AA18CR05
AS (2018) CR 05
2018 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(First part)
REPORT
Fifth sitting
Wednesday 24 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.
(Ms Trisse, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)
The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.
1. Second round of election of Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
The PRESIDENT* – This morning the agenda calls for the second round of the election of a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. In the second round a relative majority applies.
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 14445 Addendum 3.
The voting 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. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the ballot. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of four tellers.
I shall now draw by lot the names of the four tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.
The names of Mr Sorre, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Kobza and Mr Destrebecq have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.
We will do our best to ensure that the results of the vote are announced before the end of business this afternoon.
I now declare the ballot open.
2. Changes in the membership of committees
The PRESIDENT* – Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the document Commissions (2018) 01 Addendum 4.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?
They are agreed to.
3. Joint debate: Working towards a framework for modern sports governance and
Good football governance
The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate. Mr Mogens Jensen will present the report “Working towards a framework for modern sports governance”, Document 14464 and Addendum, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. Ms Anne Brasseur will then present the report “Good football governance”, Document 14452, on behalf of the same committee.
I remind the Assembly that on Monday morning we agreed to limit speaking time to three minutes. We need to conclude the debate, including the votes, by 12 p.m. I will therefore interrupt the list of speakers at approximately 11.45 a.m. to allow time for a response from the rapporteurs. Each of the rapporteurs is allowed a total speaking time of 13 minutes to divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.
I call Mr Mogens Jensen, rapporteur, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – Last weekend, we were all spectators of sport diplomacy between conflicted nations when North Korea and South Korea came together for the sake of the Olympic ethos. However, it is still too early for the International Olympic Committee to claim the Nobel peace prize, at least until it sets its own house in order. Almost daily, new scandals break out, including bribery and corruption, state-sponsored doping, match fixing and illegal betting. There is such a crisis of trust that we often hear it said that sport is corrupt. That is wrong; sport itself is pure. In the right hands, it can be a platform for great positive change, but those hands have to be clean.
Most sports organisations continue to be run according to archaic business models, with few in-built checks or balances and little transparency or accountability. At the end of 2015, the Danish research centre Play the Game published a critical report, “The legitimacy crisis in international sports governance”. That report, which triggered my report, estimated that 75% of the 35 international Olympic federations did not fulfil even half the governance criteria expected of them.
Two years on, we may ask whether anything has really changed. The answer is both yes and no. On the positive side, several international sports federations have reacted – albeit under pressure – by introducing stricter regulatory frameworks; I commend football, cycling and athletics in that context. There is also greater awareness that the sports landscape is changing and that, despite the notorious claims for sport’s autonomy, the sports movement cannot solve its problems of integrity and governance alone. Yet the sports movement is still very slow to modernise its functioning. Its failures, which are systematic, call for a major overhaul of sports governance structures and practices.
What needs to be done? My report focuses on three pillars. The first is the basic understanding of what good governance actually consists of for sports organisations, from small clubs to major international federations that represent big business. We have to have harmonised criteria. The second is the actions and common tools needed to implement good governance, and the third is moving forward towards inclusive action and policies involving many different stakeholders.
Let me immediately underline the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all sports governance solution. However, common basic criteria for good governance should apply to all organisations. Those basic criteria significantly overlap with the governance principles applied in the corporate, public and non-profit sectors. Implementing them is not rocket science; it is just common sense.
Restoring public trust in sports begins with ending impunity and bringing to justice those responsible for crimes. The sports movement needs to be proactive in indictment when allegations emerge, but it should also introduce robust regulatory safeguards, based on transparency and accountability, to help to root out corruption. National governance also has a crucial role to play by implementing international conventions or national anti-corruption and anti-discrimination laws, or by introducing new legislation to allow proper investigation, mutual legal assistance between police and judicial organs, prosecution of private corruption in sports, and so on.
As Anne Brasseur’s report and mine underline so many times, sport should no longer remain a lawless zone. In my report, I underscore constantly from the outset the need to agree on common criteria, benchmarks or standards. Whichever term we use, they must encompass shared principles and concrete measures to achieve them. A number of sports governing bodies have established their own codes and standards. They are largely consistent with one another, but individual sets of standards do not provide a common basis for effective international compliance, assessment and co-operation.
