority or regional languages have an official status. The languages spoken by small communities that have no official status are more exposed to the risk of disappearing. This phenomenon is particularly worrying when it comes to regional and minority languages. To protect them, the Council of Europe adopted the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 25 years ago. Today’s debate is a good opportunity to celebrate the charter, and we should not hesitate to say that this 25^th anniversary should be celebrated. Indeed, the charter is an excellent example of the protection of a fundamental right because of its positive message and contents. European citizens and the public authorities should bear in mind the fact that over 50 million people on our continent are, for historical reasons, living in countries where the official language is different from their mother tongue.

      For individuals and communities, the use of their language is a matter of culture and it is a fundamental right. We need a dialogue on the situation of minority and regional languages, and this depends on the way in which we look on the communities that speak these languages. Do we consider them potential threats, where assimilation would be necessary, or are they considered an added value for nations? Of course, the latter is the only possible point of view, and the Council of Europe is a good example of this. The purpose of the charter is, in particular, to prevent a regional or minority language from amounting to an obstacle for the person speaking it, as that could prevent them from becoming integrated into society.

      According to the charter, 203 national or linguistic minorities speak 79 languages, and those languages have to be protected in the member States of the Council of Europe. The situation is truly very complex. Only 25 of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe have ratified the charter, although eight others have signed it. Fourteen member States have neither signed nor ratified it. According to the NGOs’ evidence that is appended to this report, the problems linked to minority or regional languages are far from having been solved, so the adoption of this report is a very topical subject. It provides hope for a solution to some of these problems.

      My objective was not to repeat the principles of the charter but, on the basis of its values, to draw the attention of central and local authorities to the phenomenon, and to broaden the impact and functioning of the charter. During the two years in which I have prepared the report, I have collected a lot of information on the different situations linked to this subject. I thank the member States that contributed to this work by answering the questionnaires. I am grateful to the 16 civil society organisations that sent me interesting and useful information. I also thank the Parliaments of Latvia and Italy, and the secretariat of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for having organised an extremely important and interesting programme during my visit to these countries. Thanks to these visits, I was able to identify many examples of good practice and to identify a number of problematic situations. All the information I received has been fully documented in the nine appendices to the report; there are 50 pages of notes.

      During my work, I tried to avoid any aggressive generalisations. In the draft, I frequently used wording such as “if possible” or “if there is an equivalent”. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has addressed this subject on at least five occasions and tabled a number of amendments, most of which I have accepted. The chair of the committee is now going to inform you of the committee’s opinion. I would simply draw your attention to paragraph 4.4 of the draft recommendation, where I suggest that we create a prize for countries that are actively promoting the use of regional and minority languages.

      The education systems in several countries in Europe demonstrate convincingly that teaching in a mother tongue in multilingual countries is not an obstacle for the official language. The co-existence of several languages does not weaken them. On the contrary, it strengthens them. This creates major economic and social advantages, as long as the educational measures are appropriate. Lasting peace depends on equality between different languages, including regional and minority languages.

      Thank you for your attention. I ask you to support and adopt this report. I am very interested to hear your statements and comments.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Hoffmann. You will have four minutes for your reply. I  call Ms Jones.

      Ms JONES – (United Kingdom, Spokesperson on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group) – It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate as a new member of the Parliamentary Assembly and as a Welsh member of the United Kingdom Parliament.

      I thank Ms Hoffmann for her thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of her report. I am very interested in what she said about a potential prize for countries that promote regional and minority languages. In the context of a Europe in which more than 200 languages are spoken, but fewer than half have official status at national or regional level, the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group warmly welcomes the report. I know that it is very widely welcomed across the political spectrum. Chief in it for me are the excellent practical examples of the vital importance of schooling systems and broadcast media to regional and minority languages. I would not presume to speak about nations other than my own, but I would like to speak about Wales and the United Kingdom.

      The main minority regional languages in the United Kingdom are Irish, about which my colleague Conor McGinn hopes to speak later, Welsh and Scots Gaelic. My own language, Welsh, is spoken by 562,000 people in Wales – 19% of the population – and at least 150,000 others across the United Kingdom. Our history has been chequered. In the 16^th century, parliamentary statute declared that English should be the official language of Wales. While the introduction of universal education at the end of the 19^th century was a great cause of celebration in many ways, it came at a cost to the Welsh language: schools were banned from teaching it and children were punished for speaking it. It took until 1967 to get the first Welsh Language Act; until the early 1990s for bilingualism to be obligatory in local authorities; and until 1999 for the creation of the National Assembly for Wales, where all business is undertaken bilingually.

      Two things have been pivotal for the Welsh language. One is the Welsh medium schools, which are popular among families where parents may not themselves speak Welsh but are keen for their children to grow up bilingual in English and Welsh, and preferably knowing other languages as well. Our media channels – S4C on broadcast television and Radio Cymru – have also been important.

      I very much hope that this report will be supported and that more countries will ratify this charter. In Welsh, we say “O bydded i’r hen iaith barhau” – let the old language live on.

      (Mr Jonas Gunnarsson, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Nicoletti.)

      Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I thank the rapporteur for her work. I start by mentioning that the content and aspiration of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is of a cultural character. It aims to protect and support regional and minority languages as an inseparable part of European cultural heritage. The implementation of the charter’s principles should become an important factor in strengthening the union of nation States and the increased integration and equal involvement of citizens.

      We often give too much emphasis to the ratification of the charter by member States, but I believe that it is more important to speak about how member States fulfil its principles, the successful experiences we have, the challenges we face in implementation, and how our Assembly can encourage member States in this process. The resolution is mainly based on the charter, although it introduces some new principles that go substantially beyond the charter’s framework. I see in such an approach a clear risk of creating new burdens for member States in their implementation of the charter. I would rather support its implementation through soft measures. Encouraging co-operation and sharing experiences between member States would be a very effective way of promoting that.

      I would like to share Georgian experience on the issue. Even though my country has not formally ratified the charter, it has been implementing the majority of its principles for years. The state action plan covers all public activities, including the education system, public services, administrative authorities, the justice system, media and cultural activities and economic and social life. Language minorities in Georgia have access to all stages of education. There are 298 non-Georgian language schools and 81 non-Georgian language sectors functioning in Georgia. They comprise 14% of schools nationwide. People speaking minority languages are guaranteed participation in court trials and criminal proceedings in their native languages. Municipalities, where necessary, provide documentation and local normative acts in the respective minority language. Public broadcasters provide news programmes in minority languages; talk shows, radio programmes and newspapers are also provided in minority languages.

      These are just a few examples from our experience. We understand that the issue requires permanent care from State authorities, as well as long-term policy and actions from government. All those actions should be directed towards more integration and towards the full participation and involvement of people who speak minority languages.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – ALDE members met yesterday to discuss Ms Hoffmann’s report in great depth. On behalf of the group, I express our support for the report. Plurality, diversity, the unity of Europe – these are the cornerstones of the philosophy behind the Council of Europe. The report encourages the promotion of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and its ratification by all member States. Although all 47 have signed it, only 25 have ratified it so far.

      We support the initiative wholeheartedly. Once again, there is no such thing as a language of first or second category. That point is emphasised in Ms Hoffmann’s report. Let us not forget that there are well over 200 languages that require protection. Education plays a very important role. Education in further languages boosts the capacity to learn other languages. Ms Hoffmann’s report recommends boosting the policies of member States in the fields of education and mass media, and the use of regional languages in administration and by civil servants. Such measures are important in order to support the use of regional languages. Here in Alsace, on the streets of Strasbourg, there is a wonderful example of that: the road signs are in French and Alsatian. That is the reality in Europe today. Plurality and diversity mean wealth for all of us. I emphasise that education in other languages can take place at all levels, including at university level. I am the product of a bilingual education in Catalan and Spanish. It is perfectly possible to learn in two languages, at all levels up to university, with no problem whatever.

      This is an extremely important debate. Once again, we express our support for the report and congratulate Ms Hoffmann on her excellent work in drafting it.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – On behalf of the UEL, I congratulate the rapporteur on successfully setting out a panoramic view of regional and minority languages across Europe. In 1992, the Council of Europe opened the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for signature. This is the major guideline for member States, but, unfortunately, nearly half of them have yet to ratify it. As the rapporteur eloquently highlights, the situation remains worrying, as more than half the more than 200 languages spoken in Europe still lack official status at national or regional level, and the smaller the share of the population of the community who are speaking those languages, the more vulnerable they are to the risk of extinction.