As the addendum to my report makes clear, it is possible to harmonise common global standards of good governance in sport, which could also be used for at least three initiatives. First, the International Olympic Committee could update its own basic universal principles; I was very happy to hear from the IOC’s compliance officer on Monday that such an update is now being prepared. Secondly, at a European level, a new Council of Europe convention on good governance in sport could complement the existing conventions of the Council of Europe on sport and enable their implementation to be monitored. Thirdly, at global level, I very much hope that we can bring the discussion of common governance standards outside the sports movement with proper and open multi-stakeholder discussion on those standards through the ISO certification process. The great advantage of an ISO certification is its legitimacy. ISO standards are truly universal, and their content is not contested. They often encourage, but do not require, changing national legislation, which is so often a major obstacle to getting an agreement or convention adopted.
The overall harmonisation of standards goes hand in hand with the introduction of a proper monitoring and compliance assessment system for their implementation. Until 2015, the sports movement at large faced little scrutiny or assessment of the implementation of any codes, standards or principles. The models currently in use do not allow for the early detection of possible corruption, which is why the scandals that are now emerging date back quite some time and have surfaced mostly thanks to some brave whistle-blowers. Here is my “smartphone” solution: to set up an independent sports ethics rating system that would be similar to the ISO standardisation scheme in the sense of being voluntary, elaborated through the involvement of key stakeholders and assessed by fully independent private service providers. Results of assessments would belong entirely to the organisation or federation assessed. Of course a question arises: who should be responsible for the harmonisation of standards and introducing monitoring and compliance assessment? That is where we return to the lack of strong leadership in the sports movement today. There is, however, a clear move towards involving new stakeholders, ranging from sponsors to the youth in sports, in policy making; notably, we have the new stakeholder platforms and alliances that are looking to take the lead in seeking global solutions.
Finally, while preparing this report I realised that apart from some sporadic reports here and there, there is no parliamentary dimension in the debates on sports integrity and sports governance, yet national parliaments should adopt quite some legislation in order to make national corruption laws applicable to sport. I therefore also suggest that it is pertinent for this Assembly to set up a parliamentary alliance for good governance and integrity in sport, which I would also be happy to introduce to all of you.
All in all, there is a path forward, and where there is a will, it is possible to obtain results on introducing better governance in sport. I look forward to our discussions.
The PRESIDENT* - Thank you, Mr Jensen. You have two minutes remaining in which to provide answers to questions that have arisen during the debate.
Before handing over to Ms Brasseur, I have a very important announcement to make. As you might know, Anne Brasseur announced recently that she will not be running for the next parliamentary elections in Luxembourg. That means that, after 20 years as a member of our Assembly, Anne Brasseur will soon be bidding us farewell. Anne arrived in the Parliamentary Assembly for the first time back in 1993. Over a long career in this Chamber, she has prepared a series of reports and opinions, addressing issues including the fight against intolerance, the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue and the political transition in Tunisia, to mention just a few. Over the years, she has also held almost all the important posts in the Assembly: head of delegation, chairman of committee and head of political group. Between 2014 and 2016, she then held the most important and prestigious office in this House - President of the Assembly.
Dear Anne, this is the last report you will be presenting here in the Assembly. I wish to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt gratitude and extend our good wishes to you. Thank you for everything you have done and for everything you have achieved in your many years in the Assembly. In particular, I would like to thank you for being who and what you are: a convinced European, and an untiring defender of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Above all, you have always been a wonderful colleague and friend to all of us.
Dear Anne, the floor is yours.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* - Thank you, Madam President. Dear colleagues, I am embarrassed by your very kind words, but I hope this will not be taken out of my speaking time, because this is not my last part-session; I will be back in April to say goodbye. Today, I am here to deliver my last report, and it is on a particularly important issue. I will be giving my farewell speech in April, but your words touched me deeply and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I was not expecting such a eulogy.
The first words of my report’s summary read “Too little money harms football, too much is killing it. We need to prevent football from self-destructing”, and this is repeated in the draft resolution, on which you will vote. As football belongs to no one and to no particular organisation, but instead to everyone, we should view it as a common good. Football cannot escape common law. As my colleague Mr Jensen said, there can be no areas where the law is absent. Football is more than just scoring goals, and winning matches and trophies. Sport, in general, must be predicated on principles and values, and football, as a universal sport, is duty-bound to convey those values. Footballers and those who head the sport must be above all suspicion, but that is far from being the case. The credibility of this universal sport is at stake.