      This situation involves at least 47 million people in Europe, many in central and eastern European countries, which entered the scope of the charter after dramatic regime changes in the 1990s. Nevertheless, the founding members of the Council of Europe are not exempt either from the criticisms voiced in the report. The difficulties faced by the Irish, Scots and Welsh in the United Kingdom should not be overlooked in the heat of the disputes in Ukraine about the rights of Russian language speakers, or the problems of Romanians in Hungary and Macedonians in Albania, as the report mentions. Many member countries whose official languages are the working languages of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, such as Belgium, France and Italy, have yet to ratify the charter, and founding members, such as Portugal, Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria, are far from ratifying it. Therefore, the aim of this report is to refocus the attention of member States on the importance of supporting, and the need to support, regional or minority languages, which is both timely and legitimate.

      We wish to draw the Assembly’s attention to political pressure on the Kurdish language and Kurdish language speakers, which has further grown after the declaration of emergency rule. Spoken by an estimated 25 million citizens of Turkey, Kurdish is once again a cursed language under emergency rule, which has been in place since July 2016. Lacking official recognition since the establishment of the Turkish Republic, Kurdish is now forcibly ousted from public life; bilingual public services provided by the municipalities in the Kurdish-inhabited towns and cities have been removed, and mayors have been replaced by appointed trustees. As the report rightly highlights, one’s mother tongue is the basic source of one’s identity, and the identity of the individual represents his or her dignity. I call on member States to stop pressuring regional and minority languages, and to put into effect the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

      Mr DIVINA (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – We have spoken on many occasions in this Assembly about conflicts, and we feel that the best way of doing things is to prevent conflicts before they happen. War and history have constantly changed the borders of countries, created new states and merged other states into new states, with new enclaves being created, so throughout Europe there are populations that have different customs and traditions from the host state in which they happen to be. Of course, that can lead to friction, especially if these populations are not well managed. Imposing customs that do not belong to them is not the best way to manage minorities, but if minorities are looked after, they feel safe, there will not be such a growth in extremism and resentment, and progress will be made to the benefit of all. These populations need statutes and perhaps special constitutional arrangements that will guarantee some kind of administrative and cultural autonomy for them, and language is the basic expression of that.

      I come from a population that has suffered from being passed back and forth, the Alto Adige, or South Tyrol, area. First, we were in the Germanic area and then in the Italian area. Until 1918, we belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and we had to pay tribute to it; this was a prototype of a federal, liberal state which respected minorities, above all. Although German and Hungarian were the official languages, in every area Italian, Slovene, Croatian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Slovak and even Yiddish were spoken freely. In Trentino, there are three different identities, including the Ladin one, with people living side by side. The public authorities write everything in three languages. People can express themselves in their mother tongue when they go to see the council. Cultural activities are put on in the various local languages. Everyone’s place names are respected and road signs are in all the different languages, so nobody feels oppressed or cast aside. There is an optimal method of living together there, which surely must be the model that should be extended to all European areas where there are still conflicts or friction between the various populations. The resolution on minority languages is certainly along those lines, and it is the right road. I compliment the rapporteur on her excellent work.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – On behalf of my political group, I congratulate the rapporteur on her tremendous work on this report. We agree fully with her main conclusion: that for the Council of Europe it is always crucial to make European societies aware that in many of the continent’s countries there are regional and minority languages, with indigenous groups speaking a language that is different from that of the majority population. The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe represents an important contribution to the building of a Europe based on the principles of democracy and cultural diversity.

      The protection of the rights of these people should remain a priority, our main priority. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is designed to protect and promote these languages. The teaching and learning of minority languages are vital to the protection of minority rights. It is of the utmost importance that education reforms do not affect the teaching of regional or minority languages and that the teaching of these languages is not done in a disproportionately disadvantageous manner, so that we can fully respect the level of acquired rights. The protection of regional or minority languages, giving people the right to use such languages in public and ensuring their official use in the territories where their speakers live are all essential. Unfortunately, at the moment there are still not enough speakers of regional or minority languages in public administration or institutions.

      It is necessary to ensure that the employees of public administration or services who communicate with users are capable of actively using the language in question, that a sufficient number of employees speak the language in question in the institution offering the service, and that the necessary information for obtaining access to the service is also provided in the language in question.

      After analysis of the legal framework, it can be concluded that the problem lies in insufficient implementation of regulations. The main problem is the implementation of existing rules in practice, but there is also a need for additional regulation of specific issues arising in some areas.

      In a nutshell, we do not need much. We just need to ensure that speakers of regional or minority languages have the possibility of preserving and using their language. For that reason, we should not support the adoption of laws or administrative measures that would potentially weaken already acquired rights. National protection and realisation of the rights of the users of regional and minority languages are of the utmost importance.

      The PRESIDENT – That concludes the list of spokespersons for the political groups.

      The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Ms Hoffmann wish to respond at this stage? That is not the case. I call Mr Korodi.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that we involve the different minorities in our societies. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is one of the fundamental instruments of the Council of Europe, but we have to involve minority groups in our societies across Europe.

      I congratulate Ms Hoffmann on the report. It is important and provides a very good analysis. There are countries in the European Union that have not ratified the charter, but there are also countries that have ratified the charter but implemented it very restrictively, and not in the spirit of the charter. Countries sometimes take very limited measures in a legislative framework. The report shows that we need to take a more positive approach, with more involvement of the member States.

      The monitoring process of the Council of Europe is very weak at the moment. We have seen many situations where member States deliver their report on implementation of the charter, and those reports take a lot of time to be analysed and decided on in the Council of Europe system. We need a more efficient monitoring process.

      The charter says very clearly that we need to involve minority communities in establishing the language threshold and the regional and geographical area where a threshold needs to be implemented. I thank Ms Hoffmann for putting that recommendation in the report. In 2012, the Committee of Ministers recommended the creating of a threshold in Romania. We need a more flexible and proper threshold, decided together with the minority communities.

      I am grateful for the recommendation in the report that minority communities need the opportunity to learn the official language of the State, but we need to help the minority communities. We had a very good debate about the Ukrainian crisis in the autumn. We decided that not only Ukraine but all Council of Europe member States need to improve their methodology and develop proper instruments for children in minority communities to learn State languages. We need to implement the methodology that is used for foreign languages. It is also important that not only member States but the European Union work actively to improve the fundamental democratic instrument that is the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

      The PRESIDENT – We have many speakers today, and I ask speakers to keep to the time allocated. I call Mr Kronbichler.

      Mr KRONBICHLER (Italy)* – It is a shame that yesterday, for procedural reasons, we did not manage in the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination to discuss the amendments proposed to Ms Hoffmann’s report. Voting without any guidance means we will have the classic dilemma whereby what one intends to happen does not really happen.

      There is broad understanding that regional and minority languages should be looked after. We also agree that we need rules and regulations to protect them. I am part of a minority linguistic group, the German-speaking group in South Tyrol, which is very well protected. However, decades of application of these rules show that some rules that might appear necessary and effective are actually having the diametrically opposite effect.

      It is obvious that protection of regional languages will help to protect a group. Experience in our area shows that sometimes this can be excessive because it is too restrictive with regard to people’s individual rights. The very definition of linguistic groups can become a problem. It can lead to a situation where people are cut off and have to live in ethnic cages, with constant competition between different linguistic groups.

      I have the impression that the report took the example of the German solution in South Tyrol in Italy but did not take into account the problematic side that that solution has brought with it over the decades. The report is very well done and well phrased, and its objective is the prime thing. That is why I will be voting in favour of it. I hope, however, that when it comes to the implementation, we will take into account the risks that I have mentioned.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur. Happy 70^th birthday to you, Ms Hoffmann. Thank you for your dedication in the past few years in preparing this report.

      Regional and minority languages are key factors of European heritage and the future richness and cultural diversity of Europe. The language charter is a decisive instrument in the Council of Europe human rights protection system, and its 25^th anniversary is a good reason to revive and develop it. All member States should, for that reason, sign and ratify the charter.

      The Hungarian minority communities in seven member States, plus those in Hungary, are committed supporters of Council of Europe’s minority protection mechanisms. I would like to underline that autonomy is the best instrument to create and maintain appropriate language diversity, because autonomy is an appropriate space in which to exercise language diversity.

      The European Union is lagging far behind the Council of Europe. For that reason, I would like to draw your attention to the Minority SafePack initiative, which has a target of reaching 1 million signatures by April 2018. I hope that Minority SafePack is a good mechanism to transmit the Council of Europe minority protection system to the European Union. I also hope that, as a consequence of Minority SafePack, we will have a framework strategy similar to the Roma framework strategy, for regional and minority communities inside the European Union, based on the model of the Council of Europe.