Together with the football bodies – I stress this must be done together – we must put an end to this tendency to conceal, trivialise and even deny excesses, such as match fixing, doping, discrimination based on gender, homophobia, sexual harassment, xenophobia, racism, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, tax avoidance and dubious connections between the world of football, politics and the economy. Yes, that is a long list. So we are duty-bound to continue to demand that sport in general, as described in Mr Jensen’s outstanding report, and football in particular should be subjected to independent, external oversight, in order not just to be in line with the law, but to restore the credibility that sportspeople and spectators expect. That is why I suggest we consider the feasibility of establishing, with all the stakeholders, an independent observatory or monitoring centre to examine the governance of football bodies.
Far be it for me to wish to tamper with the independence of sport – it will always be for the sports bodies to determine the rules of the game, the size of the pitch, the duration of the game and to decide on video-assisted refereeing – but when we are talking about commercial issues, financial rules, ethics and human rights, football must be subjected to the rule of law. That is the rule that applies to all. The draft resolution calls for a clear-cut distinction between commercial activities and the sports organisations per se. We should also think about the issue of financial excess. For me, a player cannot be considered as a commodity with pecuniary value; that smacks of slavery. We need to put an end to the financial excesses, which lead to an explosion in transfer fees for players, agent fees and player salaries. According to the media, Lionel Messi has an annual income of €100 million. Cristiano Ronaldo is second on the list, with €39.9 million, and Neymar is third with €36,8 million. Even for such outstanding players, the figures are dizzying and bear no relationship to reality. They are also disproportionate to the figures for other players.
Ever since the adoption of our previous resolution on football governance in 2015, a lot of progress has been made. We should acknowledge that and congratulate those in charge of FIFA and UEFA on it. We note the progress made on protecting human rights and the rights of minors and of women, and on the fight against hate speech. However, the full implementation of these reforms remains a real challenge. We are saying that progress has been made on procedures, but in practice huge progress still needs to be made.
As I have not been in a position to cover all the issues, I have drafted a new proposal on “Football governance and ethics: Business or values?”, in which I ask for other related issues to be analysed, such as whether clubs are clean in respect of debt, merchandising, match fixing, ticket sales and various other aspects that the public authorities and taxpayers contribute to. The efforts made by the public authorities seem only to benefit a small circle of privileged people. We need to look at the dangerous and unhealthy links that may be established between sport, the business world and politics. We also need to address how we can reduce inequalities between players, clubs, national federations and leagues, so that financial fair play is not an empty shell.
I wish to alert you to the fact that in addition to my report, I have drawn up two memorandums on FIFA and UEFA respectively. They are published on the Assembly’s website and demonstrate the structures of football federations and what progress has been made since our last resolution.
Before concluding this brief introduction, I thank all those who have allowed me better to understand the complex nuts and bolts, and sometimes opaque workings, of the football world, including the heads of FIFA and UEFA, external experts, journalists, experts from the Council of Europe such as those in the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, and the European Commission. I express my warmest thanks to Mr Roberto Fasino, the head of the secretariat of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media. The report is not geared against football. On the contrary, together we must do our level best to prevent the killing of the hen that lays the golden egg or, in this case, the golden ball.
The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have five minutes remaining to reply.
We now move to the general debate. Our first speaker is Mr Psychogios.
Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteurs for their work. Sport and exercise are an integral part of life for millions of people worldwide. For us in the Group of the Unified European Left, sports, and especially football, must be seen in the light of social needs. Access to proper sports facilities and sporting activities constitutes a basic social right, and in that context, grassroots football and grassroots sports should be guaranteed by all member States.
Sport ensures ethics, solidarity, team spirit, fair play and many human rights such as human dignity, diversity and non-discrimination. Those elements are not only precious during sporting activities but can educate youngsters and different societal groups, teaching them how to share and behave democratically in their everyday lives. Sport can also be key for the integration of migrants and refugees, as it promotes co-operation, dialogue and energetic participation.
However, phenomena such as those referred to in the reports – doping, illegal betting, manipulation of sports results, violence, racism, trafficking through sports, corruption, tax evasion and others – have a negative impact on sports. Progress has been made with, among other things, the systems of governance and the composition of the relevant committees and judicial bodies in FIFA and UEFA, their commitment to combating discrimination and promoting mutual tolerance and respect, and gender equality policies and social responsibility programmes, not to mention the Human Rights Advisory Board that has been established. But a number of problems remain.