      The report modernises the language charter in many aspects – for example, on online aspects of language rights. We are very committed to that. One recommendation refers to the creation of a prize for language-friendly member States. It is high time that we made minority language protection popular. Member States that perform well in the field should be highly appreciated, and member States that are not even able to sign and ratify the language charter should look into their practices.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom) – I approach this report with a sense of déjà vu. I remember speaking on this subject last October, when the President of Ukraine was here. We heard him try to establish a balance between the needs of the State and of building a State and the needs of individual minorities in preserving their specific languages. That is not to say that minority languages are not important – I believe that they are; nor is it to say that minority languages are not an important part of local culture, community development and self-identity. I recognise that languages make an important contribution to Europe’s cultural heritage. The United Kingdom signed the charter in 2000 and recognises seven languages as minority languages. The responsibility for taking those forward is largely but not exclusively the responsibility of devolved governments. As we heard, what has been done with Welsh has been impressive and has set the language up for the future.

      The report envisages that the use of minority languages is not a matter of a hard and fast rule, and that the State may not ensure the use of those languages in all cases and under all conditions. I think that the rapporteur has done a very good job in retaining a great deal of flexibility. We get into a bit of trouble when we start imposing thresholds. I would not like to see a specific threshold for a language. A good model for approaching the teaching of these languages is the European schools system, where you may go in and have science taught in one language and maths taught in another language. I know that those are not minority languages, but I think that the same approach can apply.

      The role of the media is crucial. We heard how the Welsh language has its own television station. However, I have enormous reservations about social media and the use of the Internet. The whole point of social media and the Internet is to establish the widest possible communication between people, which does not sit squarely with the idea of minority languages if you want to reach out to the largest number of people. We need to approach these issues through the democratic process, as I advocated last October for Ukraine, and to see languages taken forward in that context.

      Mr HARANGOZÓ (Hungary) – I thank Ms Hoffmann, the rapporteur, for her work. She has drafted a well-balanced and important report, so I offer my congratulations to her.

      The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages sets out a series of measures that can offer active support for regional or minority languages, with the aim of ensuring, as far as reasonably possible, the use of these languages in education and the media and of permitting their use in judicial and administrative settings, economic and social life and cultural activities. I stress that enhancing the possibility of using regional or minority languages is not about creating competition or antagonism between those languages and official languages. The charter approach is intercultural and multilingual, giving each category of language its due place.

      Unfortunately, only 25 of the Council of Europe’s 47 member States have ratified the charter. I strongly support the call on member States that have not yet signed or ratified the charter to do so and to refrain in the meantime from acts that would defeat its principles.

      The draft resolution reflects the standards set out in the charter taken in their highest light and it provides useful guidance to States on the measures that they can take in order to provide the strongest possible protection to regional and minority languages and to the speakers of these languages in Europe. The protection of regional or minority languages and the right to use them in public as well as official languages in the territories where their speakers live are essential. When we speak about administrative authorities and public service organisations, it is important to allow the use of the language, irrespective of the language threshold, in the areas where its speakers are traditionally present and where there is an interest in using the language.

      Finally, I would like to thank Ms Kovács for her work in drafting an opinion, which technically cannot be considered now but contains good amendments that further strengthen what is already a good text. I thank both the rapporteurs for their work.

      Mr HONKONEN (Finland) – I thank Ms Hoffmann for her excellent and well-phrased report on this important matter. As she says, the protection and support of linguistic diversity is a fundamental European value. Regional and minority languages represent the cultural wealth and diversity of this continent. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that these languages be protected and promoted through policies that respect the rights of personal and collective identity and human dignity. Also, international agreements protect the rights of linguistic minorities.

      Many studies have proved that learning several languages from early childhood has positive impacts on the cognitive development of a child. Bilingualism, as well as the learning of several languages from an early age and growing up in a multilingual environment, gives an excellent precondition for learning other foreign languages. That in turn is essential in order to achieve a more tolerant Europe. If we can understand and speak each other’s languages, it helps us to better comprehend each other’s cultures, behaviour and thinking. Languages bring us together, and European co-operation and integration can happen only if we understand each other. As the draft resolution says, it is important to ensure mutual comprehension to foster the broadest possible co-operation among communities of member States.

      In Finland, during our 100 years of independence, we have worked hard to establish mutual comprehension between the Finnish-speaking majority and the Swedish-speaking minority. Nowadays, the Swedish linguistic minority has the same rights as the speakers of the dominant language. According to its constitution, Finland is bilingual. That gives the Swedish-speaking minority the right to communicate with the State authorities in their mother tongue. Both Finnish and Swedish are compulsory school subjects for all. This represents a cultural wealth, although there is a constant political debate about the mandatory learning of Swedish.

      Unfortunately, the rights of regional indigenous groups and linguistic minorities cannot be taken for granted. They do not exist automatically if we do not actually make them a reality. That is why I want to address the 14 member States that have not yet ratified or signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and ask them to do so urgently. The member States that have ratified the charter should ensure that it is actually implemented and find new solutions to actively apply the charter and its articles. It is important to share best practice and to overcome obstacles, as well to promote the use of minority languages through a language threshold.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – The initiative for the protection and promotion of minority languages is important; it has been put together to provide protection. In Romania, there is a high level of protection, and various important measures are being taken within the framework of the charter. Once again, an expert commission of the Council of Europe has certified that regional and minority languages have been well protected. They are also protected vis-à-vis the mother language, which is protected in Romanian legislation. It is guaranteed in elementary education, middle school education, higher education and in universities. Even private universities incorporate this scheme and implement any necessary measures to protect regional and minority languages. This is extremely important for all people who are members of a minority.

      Romania has promoted the integration into society of those who are of minority nationalities or ethnicities to protect identity. Specific measures have been taken, and, of course, the need to integrate into society is imperative. This is all part of a tolerant society that respects the cultures of others, and it is also necessary to avoid the social strife or political conflict that develops as a result of situations involving the principal nationality and the various minorities. Of course, it is important to promote multiculturalism and pluralism as well as interculturalism. Romania follows this path, and authorities in Bucharest have been extremely active in protecting national minorities and incorporating them into the development process of the nation by supporting the promotion of national minority and regional languages, among other things. At various universities, including Cluj-Napoca, representatives of the Hungarian Ministry of Education were present, showing the co-operation that exists at this level. Romania is an example of good practice on this front.

      There are 20 national minorities living in Romania, and of course the Romanian authorities are open to sharing their experience and know-how with other countries. It is important to allow our national minorities to have ex officio representatives in national parliaments. There are 18 national minority members represented ex officio in the Romanian Parliament, for example.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – Colleagues, we all belong to a country, to Europe and to the world at large, but, first and foremost, we belong to a region – a smaller place with its own history and values, a place that has shaped the character of our forefathers and that was the cocoon in which we grew up and developed to become the people we are today. In all these regions, which are all very respectable and to which we are viscerally attached, what is the link and the medium in which we express ourselves? What allows us to understand each other and have debates? Language. In many countries, there might be one official language, or even one or two more, as in my country, but it is quite often the case that in more remote regions there are also local languages.

      I am from Switzerland, where there are four official languages, but in certain regions there are dialects or local languages that the older people still love to talk and that the young generations fight tooth and nail to maintain. We are living in a more globalised world and a small handful of languages are more equal than others. You can understand that for English, Spanish or French, but knowing your own language and the culture associated with it, and keeping in touch with your roots and your past, is an inestimable wealth we must try to preserve. There are simple measures that are needed for this: freedom of expression in the language of your choice; the creation of conditions for teaching the language alongside the official ones; measures to allow regional media to broadcast local news; and measures to allow these languages to stay alive and be accessible to the young generations.

      Too much uniformity is harmful, and respecting the people’s culture in its diversity can only be of benefit. At the same time, this respect for regional languages and cultures must be developed in a spirit of multiculturalism and interculturalism – a spirit of exchange and peaceful co-existence and tolerance of the other. Languages should never become the source of conflict. They should bring people together. I very much support the resolution.

      Ms TRISSE (France)* – The protection and promotion of regional minority languages is a beneficial exercise in absolute terms in preserving the cultural heritage of populations that, while they belong to broader national communities, have a strong identity and a history that is often rich. I profoundly believe in this.

      I am an elected member in a region that is particularly attached to local specifics, including language. My country, France, like many countries on the European continent, has been marked by several regional languages that have shaped the identity of regions as remarkable as Alsace, Moselle, Corsica, Brittany, the Basque country, the north, the Antilles and Polynesia, to give some examples. All these regional languages and cultures, together with foreign languages, contribute to keeping diversity alive as well as preserving a very rich past.

      Contrary to an idea that is often voiced in relation to France, although the constitution of 4 October 1958 recognises only French as the language of the republic in Article 2, this does not mean that regional or minority languages play no role at all. In fact, many schools teach in these different languages. In 13 regions in continental France and for overseas regions, Alsatian, Mosellan, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Creole or other languages are taught. In other words, although I have the utmost respect for the position of my colleagues who are very convincingly defending their wish that regional or minority languages be better recognised, I think that the signing of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by France on 7 May 1999 is already a considerable acquis. From a legal standpoint, the question of the ratification of the charter is complex. The Conseil d’État, in an opinion on 6 July 1995, considered that ratification would be contrary to our constitution.

      I summarise my position by saying that asserting one’s identity is the result of a personal choice, not criteria that would define a group of individuals a priori. In my opinion, the application of human rights to the quest for equality and non-discrimination should provide broader protection to everyone. I thank the rapporteur for her report.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – In the October part-session, the Ukrainian delegation asked for a debate on the new Ukrainian education law, after the consultation with the Venice Commission. Today, we have received a positive opinion from the commission, recognising Ukraine’s right to protect the Ukrainian language. We want all children in our country to receive quality secondary education. Ukraine has provided all the conditions for the teaching of minority languages, and there are dozens of schools where the teaching languages are Hungarian, Polish or Russian.

      Ambassadors from European Union countries have visited Ukraine and been able to see how these schools work. The Venice Commission also indicated that children from national minorities have the best possible conditions in schools, better indeed than in some western European countries. We are also doing everything we can in Crimea, but we are concerned about the situation of minority languages in the Russian Federation, which violates the standards of the Council of Europe. All Ukrainian schools have been shut there and Ukrainian children cannot learn their mother tongue. Even kindergartens for Crimean Tatars have been closed. This is why Ukraine wants a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights mission to look at the situation.

      There is quite a diaspora of Ukrainians – there are millions in the Russian Federation – but there are no Ukrainian schools, or even classes, there. The Ukrainian cultural centre in Moscow was destroyed and the Ukrainian library is being taken to court. Ukraine is very firm in its position on this. All members of the Council of Europe must comply with the principles of the Organisation and respect minority languages. Cultural, humanitarian and linguistic identity are very much part of minority rights.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – I join colleagues in calling for the protection of minority languages because I believe that greater diversity makes our societies better and more prepared for the future. In these times of globalisation and technological advance, that is very important. You will have noticed that we, in the Ukrainian delegation all speak different languages. I was born in western Ukraine, next to the Polish border, and live in a city that has for centuries been known as a multicultural, multi-ethnic hub with influences from Hungarian, Jewish, Polish and Ukrainian cultures. If you look from the top of the market square, you can see how it was divided among these different communities for many years: the Serbian quarter in the north, the Jewish quarter in the east, the Polish quarter in the south, and in the west, the beautiful Armenian quarter with the central cathedral.

      In saying that, I also believe that we need to protect the majority language. The majority language and culture are the essence of the strong State. National identity is a prerequisite that underpins the strong State. It is the State that provides good-quality services and ensures that we live with security, cohesion and peace. We must not undermine this focus on the strong State. I therefore believe that the policy of all States and supranational organisations must be balanced and include protection for minority languages and cultures while also giving a chance to the majority language.

      This is particularly true of the States of the former Soviet Union after the 1991 break-up. These States are still struggling to build their national identities and protect their majority languages. For centuries, our language was attacked by imperial States, such as the Russian Federation, starting with the Valuev decrees in the 19^th century. Many millions of Ukrainians were sent to Siberia just for speaking the language. It is important to protect the majority. It is part of the Venice Commission’s opinion on the Ukrainian education law that such protection is important and that we must ensure that minorities speak the majority language, so that they better integrate with society overall. I ask members to support my Amendment 11 which calls on States to legislate to protect majority languages.

      Mr TORNARE (Switzerland)* – I too thank Ms Hoffmann for her report. We have heard some very beautiful speeches about the charter, but, unfortunately, as I have seen from my visits, even some of the countries that have signed it do not act in accordance with it. In thinking of what my Swiss colleague Mr Fridez said, we need to better define patois, dialect and regional languages, both written and oral. In Africa, there are languages that are only spoken that also need to be protected. We need better criteria to define languages. That would help us to better defend regional languages.

      Everyone has said that regional languages are culturally enriching and noted that language structures and expresses thought. That is part of the human genius. Mr Fridez mentioned Switzerland, and it is true that federalism saved our four national languages: Italian, French, German and the only Swiss language, Romansch. Only 40,000 people in St Moritz and the surrounding area speak it. The authorities defend the language to prevent it from disappearing, and that costs a lot of money. Of course, we have populist movements that want to defend the majority language: 60% of Swiss people speak German, but fortunately their requests for referendums are not achieving much success. Then there are languages that are seeking to impose themselves through globalisation: you know which ones. This is a threat because we do not want uniformity.

      In some countries, regional languages are used as an instrument by some political forces against others. We cannot accept that. Mitterrand rightly said that nationalism is war. We need to ensure that everyone can defend their language, whether it is a minority or majority language. I do not much like countries with a majority language that prevent some children from learning their mother tongue. That is unacceptable. As Montaigne said, a language that dies out is a part of the world’s imagination that disappears. We need to bear that in mind as we defend each regional language but also listen to others, to the languages of our neighbours, so that we can have a Europe that can be proud of itself, which is hardly the case today.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – It is important to analyse the historical, as well as the language, problems of the countries of our continent. If we consider the history of the Ukrainian language over a long period, the main problem was not in the time of Austria-Hungary, or when some Ukrainian territories were part of Poland, or when we were part of a union with other countries. The main crime against language and the population was in the time of the Soviet Union. For example, in the city of Zaporizhia, with its 1 million people, it was impossible to study the Ukrainian language in a Ukrainian school. It was also impossible to study Ukrainian history in Ukrainian universities, even though studying Ukrainian history was the main requirement for being a teacher of the Ukrainian language. It may be hard to understand that, but that was the reality in our country for 75 years under the Soviet empire. It is therefore important that we do not apply the same rules to other minority languages. Our State should do all it can to protect minority languages, not as a means of dividing people, as happened under the previous empires and in the post-war period, but to promote one community and one people in the Ukrainian State.

      It is important to understand not only the situation today but the whole of history. We have just passed a very important law on education. We have implemented the Venice Commission’s important recommendations, and we are now drafting two important laws: the secondary education law and the higher education law. They will be implemented this year, according to our parliament. We need to protect minority languages as well as those that we have to protect according to our constitution and laws.

      Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – No country is as sensitive as Azerbaijan to the issue of respecting the rights of national minorities, and in particular their languages. Certainly, it is necessary to have a careful attitude to languages in any multinational country rich in diverse ethnic groups, but the situation that Azerbaijan faces with regard to this problem is unique.

      Throughout the centuries, representatives of more than 80 ethnic groups have resided in Azerbaijan. The country has historically had a distinctly fertile multicultural environment. Today, representatives of more than 30 national minorities and ethnic groups live compactly in Azerbaijan with the representatives of more than 40 other nationalities. They enjoy the opportunity to develop their culture and receive education in their mother tongue. Programmes in their language are broadcast on radio and television, and books, magazines and textbooks are published.

      However, the people of Azerbaijan are among the most divided in the world. Although 10 million people reside in the Republic of Azerbaijan today, nearly 35 million ethnic Azerbaijanis live in Iran. The paradoxical situation is that Azerbaijanis, a national majority in Iran in reality, are a national minority by status, and it is a disappointing reality that Azerbaijanis today have no official schools in their mother tongue. The miserable situation that millions of Azerbaijanis face has caused the State of Azerbaijan to have a doubly sensitive attitude to the language of national minorities.

      In one region of Azerbaijan, Quba, in addition to minorities such as Mountain Jews and Lezgins, who have historically inhabited the area, there live in a few villages the Shahdagh people. Only a few hundred – perhaps several thousand – people speak their language, and it would have disappeared had special care not been taken of it. Every language is the greatest wealth granted to those who bear that language, notwithstanding the number of people who speak it. That wealth bears holiness in its essence. It is our duty to protect, keep alive and develop that wealth and holiness for every human being and State.