We welcome the progress made by FIFA and UEFA, which includes criteria concerning the protection of human rights in the processes of choosing host countries for major sports events, in line with the Assembly’s Resolution 2053 (2015) on the reform of football governance. More concretely, specific initiatives have been taken on the monitoring and improving of working conditions at the construction site for the World cups in Russia 2018 and Qatar in 2022. FIFA should continue its endeavours to consolidate those improvements in the two countries, as that is necessary, and ensure that the benefits of all workers – not only those employed on the construction sites – are guaranteed. We also need to respect local communities, local economies and local projects when hosting major events.
The PRESIDENT* – I remind you that the speaking time is three minutes. I call Mr Zavoli.
Mr ZAVOLI (San Marino, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – I would like to share some ideas regarding the need for a more modern governance structure for the world of sport.
There is no doubt that football, which I am very passionate about, and sport in general belong to all citizens. As a result, they cannot be exempt from the law. Sport has been affected by a series of scandals including doping, illegal betting, match fixing and corruption. Those scandals have created an atmosphere of distrust and have driven many fans away from sport. If we are to restore trust and credibility to sport, enabling sport to transmit values of integrity and responsibility, we need mechanisms to safeguard those values, while at the same time bringing about a fundamental cultural change.
To do that, we have to ensure that compliance systems are made increasingly binding in the world of sport. It would be useful to introduce codes of ethics, accompanied by modern governance structures, setting out the fundamental principles that define the powers of the various sports bodies. Violation of the rules could also expose those responsible to criminal prosecution. We need to establish a set of basic principles for good governance that apply to all sports bodies, from the smallest right up to the largest.
We need efforts to be made across the board. The world of sport, from the athletes and players to the coaching staff and managers, has to continue to be a model for many people in society, ranging from the youngest to the oldest. Whenever they make big mistakes, they cause enormous damage. That is why we have to find solutions and establish a common foundation for fair sporting values, which would ensure that sport continues to promote fundamental values that extend to the whole of society.
Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I congratulate the rapporteurs, Ms Brasseur and Mr Jensen, on their hard work. We support the reports.
This subject is a topical one. It is no secret that the funds invested in football worldwide are increasing every day due to the growing interest in football. Moreover, new businessmen and organisations with huge financial resources are investing in global football with a view to increasing their revenues in this new market.
It is undoubtedly true that nowadays football is more than a game or an entertainment option; it is a promising business. The evidence of that is shown in the growth in broadcasting, in increased participation in various sporting events, in greater competition between clubs, especially big clubs, and in the increase in the sales of club shirts, emblems and so on. That list is not exhaustive. The globalisation of football also affects the transfer market and rising prices for players.
At first glance, it may seem that there is nothing negative and that a new business direction has emerged and developed in the global economy. However, the commercialisation of football creates a huge financial gap between big and small clubs. It is enough to note that big clubs can afford to pay €100 million or more for just one player, while smaller clubs cannot even plan to keep up to 5% of the big clubs’ transfer budget to renew their teams throughout the year. That means that smaller clubs have to be satisfied with average players.
Until recently, small clubs had the opportunity to use mechanisms such as joint ownership of players – the so-called Italian model – with leasing agreements and the involvement of young players in the big clubs. Such measures are not only useful to small clubs but provide employment opportunities to new players. As those players have the chance to play in lower-ranking clubs, they gain more skills, which increases their transfer price. As a result, they can play in bigger clubs and the smaller clubs receive money so that they can continue their activities. However, the Italian model was abolished, which has had a negative impact on small clubs. The fair play regulations have also had a negative impact on medium-sized and small clubs.
It should be borne in mind that efforts to make the football business more transparent started in the 1980s and 1990s. However, not all the measures that were taken took account of the differences between small and big clubs or between higher-level and lower-level players and options for balancing their opportunities. I fully support the rapporteurs’ recommendations. We should think about what we have to do and what we can do in this area.
Mr MAVROTAS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group)* – Today, we have two important reports on sports governance. I will start with the report by Ms Brasseur on good football governance. Football is not just a sport, of course. It represents considerable financial interests and has considerable financial clout. We have seen the excesses to which that has led, so we need to ensure the robust governance of football.
We are all familiar with the cases of corruption. There is a lack of transparency and there is malpractice in governance in respect of both FIFA and UEFA. As the report suggests, we need to ensure greater transparency, accountability and ethical standards. We should also consider limiting the terms of office of those who hold responsibility in FIFA and UEFA. We need to support these welcome proposals. We should continue with these efforts and ensure that the measures are implemented. The independence of sports movements should not mean a lack of transparency.