      Ms ŞUPAC (Republic of Moldova)* – The Republic of Moldova is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova provides for the preservation of Russian and other languages used in the country. Under the law of 1989, Russian has the status of a common language among all ethnicities in the country.

      The Republic of Moldova is a multi-ethnic country, in which for centuries representatives of different ethnic groups have lived together. Over the last few years, the situation has become much worse for minorities, and their right to use their own languages has diminished. For instance, in the summer of 2014, the parliamentary majority adopted a new code on education, which is inconsistent with international standards and is a step in the wrong direction for our minorities. Russian was made just one of a number of foreign languages, and new wording means that the State provides for the rights of national minorities to access education in their own language within the framework of the existing education system. In other words, previously no conditions were attached to education in minority languages, but now the government can say at any point it wishes, “There isn’t enough money in the budget to provide education in the languages of the ethnic minorities. Therefore, that has to be limited.”

      From 2010 to 2016, we optimised more than 300 educational institutions, but unfortunately in that process nobody took account of the fact that this or that school was providing teaching in a national minority language. Representatives of various ethnic groups have pointed out serious problems relating to language for young people in the State education system. The government only responds to petitions if they are written in Moldovan, and the labels on pharmaceuticals are only in Moldovan. Moldovan, French and English are used for government business, but neither French nor English is the language of an ethnic group in the Republic of Moldova. That is a negative thing. Over the next few years, the Council of Europe must look closely at what is happening in the Republic of Moldova and offer advice.

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

      The ballots to elect the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and a judge to the European Court of Human Rights are still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. I hope to announce the results of the elections before the end of the sitting this afternoon.

      I call Ms Hoffmann, rapporteur, to reply. You have four minutes.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – Allow me to thank all members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe who have taken a close look at this issue and taken it seriously. Thank you so much for supporting my report and thank you also for giving support to this particular subject matter.

      I must say that I am very pleased with the outcome and with what I have heard. The fact that numerous political groups – in fact, almost every political group in the Assembly – have decided to support the report goes to show that this issue does not divide us here within the Parliamentary Assembly but brings us closer together, notwithstanding the fact that there are still some questions that remain open, around which there might be discrepancies. Nevertheless, I think we all agree that this matter is very important and that we need to deal with it seriously. In other words, I take note of the fact that we all set great store by the European values that underpin this.

      If I may, I will take a few moments of your time to explain to you why I was so happy to take on the task of drafting this report. I am, of course, Hungarian, and we heard from an Italian parliamentarian who said that, at the time of the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire, Hungary actually made a lot of effort to guarantee the rights of minorities. That was the case then, and to this very day Hungary leads by example: we have 13 national minorities in our country, and we make sure that they can all use their languages freely. I wanted to demonstrate that, to lead by example and to give you a good example of how these things can be done.

      There are countries where there are still tensions and conflict, and there are countries that are still looking for the right solutions for the way out of this. I thought I could make a modest contribution to that quest, and it is for that reason that I was so delighted to take on this task and to put so much effort into it. I wanted to make sure that this report really conveyed a positive message – for instance, I think the setting up of the foundation, which was approved, is a very good thing. I also think it is good for us to know that we can teach and learn and take inspiration from the practices of other countries.

      Bearing in mind that the report is quite long – there are annexes and notes, which contain a lot of detail – I will wrap up by simply supporting this initiative, which some speakers have already talked about. I think it could give us some real momentum. It will need the involvement of the European Union, to make sure that it, too, addresses this issue, which, as I and other speakers have pointed out, is truly important. It seems to me that the whole Parliamentary Assembly could play a very positive role in this domain, in terms of the functioning of this particular prize and making sure that it is rolled out in practice. We can all contribute to that, and I look forward to debates on that matter in the future. I also look forward to your votes in support of the various amendments.

      The PRESIDENT – Does Ms Santa Ana, the chairperson of the committee, wish to speak?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – The report, “The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe”, has long been discussed in the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, and not without controversy. As Ms Hoffmann said in her introduction to the debate, the report reflects the standards set out in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages taken in their highest light. The draft resolution provides guidance to States on the measures they can take in order to provide the strongest possible protection to regional or minority languages, and to the speakers of those languages, in Europe.

      The committee regrets that only 25 of the Council of Europe’s 47 member States have ratified the charter. We strongly support the call on member States that have not so far signed or ratified the charter to do so. It is important to underline that improving the possibility of using regional or minority languages is not about creating competition or antagonism between those languages and official languages. The charter’s approach is intercultural and multilingual, giving each category of language its due place. We should therefore also insist on the notion of bilingualism and the integration of minorities in State culture, their capacity to access higher education and to interact with others, including with other minorities.

      The protection and promotion of regional or minority languages requires long-term policies, the spirit of tolerance and openness, mutual respect and better knowledge of different cultures and languages throughout society. We believe that that could be achieved with more integration, full participation and the involvement of the speakers of regional or minority languages.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed. The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution to which 19 amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled. I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 13, 16, 18 and 19 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      The committee also unanimously agreed Amendments 12, 14 and 15, but as other amendments tabled may affect them, I must take them separately. Is that so Ms Santa Ana?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ (Spain) – I would like a separate vote on Amendment 13.

      The PRESIDENT – Can we consider Amendments 16, 18 and 19 agreed to and vote separately on Amendment 13? That is the case.

      Amendments 16, 18 and 19 are adopted.

      I call Mr Badea to support Amendment 5. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – I would like to propose a modification to paragraph 7.2, adding to the words, in English, “that those languages are raised to the status of second official language in the regions where such languages are traditionally used, bearing in mind the particular conditions and historical traditions specific to each region”, the words “in accordance with the specific obligations undertaken by each State party to the charter.”

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – We discussed this amendment in the committee, and with a large majority we disagreed with it. It will not make things closer, as the mover of the amendment wants. The draft resolution already speaks of the necessary steps to guarantee the spirit of the resolution, which is to provide and to develop, and to see minority and regional languages as something fruitful, so please do not support the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

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

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendment 12 falls. I call Mr Badea to support the amendment.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We would like to substitute paragraph 7.4 of the draft resolution with the words, in English, “respect the commitments relating to each language provided for in the Charter;”.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I will say the same as I did about the previous amendment. The purpose of this resolution is to adapt the commitment so that we are doing something positive. We invite countries to follow the convention about languages, especially given the sociolinguistic situation, and not immediately to just say, “respect, respect, respect.” There was a large majority against this amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 12. I call Ms Kovács to support the amendment.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – As some colleagues mentioned, we worked on a report and opinion on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, but our amendments are in this form due to procedural reasons. I am moving the amendments because it was planned for me to be the rapporteur on the committee’s opinion. We strongly support the original text as submitted by Ms Hoffmann. We just want to strengthen it to make it clearer, so we suggest adding, “in conformity with the spirit of the Charter”, after the end of paragraph 7.4.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – In favour unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 7. I call Mr Badea to support the amendment.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We would like to introduce a new paragraph at the end of paragraph 7.6, which would read in English “, if they are in line with the legal system of the respective country and the specific commitments undertaken by each state party to the Charter”.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am the General Rapporteur on Science and Technology Assessment. Science must be open and not limited. As the resolution says, we must do studies and check best practice in order to have an impact on the legislature of a country whereby some countries may think, “Oh, this is better in another country. Maybe we should change.” Please leave it open; Ms Hoffmann’s text is perfect. Please vote against the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 13. I call Ms Kovács to support the amendment.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Officially, only those States that have already ratified the charter have taken on specific commitments. As such, paragraph 8 of the draft resolution, which deals with the commitments already undertaken by States, should refer expressly to State parties. That is why we suggest clarifying the text by adding, “parties to the Charter”.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour.

      The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 20. If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 14 and 15 will fall. I call Mr Cilevičs to support the amendment.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I fully support the idea behind paragraph 8.1.4, but I believe that the experience of many countries has proven that bilingual education is the most effective methodological approach. It would therefore be correct to mention bilingual education in the resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Hoffmann.

      Ms HOFFMANN (Hungary)* – I, as rapporteur, and the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, oppose the amendment because we feel that the Assembly should not interfere with methodological issues such as how, by what means, or with what resources teaching and so on should be done. We all agreed that our real purpose is to ensure that children are bilingual or multilingual. That is the end target. How we arrive at that destination is a different matter.

      The PRESIDENT – I understand that the committee is against. Is that correct?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against by 11 to 6, with five abstentions.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 14. I call Ms Kovács to support the amendment.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – During the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination meeting this morning, all of us agreed that education in regional and minority languages is important, but that it is extremely important for such communities proficiently to know and learn the official language of the State. There are special methodologies of teaching foreign languages as well as second languages, so we would like to add the words “and second”.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – In favour unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 15. I call Ms Kovács to support the amendment.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Amendment 15 relates to the same topic as Amendment 14. We all agree that it is extremely important for speakers of regional and minority languages to acquire a proper knowledge of the official language. The amendment would clarify that the official language in question is that of the State.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – In favour, unanimously.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Badea to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – Paragraph 8.1.6 ought to be deleted altogether, because by law it is already foreseen that each member State ought to be able to implement its own law with regard to minority languages as it sees fit.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am against the amendment, and so is the majority of the committee. Paragraph 8.1.6 relates to member States’ need for flexibility in the light of community interests, and to the importance of the learning and teaching of regional and minority languages. They should not be passed on just from grandmother to grandchild. Please, let us keep the formulation in the resolution, which invites member States to consider communities, to be flexible and to offer learning.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 8 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Badea to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – We wish to delete paragraph 8.1.11. Teaching in regional or minority languages is conducted according to education legislation, respecting relevant obligations and idiosyncrasies. That is important, and it ought to be done according to the provisions of the charter.

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

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Nobody in the committee could understand the amendment. Paragraph 8.1.11 invites member States to “allow communities which speak a regional or minority language to organise teaching in that language”, so that they can use their languages to the best effect. It is a question of communities’ identity and of letting them organise their own teaching. Why should we delete that?

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 9 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 10. I call Mr Badea to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr BADEA (Romania)* – The amendment speaks for itself.

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

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Paragraph 8.2 says that in areas where a minority or regional language is spoken, it should be possible to talk to the official administrative authorities and public services in that language. People should be able to have their wedding or get divorced – or whatever – in their minority language. It is an open-minded paragraph. I support Ms Hoffmann’s formulation.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 10 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 17. I call Ms Kovács to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms KOVÁCS (Serbia) – Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there are still not enough speakers of regional and minority languages in public administration and public institutions. It is therefore necessary to apply affirmative measures to achieve appropriate representation. It is important to consider preferential criteria in hiring procedures and language training for employees, especially in jobs that require more frequent contact with the public.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – In favour, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 3. I call Mr Usov to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr USOV (Ukraine) – Our amendment speaks for itself. Please will colleagues consider it?

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

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee discussed the amendment and took a clear decision to reject it. In a modern society, it is very easy to make subtitles or offer options for handicapped people or for speakers of minority languages. It is also important for people to read original minority languages in official media. I ask the Assembly to reject the amendment.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Usov to support the amendment. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr USOV (Ukraine) – As a co-signatory of the amendment, I urge the Assembly to support it. It calls on States, particularly neighbouring States, to refrain from using language as an instrument of blackmail in cases where there are mutual bilateral issues to be resolved, including those that relate to minorities. Otherwise, we could end up in situations such as that in Ukraine, where the Russian Federation is invading under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking minority.

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

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am sorry, but this is not a Ukrainian resolution; it is a European resolution. It is very clear that speakers of minority languages from neighbouring countries, such as Hungarians or Slovenians in Austria, should be supported, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. What we want is a productive situation for minority languages. The amendment has nothing to do with that.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      I call Mr Korodi to support Amendment 1.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – We have a lot of best practice in Europe, and this amendment invites member States’ parliaments to create working groups to analyse best practices and the best solutions, and to develop a legislative framework using them.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – The committee is in favour, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 11.

      I call Mr Kiral to support the amendment.

      Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – Without this amendment, this resolution will not be implemented by States. With this amendment, we are sending a weak but concrete signal that a balanced approach has to be taken in order to give an opportunity for States to develop as well.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – This resolution has nothing to do with majority languages and protecting the majority; it protects the languages that need to be protected – the regional and minority languages. This amendment has nothing to do with the content of this whole resolution.

      The PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – The committee is against, by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 14466, as amended.

      The vote is open

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has also presented a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled. I understand that the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that this amendment, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

      Is that so Ms Santa Ana?

      Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – Yes.

      The PRESIDENT - Does anyone object? That is not the case.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 14466, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      I call Mr Corlăţean on a point of order.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – This point of order is based on Article 33.4 of our rules, in an attempt to explain my vote. Surprisingly, I voted against this report’s resolution and recommendation and I did so for a simple reason: this report introduces important elements that contradict and violate the position of our Organisation. I am referring to the legal position and our legal instruments on the protection of national minorities, which consider the protection related to the individual’s rights, not collective rights and do not imply different forms of autonomy based on ethnic grounds. We saw what happened in Spain, in Catalonia, and we do not agree to go in that direction.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Corlăţean.

      (Mr Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Jonas Gunnarsson.)

5. Address by Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Denmark

      The PRESIDENT – Dear colleagues, we now have the honour of hearing an address by Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Denmark.

      Your Royal Highness, it is a great honour for us to welcome Your Highness in this house of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The presence of Your Highness here today is highly symbolic, coming at the very moment when Denmark, one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, is chairing the Committee of Ministers of our Organisation.

      Your Highness’s humanitarian work and efforts to create a culture where social injustices are seen as unacceptable by the whole community are widely recognised, and find particular resonance within this Parliamentary Assembly. Your Highness holds very dear the cause of restoring hope and giving back a sense of belonging to all those who feel excluded or rejected by society. We are all most sensitive to the various causes promoted by The Mary Foundation, established by Your Highness in 2007, in particular, that of protecting women victims of domestic violence. This cause is at the very core of our concerns. Please allow me to mention, in this regard, the Assembly’s parliamentary network of “Women Free from Violence”. This network aims, among others things, to promote the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention – the only binding mechanism in Europe on combating violence against women and domestic violence – which Denmark already ratified back in 2014.

      Your Highness has been kind enough to visit us today, and to recall the commitment to our shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We are immensely honoured to have this opportunity to listen to Your Highness and, therefore, it is my great pleasure to give Your Royal Highness the floor.

      HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE CROWN PRINCESS OF DENMARK – Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. It is not often that I have the opportunity to address such a distinguished audience of high-level policy and decision makers, people of dialogue and protectors of human rights, democracy and the rule of law – an audience that represents the diversity of the European region but shares a common vision. This is my first time in Strasbourg and also my first time at the Council of Europe. It is an honour to address members of the Parliamentary Assembly here at the first session of 2018.

      Growing up in Australia and moving to Denmark as an adult, I have never really had to dwell on the need or importance of my human rights being protected or respected. You could say that I have taken them for granted because they have always been granted. I imagine that that must be the case for the majority of people who grow up in democratic, free countries with a strong rule of law, particularly among younger generations that have not known the atrocities of war. To some extent, that is due to the Council of Europe.

      The need for such an organisation emerged out of the rubble and cruelties of the Second World War. It is a unique Organisation that recognised the need for more than just peaceful relations between States. Citizens were also to be protected against human rights abuses by their own governments. The founding members of this Organisation, including Denmark, saw the need to establish a forum in Europe to protect fundamental universal values. The fulfilment of that need has led to human rights being at the core of Europe’s values, progress and development and to following generations growing up with their human rights being safeguarded and monitored. However, we must never take those rights for granted, nor expect that they will always be granted.

      Today, the Council of Europe is the leading regional human rights organisation in the world. The Council of Europe guides the promotion and protection of human rights in Europe and sets high standards for the rest of the world to follow. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death. They apply regardless of where you are from, what you believe or how you choose to live your life. These basic rights are based on values such as dignity, fairness, equality, respect and independence, but human rights are not just an abstract concept; they are defined and protected by law.

      Even though there has been a unanimous adoption of the United Nations General Assembly’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there remain enormous challenges globally in securing broader recognition and implementation of the various human rights frameworks. Two people or two countries can have the same general idea of human rights, even though they disagree about which rights should be protected by law. Unfortunately, the existence of legislation, policy, law, strong will and conviction is not always enough to prevent human rights violations. There can often be a wide gap between wilful intentions and words on paper, and the reality of those whose human rights are threatened.

      We must also consider how cultural and social norms play a role in observing human rights in our societies. We can all agree that a strong human rights framework exists and that, as a region, we have achieved a great deal. I am sure we can also agree that as a leading region, we have an obligation through even greater unity between member States to be even better and to develop best practices and tools that are internationally agenda-setting.

      Although human rights are inherent, they are also fragile, and their protection, expansion and integration in policy development should be seen as one of our finest achievements and a legacy to be truly proud of. Here at the heart of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly gathers to discuss and debate issues affecting the people of Europe and to shape and support the economic and social progress of the region.