It is important to note that the report mentions education and training and the personal development of young athletes. Life does not stop when you embark on a sports career, nor does it stop when you reach 30 or 35. The report also raises general human rights issues and the role that football can play in putting across messages about the fight against racism and hate speech and in promoting equality irrespective of race, colour or religion.
The report by Mr Jensen concerns sports governance in general. There have often been scandals that have sullied the image of athletics, involving doping, corruption and match fixing, for example. We cannot accept that. Sports federations cannot be opaque institutions. They need transparency and accountability. We should perhaps consider having some ethical ranking or ethical standard. In that way, we could promote better governance on the basis of a number of criteria. The report also talks about the role that the Council of Europe can play in modern sports governance.
Sport is an important human activity, but we have to ensure transparency, accountability and integrity – the triathlon of sports governance. I congratulate Ms Anne Brasseur and Mr Mogens Jensen on these two important reports.
Mr KILIÇ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I congratulate the rapporteurs on the two reports on these important issues. The problems that the two reports point out and the solutions that they propose are crucial. I served as the Minister of Youth and Sports of the Republic of Turkey for almost four years, so I am very much aware of the problems and dangers faced by football and sports in general.
In many parts of the world, football is the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to sports. The reasons why football fascinates people can be attributed to many sociological, economic, psychological and political factors. Football, by its nature, appeals to every segment of society.
Unfortunately, as the reports note, today football and sports in general face serious problems. The scandals that have emerged in recent years show that the giant sports sector is evolving to a point where only money matters and the real value of sports is deteriorating. Financial mismanagement, bribery and corruption allegations have become widespread in the international management of sports. This, coupled with the culture of impunity, has led to serious allegations of mismanagement and doping in some international sports federations.
The clean sports initiative has not led to the substantive results that we would have liked. The Council of Europe is actively working with international organisations in the fight against doping and in supporting clean sports. There have been allegations of misconduct not only by some institutions and betting agencies but by athletes and other unfortunate people. The proposals made in both reports to resolve the problems faced by sports, especially the proposals regarding supervision and the ethical evaluation of sports management, are very valuable.
Finally, for the future of sports, it is important to establish global good governance standards consisting of basic principles, with the participation of all stakeholders. It is also essential to encourage national federations to adopt these good governance standards, without interfering in their day-to-day activities. With such a perspective, international federations should be guiding and co-ordinating national federations.
Mr COMTE (Switzerland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – The reports that have been presented should be set in the broader context of the long-term efforts made by the Council of Europe. This Organisation has produced a number of instruments on sport, including on match fixing and doping, so these reports are a logical continuation of that work, taking up the issue of sports governance.
Sport and politics share common qualities – perseverance and endurance, for example. Sport is also at the crossroads between the public and the private spheres. Some aspects of sport require action by public authorities. We all want sport to play a positive role in society – in integration, in the promotion of health and in personal development – but we all know that sport sometimes has to be protected against itself. We have to help sport to do that, given the dangers that beset it.
In her report, Ms Brasseur said that we should not confuse roles. Sports associations have to be fully independent and shoulder responsibility for introducing effective governance. There should be no political interference in the functioning of sports organisations. The past has shown that political interference can lead to major problems – conflicts of interest, corruption and institutionalised doping – so the remedy should not be worse than the ill that it sets out to cure. Sports organisations are not above the law. They need to be accountable and organised so as to limit risks in the area of corruption, for example. That is certainly true in that it is often public authorities that allocate funds to sports organisations, for example when it comes to the organisation of major sports events.
I highlight the efforts made by several sports organisations with a view to enhancing their own sports governance, but it is a long-term process and further efforts are required. It is something like the labour of Sisyphus, if you like – when you have rolled your stone to the top of the hill, it sometimes rolls all the way down and you have to start again from scratch. These are long-term efforts and we will have to concern ourselves with this issue for many years to come, but it is important that we continue the dialogue between public authorities and sports institutions with a view to enhancing governance and fighting corruption. It is not a tug of war or a tussle between public authorities and sports organisations; we need rather to work hand-in-hand to take up these challenges. Indeed, the sports organisations need us to bring to book those who do not abide by the rules.
As I say, it will take time, but we must pay tribute to the work that has been done and commit ourselves to continuing along this path.
The PRESIDENT* – Rapporteurs, you have the opportunity to take the floor and react to the statements made by the speakers on behalf of political groups, if you wish. That is not the case, so we will continue with the general debate. I call Mr Reiss.
Mr REISS (France)* – For many years, we have been grappling with good governance in sport and in football in particular. The behaviour of certain players, on top of corruption scandals, has given football a terrible image.
As a former sportsman, I set great store by the example sport could set to young people in particular. Sportspeople, leaders and the governing bodies in sports competitions must all be irreproachable. Everyone must do their bit to shoulder responsibility and transmit the values of solidarity, a sense of effort, equality and respect through sport, particularly football, as they are so helpful to young people. These values will then be better championed in society.
It is important that we also have a balance between sporting excellence and true financial fair play. The UEFA rules seem to have been forgotten in certain quarters, but we need healthy football and fair competition. The amounts involved in certain transfers, particularly in France, are obscene, especially against the backdrop of a financial crisis with people having trouble making ends meet. This is a specific problem in football. How much does it cost to put together a team that is capable of winning the Champions League? I do not think that sporting excellence should crush everything else. If money trumps everything, that spells the end of our values.
In the face of these excesses, we need to talk about corruption at higher levels. We need to be firmer in punishing all reprehensible acts. We have rules for financial fair play, but they now need to be applied and those who are convicted of corruption should be sentenced. Players who are convicted of doping should receive sentences that set an example. The popularity of football is undeniable, and the sport must now improve its image.
In a way, the recent breakthrough of women’s football has been salutary. Far from indulging in excesses, the women’s competition shows that football can be interesting and can stand for certain values. It has the advantage of showing the public healthy football. We salute the efforts of FIFA to promote women’s football. I think we all remember the film “Bend It Like Beckham”, in which a young girl from an Indian background in Great Britain fought against prejudice through football. Sport shows that you can fight against discrimination and promote equality, causes that are, after all, at the very heart of the Council of Europe. I congratulate Ms Brasseur and Mr Jensen on an excellent job of work.
Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – These are two really excellent reports. I want to concentrate on the one on football governance, and I speak as the former chairman of a football club – my own club, the beautifully named Heart of Midlothian football club, based in Edinburgh. That club is transferring ownership to the fans through the Foundation of Hearts, with 8 500 fans contributing between £10 and £500 a month each towards the maintenance of the club, as well as taking tickets for every match. I think that that ought to be the way forward for football clubs.
I have seen football governance close up as a result of that experience and I think we have three problems. First, as we have heard, football organisations in each country think that they are above the law and separate from the governance of their own country. That is not the case. They ought to be taking account of what governments in their countries think, say and do. This also happens at an international level and we should condemn the pressure that FIFA has been putting on Anne Brasseur personally, and the misrepresentations that FIFA has been making about Anne’s report. The way that it has been operating is disgraceful and we should be saying that.
The second problem is, of course, money, and that has been mentioned. It is not just about transfers but about the ownership of clubs, which is making things increasingly difficult for fans. That takes me to my third point: fans ought to be much more involved. We are the lifeblood of all our football clubs. They would not exist – there would be no purpose in football – without the fans, yet the fans are not involved enough in most of the football clubs in Europe. They must be a great deal more involved.
We should support this report wholeheartedly, and ask the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to take it forward with enthusiasm. We should thank Anne Brasseur for her report and for her courage in standing up to the pressures she has faced.
Mr WENAWESER (Liechtenstein)* – I thank the two rapporteurs for their reports, and, in particular, for the very balanced introductory statements. In the light of what they said, I think we can look forward to a well-thought-through and balanced debate. We should not forget that, in the light of recent events, the governance of many sports organisations is under enormous scrutiny. We all know what happened with FIFA, which triggered a chain reaction throughout sport.
I want to focus on what Ms Brasseur said. Clearly, she wants to achieve maximum impact with this report. The events with FIFA have triggered an enormous amount of unpredictable activity and Secretary General Jagland met Mr Infantino two weeks ago, when he announced intense co-operation between FIFA and the Council of Europe. In the light of that, I thank Ms Brasseur for her work.
The idea of a process of dialogue that will not simply pre-empt the results of this work is a good thing, but we must ensure that the debate addressing FIFA and other sports organisations is carried out in the Council of Europe. Ms Brasseur’s report should set out an interesting framework for this dialogue before we move up to higher levels. Following recent reports from the investigators into FIFA, Mark Pieth, an international criminal law expert, said that the FIFA reform process is now dead. Pieth worked for FIFA between 2011 and 2013 and he was the frontman for the reform process back then. Mr Borbély and Mr Eckert worked from 2015 onwards and carried out more than 190 investigations, and more than 70 officials were condemned.