      Denmark has a long tradition of supporting and addressing human rights and a long-standing record of important contributions to the promotion of human rights, good governance and the rule of law. As one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, Denmark has a strong historical bond with the Organisation and is a strong champion of its values. Later today, in his address to you, the Foreign Minister of Denmark will present the priorities of the Danish chairmanship.

      I would like to use my remaining time to focus on an issue that I am convinced, as I am sure many of you are, is integral to ensuring positive social and economic growth and development of not only our societies but those of the world: equality, equal treatment and equal opportunities for all, no matter who you are, where you live or what you have. Gender equality is a fundamental human right and fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world. Denmark has been tireless in its commitment to improving the lives of women and girls all around the world and is, I think it is fair to say, a leader with a global, strong voice on this issue. As a nation, we have seen at first hand that gender equality is a prerequisite for economic growth, welfare, social cohesion and the freedom and opportunities of the individual. Although much has been achieved, we also recognise that we still have much to achieve.

      The gender equality challenges in Denmark are, of course, different from the challenges faced in other countries. Globally, there exist large gaps between countries and regions in terms of what has been achieved. In some countries, gender equality is about securing even the most basic human rights. In others, it is about specific issues such as women being under-represented in public arenas and decision-making positions, or the prevalence of violence against women. In order to bridge those gaps, we must work together across Europe, share our knowledge and experiences, identify best practices and learn from and inspire one another.

      The Council of Europe deserves acknowledgment for its ambition and dedication in this respect. The Council of Europe plays a crucial role in putting gender equality higher on the global agenda. It provides tools and directions on how to better promote gender equality in our societies and therefore has a natural link to the achievement of United Nations sustainable development goal 5, for the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. Realisation of goal 5 will make a crucial contribution to progress across all goals and targets, because sustainable development cannot be achieved if half of humanity is denied its full human rights and opportunities.

      The Council of Europe’s commitment to addressing human rights violations that affect women disproportionately is clearly demonstrated through the strategies, conventions and monitoring mechanisms that provide the region with common goals and language for finding innovative and apt solutions. Violence against women is one of the strongest manifestations of gender inequality and is one of the areas in which the Council of Europe has raised the bar. The Istanbul Convention is the gold standard for international human rights protection in this area. It sets standards for prevention, support services, data collection and the law – standards that shape policies across Europe and beyond and positively affect the lives and opportunities of women and girls.

      Full gender balance in decision-making processes and politics has not yet been achieved in any member State. However, the Committee of Ministers recommendation on balanced participation of women and men in political and public life is an important step to achieving just that.

      The Council of Europe is also at the forefront in the fight against sexism and hate speech, which is a form of violence against women that feeds into gender-based discrimination. Prior to the Me Too movement going global last year, the Council of Europe had already initiated draft Committee of Ministers recommendations to combat sexism, an important step in addressing an issue that has devastating effects, especially on young women, and presents a serious obstacle to the achievement of real gender equality. Greater gender equality in a country is linked to a higher level of education, better health, higher per capita income, stronger international competitiveness and more inclusive economic growth. In other words, striving for greater gender equality is not only the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing to do.

      All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but that assertion for far too many around the world does not hold true. Even though we are in 2018, too many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex people continue to be victims of hatred, violence, discrimination, bullying and ill treatment. This we cannot and must not accept. This is another focus of the Council of Europe and here it provides its members with useful directions, which include, for example, good practice on value-based campaigning to promote the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. Sexual rights are some of the most controversial, yet some of the most intimate and fundamental, of human rights. They are therefore at the core of human dignity and human development. They encapsulate rights to make informed decisions about the most basic aspects of one’s life – one’s body, sexuality, health and relationships.

      Our endeavour to promote and protect human rights is a complicated task with many different aspects. Most vulnerable groups in need of protection are known in societies but, as is often the case, vulnerable people can remain in the shadows, as they are often affected by social issues that are overlooked or shrouded in taboo. Promoting human rights also concerns working to end prejudice and the stigmatisation of vulnerable people and groups.

      Promoting and protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities is essential to the Council of Europe’s work and action to protect and promote the human rights of all citizens. Less prejudice and more knowledge of their rights will enhance equal opportunities, improve the quality of life and independence of people with disabilities and guarantee their freedom of choice, full citizenship and active participation in the life of the community – in short, their equal opportunity as an individual to fulfil their full potential.

      To promote human rights is not only to defend them. We have an obligation to remind and teach each other about the principles that the framework for our human rights are built on. This knowledge must not be lost or diluted. We have an obligation to pass it on to our children.        The European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by parliamentarians, lays down the fundamental rights of the citizen in all member States that are party to the convention. However, human rights and democracy as well are not secured with legal rights alone. Their principles and values need to be understood, felt, lived and guarded by future generations.

      Knowledge is key and education is essential. The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow and we need to teach them about the principles of human rights. We need to pass on the fundamental values of our societies and we need to show them that equal opportunities and equality are integral to building prosperous, inclusive and sustainable societies – societies where everyone has the chance to reach their full potential. An educated and confident child who is a valued and respected member of his or her community is a powerful agent and stands ready to take an active part in a democratic society and to be a guardian and promoter of human rights.

      In a few moments, a group of very talented girls from Denmark will share with us their gift of singing. Whenever I hear this choir sing, I am reminded of the power of voices when they come together. Allow yourselves to take a moment and just enjoy.

      One of the darkest chapters in the history of Europe unified this region and led to a common vision for the future. Only together and in sharing this common vision, as a common voice, can we build a culture where everyone is accepted and tolerated for who they are and where everyone can participate equally, fully and freely in all aspects of society. By listening to and learning from one another, by standing united in recognition of all the good that has been achieved and all the good that we still have to achieve and by guarding today the principles and values that we live by, we can secure tomorrow a world that is more equal and fair and that holds a sustainable and brighter future for us all.

      The PRESIDENT – Your Royal Highness, I thank you for the strong and meaningful message shared with us, which gives us much inspiration and encouragement to move forward with our work. I express particular appreciation and gratitude for the clear words that you said about human dignity, the rights of every person, including sexual rights, the rights of minorities and the importance of education. At the end of the speech, Your Highness underlined the fact that only together and in sharing a common voice can we build a culture where everyone is accepted and tolerated for who they are and where everyone can participate equally. I could not agree more with Your Highness. In these challenging times, it is crucial to take action together. That action should be guided by the sole goal to build a truly inclusive and equal society, where everyone can enjoy the same rights. I thank Your Royal Highness once again for sharing this message and for visiting us today, as well as for giving us the opportunity to have here, in the plenary, the Women’s Choir of Radio Denmark. Before that performance, I have to give some information to the members of our Assembly

      Dear colleagues, the ballots for electing the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the judge in respect of Spain to the European Court of Human Rights continue and will be suspended at 1 p.m. until this afternoon’s sitting. Voting will reopen at 3.30 p.m. and close at 5 p.m.

6. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning. I remind members that, after this sitting, there will be a performance in the Hemicycle by the Women’s Choir of Radio Denmark. I invite you all to stay and listen. The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 12.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.        Election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

2.       Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain

3.        Membership of committees

4.        Protection and promotion of regional or minority languages in Europe

Presentation by Ms Hoffmann of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Document 14466

Speakers: Ms Jones, Ms Goguadze, Mr Xuclà, Mr Kürkçü, Mr Divina, Ms Kovács, Mr Korodi, Mr Kronbichler, Mr Németh, Mr Howell, Mr Harangozó, Mr Honkonen, Mr Badea, Mr Fridez, Ms Trisse, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Kiral, Mr Tornare, Mr Sobolev, Mr R. Huseynov and Ms Şupac

Replies: Ms Hoffmann and Ms Santa Ana

Amendments 16, 18, 19, 12 to 15, 17 and 1 adopted.

Draft resolution in Document 14466, as amended, adopted

Amendment 2 adopted.