They also talked about the investigations into another 100 dangerous cases and said that the FIFA reform process had been put back by years. Miguel Maduro, who was also responsible, recently described FIFA as a system without rules. FIFA is a worldwide organisation and it can no longer be run like a small association based on the whims of those responsible. The stated intention to co-operate with the Council of Europe, which is to be welcomed, cannot be lip service to improved relations; we have to take it as an honest commitment. The Parliamentary Assembly must follow events closely and ensure that FIFA does not just use the Council of Europe as a fig leaf while continuing to conduct business as usual.
Mr STROE (Romania) – I thank our colleagues for their reports, which are important and timely, coming as they do at a time when the good reputation of sports is under threat from scandals of corruption, foul play and harassment.
Sports will always occupy a special place in people’s hearts. For 2 500 years, since they first appeared in ancient Greece up to today, sports have been animated by the same values – individual excellence, team spirit, respect for the laws and, of course, peace. These values transcend national borders, and it is important that sports organisations retain substantial autonomy in order to best promote these values and, hopefully, act as a platform for sport diplomacy.
Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the darker aspects, which are described in detail by the rapporteurs. As the reports rightly say, the solution is to raise the standard of governance in sport, focusing on the principles of democracy, transparency and inclusiveness, and seeking to represent all interested stakeholders. Public authorities are certainly among the interested stakeholders and should be more assertive in demanding accountability and transparency. We should be fully aware that public assets are essential in the organisation of large sporting events. Without substantial public investments in infrastructure, subsidies and compliance costs, events such as international football championships would not be possible.
It is legitimate for the public to hold sports organisations accountable in the same way it holds accountable any other entity that makes use of taxpayers’ money. Member States should engage in vigorous dialogue and ensure the democratisation and upgrading of sports governance, as well as measures to increase transparency and accountability.
Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – I thank the two rapporteurs for the reports that they have prepared. They mentioned the importance and gravity of today’s problems, and they have made some recommendations. This was an important step to take. As someone who comes from sport – I was a licensed football player for 16 years and I have observed referees – it is clear that recently doping, unfair play, bribery and corruption have all been discussed in sports, which is leading to diminishing interest in sport, especially football.
We need to understand that bad sports governance, which does not provide for transparency and enable immunities, is important. Until recently, sports governance was regarded as above the law, and the perpetrators of crimes avoided conviction. Therefore, sports governance standards play an important role in today’s era, where the reputation of sport is tarnished. We believe that sports should no longer be governed in a way that conflicts with modern ideas of governance. As pointed out in today’s reports, we need to encompass modern international standards. International organisations should set standards and all sports clubs must embrace them.
Football is more than just a sport. It is an economic activity with the aim of maximising profits. However, it is also an important part of the social life of individuals and it should not be regarded only as an economic activity. As Ms Brasseur said, too little money harms football and too much money kills football. That is a very important statement. Unfortunately, football has not been governed well enough, and good international governance standards are required to solve the problem.
I back the reports because we need good governance and a reduction in problems. I welcome the rapporteurs’ recommendations.
Baroness MASSEY (United Kingdom) – I welcome the reports and I commend their thoroughness. It is not easy to challenge institutional failings, and the rapporteurs are to be congratulated on their courage in doing so.
We would normally associate sport with positive values such as fair play, teamwork, health and well-being, from grassroots sport to high-level competition. The majority of sportsmen and women live up to that image and provide good role models for young people. Sadly, in recent years we have faced the tarnishing of sport’s image. I make no excuse for repeating what others have said, because these concerns need repeating.
The title of a book on corruption in tennis, “Game, Set and Match-fix”, says it all. We are now familiar with doping scandals, match fixing, betting irregularities, money laundering, bribery, sexual abuse, racism and so on. Better governance is called for in the two reports, and governance that should apply to all, from small clubs to the international scene. Standards need to be set, harmonised and monitored.
In the United Kingdom, we have been affected by the negative issues, with many notorious examples. Let me quote a response from the Sport England Code for Governance, published in April 2017. It calls for increased skills and diversity on boards, with a target of at least 30% gender diversity; greater transparency, such as publishing more information on the structure, strategy and financial position of the organisation; and constitutional arrangements which give boards the prime role in decision making.
I am glad to see that the Football Association has agreed a number of reforms, including the composition of boards. I hope that firm action on boards will encourage and result in a change of attitude among those involved in sports – referees, players, club owners, companies, governments and even spectators. I hope that will result in better examples of good conduct for young people to follow and will achieve the ideals of the best of our sportsmen and women, who inspire and thrill us through their activities, without the sordid attachment of corruption and bad behaviour. I pay tribute to the rapporteurs for their courage in drawing attention to this important topic.