Draft recommendation in Document 14466, as amended, adopted

5.        Address by Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Denmark

6.        Next public business

Appendix I / Annexe I

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]

AEG, Raivo [Mr] (MIKKO, Marianne [Ms])

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]

AKBULUT, Gökay [Ms] (SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr])

AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

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

BAKRADZE, David [Mr]

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (ECCLES, Diana [Lady])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARDELL, Hannah [Ms]

BARNETT, Doris [Ms]

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

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BEYER, Peter [Mr]

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]

BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr]

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms])

BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]

BRANDT, Michel [Mr] (AMTSBERG, Luise [Ms])

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

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

BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]

BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTENSEN, Jette [Ms] (SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms])

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

COMTE, Raphaël [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr])

CROWE, Seán [Mr]

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ENGIN, Didem [Ms] (BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr])

ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]

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

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr]

GASHI, Afrim [Mr] (HADRI, Shpresa [Ms])

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GATTOLIN, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (KRESÁK, Peter [Mr])

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr])

GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]

GRAF, Martin [Mr]

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

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

GYÖNGYÖSI, Márton [Mr]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr]

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr] (MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms])

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (SOTNYK, Olena [Ms])

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr] (JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr])

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]

JORDANA, Carles [Mr]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KAPUR, Mudassar [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])

KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme] (BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme])

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KASSEGGER, Axel [Mr] (BURES, Doris [Ms])

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KERN, Claude [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

KITEV, Betian [Mr]

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr]

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr]

KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

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

LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]

LUPU, Marian [Mr]

MAIRE, Jacques [M.]

MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr]

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr] (KASIMATI, Nina [Ms])

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

McGINN, Conor [Mr] (BYRNE, Liam [Mr])

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]

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

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (HOPKINS, Maura [Ms])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NICOLAE, Andrei [Mr] (TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms])

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NOVYNSKYI, Vadym [Mr] (LIOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms])

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme] (ABAD, Damien [M.])

POPA, Ion [M.] (ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRESCOTT, John [Mr]

PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

PUTICA, Sanja [Ms]

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (MATARÍ, Juan José [M.])

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SHALSI, Eduard [Mr]

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SØNDERGAARD, Søren [Mr]

SORRE, Bertrand [M.]

SPAHIU, Klodiana [Ms] (BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms])

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]

STELLINI, David [Mr]

STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr]

STIENEN, Petra [Ms]

STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])

SVENSSON, Michael [Mr]

TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr] (ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr])

TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme])

TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr]

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr]

USOV, Kostiantyn [Mr] (ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr])

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme] (DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme])

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WERNER, Katrin [Ms]

WILSON, Phil [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

AST, Marek [Mr]

ATSHEMYAN, Karine [Ms]

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr]

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]

COAKER, Vernon [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.]

DANESI, René [M.]

EIDE, Petter [Mr]

FOULKES, George [Lord]

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

IBRAHIMOVIĆ, Ervin [Mr]

JØRGENSEN, Jan E. [Mr]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

KELLEHER, Colette [Ms]

LANGBALLE, Christian [Mr]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr]

MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr]

MANNINGER, Jenő [Mr]

MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PAVIĆEVIĆ, Sanja [Ms]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

TILKI, Attila [Mr]

UCA, Feleknas [Ms]

VLASENKO, Sergiy [Mr]

WHITFIELD, Martin [Mr]

ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

GÁNDARA CAMOU, Ernesto [Mr]

LUNA CANALES, Armando [Mr]

SANTANA GARCÍA, José de Jesús [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

AMRAOUI, Allal [M.]

ATMOUN, El Mehdi [Mr]

BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]

HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]

LEBBAR, Abdesselam [M.]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

Appendix II /Annexe II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and in the ballot for the election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain / Représentants ou suppléants qui ont participé au vote pour l’élection du/de la Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe et au vote pour l’élection d’un juge à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme au titre de l’Espagne

ABAD, Damien [M.] /POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme]

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]        A

AMON, Werner [Mr] 

AMTSBERG, Luise [Ms] / BRANDT, Michel [Mr]

ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms] / PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr] / USOV, Kostiantyn [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr] 

BAKRADZE, David [Mr] 

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms] 

BARDELL, Hannah [Ms] 

BARNETT, Doris [Ms] 

BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr] /XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr]

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr] 

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr] /ENGIN, Didem [Ms]

BECHT, Olivier [M.] 

BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr] / KOBZA, Jiři [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr] 

BERNHARD, Marc [Mr] /OEHME, Ulrich [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.] 

BEYER, Peter [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme] 

BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr] 

BLANCHART, Philippe [M.] /SUTTER, Petra De [Ms]

BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr] 

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

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme] 

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr] 

BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms] 

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms] 

BURES, Doris [Ms] / KASSEGGER, Axel [Mr]

BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr] 

BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms] / SPAHIU, Klodiana [Ms]

BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] /GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme]

BYRNE, Liam [Mr] / McGINN, Conor [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms] 

CAZEAU, Bernard [M.] 

CEPEDA, José [Mr] 

CHITI, Vannino [Mr] 

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms] 

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms] 

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms] 

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr] 

CROWE, Seán [Mr] 

CUTAJAR, Rosianne [Ms] / GRECH, Etienne [Mr]

D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms] 

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme] 

DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr] 

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme] 

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms] 

ECCLES, Diana [Lady] / BALFE, Richard [Lord]

EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr] / KAPUR, Mudassar [Mr]

ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr] 

EVANS, Nigel [Mr] 

FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr] 

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.] 

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme] 

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.] 

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms] 

GAILLOT, Albane [Mme] / COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms] 

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr] 

GATTI, Marco [M.] 

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme] 

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr] 

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame] 

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.] 

GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.] 

GRAF, Martin [Mr]        G

GROSDIDIER, François [M.] / GATTOLIN, André [M.]

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr] / JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr] 

HADRI, Shpresa [Ms]GASHI, Afrim [Mr]

HAIDER, Roman [Mr] 

HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr] 

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr] 

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr] 

HEER, Alfred [Mr] 

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms] 

HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme] / MERGEN, Martine [Mme]

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms] / MULLEN, Rónán [Mr]

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms] 

HOWELL, John [Mr] 

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr] 

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr] 

JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr] / JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr] 

JORDANA, Carles [Mr] 

KALMARI, Anne [Ms] 

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr] 

KASIMATI, Nina [Ms] / MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr]

KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms] 

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms] 

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms] 

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr] 

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr] 

KITEV, Betian [Mr] 

KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr] 

KLICH, Bogdan [Mr] 

KOÇ, Haluk [M.] 

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr] 

KORENJAK KRAMAR, Ksenija [Ms] 

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms] 

KOX, Tiny [Mr] 

KRESÁK, Peter [Mr] / GOGA, Pavol [M.]

KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms] 

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr] 

KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr] 

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr] 

LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms] / CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr]

LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.] 

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.] 

LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr] / VOVK, Viktor [Mr]

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms] 

LIOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms] / NOVYNSKYI, Vadym [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr] 

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.] 

LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme] 

LUPU, Marian [Mr] 

MAIRE, Jacques [M.] 

MALLIA, Emanuel [Mr] 

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme] 

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr] 

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr] 

MATARÍ, Juan José [M.] / ROCA, Jordi [Mr]

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms] 

MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms] 

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms] / AEG, Raivo [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr] 

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr] 

NICK, Andreas [Mr] 

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr] 

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms] 

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr] 

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÓLASON, Bergþór [Mr] / THÓRARINSSON, Birgir [Mr]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr] 

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr] 

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr] / LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms] / FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms] 

PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.] / BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr]

PISCO, Paulo [M.] 

PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr] / COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr]

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms] / POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.]

PRESCOTT, John [Mr] 

PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms] / GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]

PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms] 

PUTICA, Sanja [Ms] 

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms] 

ROSETA, Helena [Mme] /ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.] / ATSHEMYAN, Karine [Ms] 

ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms] /CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms]

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms] 

SCHÄFER, Axel [Mr] /AKBULUT, Gökay [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr] 

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr] 

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr] 

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr] 

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr] 

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr] 

SHALSI, Eduard [Mr] 

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr] 

SHEHU, Tritan [Mr] 

SILVA, Adão [M.] 

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr] 

ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr] 

SMITH, Angela [Ms] 

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr] 

SØNDERGAARD, Søren [Mr] 

SORRE, Bertrand [M.] 

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms] / IONOVA, Mariia [Ms]

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]        S

STELLINI, David [Mr]

STEVANOVIĆ, Aleksandar [Mr] 

STIENEN, Petra [Ms] 

STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr] 

STRIK, Tineke [Ms] 

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms] 

SVENSSON, Michael [Mr] 

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr] 

THIÉRY, Damien [M.] 

TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms] 

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms] 

TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr] 

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme] 

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr] / MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr]

TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr] 

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.] /VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]        V

VEN, Mart van de [Mr] 

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.] 

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr] 

WERNER, Katrin [Ms] 

WILSON, Phil [Mr] 

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr] 

WOLD, Morten [Mr] 

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme] 

YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr] 

ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms] /BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]