Mr RZAYEV (Azerbaijan)* – I thank the rapporteurs for their very important work. I support the idea that if sport is to be clean, then hands must be clean. That is the best way of supporting our sportspeople, athletes and footballers. They are not guilty of what goes on off the football pitch. Football is the most popular sport in the world. Everybody here and around the world is impatiently awaiting the greatest competition of all, which attracts the greatest interest.
Football and sport are strongly supported in my country. We are delighted that, for the first time in the history of football, an Azerbaijani team has got through to the next round of the Champions League. That team, which is from Agdam, near Nagorno-Karabakh, has impressed the whole world with the quality of its football, and in the future it will develop it to an even higher level. Unfortunately, it was not able to host the teams from Italy, Spain and England in its local stadium, because Agdam is still occupied by Armenian forces. We hope that we will soon be able to ensure that the club wins many more competitions and hosts other teams in its own stadium. I congratulate the rapporteurs.
Ms McCARTHY (United Kingdom) – Both reports are excellent. As a United Kingdom member of parliament, I want to focus on our national game, football, as many other speakers have done. First, I flag up my support for the recommendation in Ms Brasseur’s report that we need urgent measures to protect construction workers in Qatar, and not just those employed on the World Cup sites. There have been some improvements, but we need to do a lot more.
Football is truly a global game, as the contributions this morning have shown. There is no better illustration of that than England’s Premier League, which is watched by millions, if not billions, worldwide, even in some of the remotest parts of the globe. The commercialisation of the so-called beautiful game has its pitfalls, and I want to focus on one example. The reach of commercial deals and sponsorship is surprising. For example, Manchester United has an official soft drinks partner for China, an official isotonic drinks partner for Indonesia and an official nutritional supplements partner for Japan, to name just a few.
I want to talk about a deal struck by another giant of English football, Liverpool football club, and point out the need for greater vigilance when companies and clubs enter into such deals. Last July, the club agreed a sponsorship deal with a Chinese company called Tibet Water Resources. Liverpool promised the Hong Kong-listed entity that it would benefit from a range of promotional rights, including digital media support and access to its footballing stars. There has been a boom in water bottling companies in Tibet, attracted by the source of some of Asia’s largest rivers and the Tibetan glaciers – the so-called third pole. There is no suggestion that Tibet Water Resources, which produces mineral water from a Tibetan glacier, is directly involved in human rights abuses, but groups such as Free Tibet and the Tibet Society have rightly expressed concern that its activities are possible only because of China’s unwelcome presence in the region. Tibet is now criss-crossed with mines digging up natural resources, yet the Tibetan people have been given no say in how their resources are used. Bottling water from Tibetan glaciers exacerbates the threat already posed by climate change and pollution.
Associating Tibet with major global brands such as Liverpool FC allows the Chinese Government to normalise its oppression of the Tibetan people, its destruction of Tibetan culture and its disregard of human rights. The findings and recommendations of Ms Brasseur’s report are to be welcomed, but it is imperative that, as football continues to get richer and richer, we ensure that the human rights of all, including Tibetans, do not suffer as a result of that growing commercialisation.
Mr VALLINI (France)* – I endorse much of what has been said. I congratulate the two rapporteurs on their sterling job. I want to concentrate on two points. First, we must restore confidence and faith in sports governing bodies. They must be subject to much more stringent controls, and we need effective oversight bodies that can prevent and punish offences such as doping and corruption. The Council of Europe should establish a convention to facilitate the fight against illegal activities in major federations such as UEFA and FIFA. An ISO standard for sports governance is an interesting idea. Public subsidy should be made contingent upon such certification.
As the rapporteur said, we have also seen indecent transfer fees. In France, we reached new heights with Neymar and Mbappé. Such transfer fees cannot be borne; they are completely unacceptable. Going beyond the rules of financial fair play, which are insufficient, we need to think about establishing a ceiling in our 47 countries. It would be a major step forward if the Council of Europe were to adopt such an approach to introduce morality in professional football. Our States should establish a levy for a percentage of transfer fees to provide more funding for overseas development aid, especially for children and women sportspeople in the countries of the south. Those are the two points I wish to contribute to this debate.
Mr VEJKEY (Hungary) – Hungary is committed to the values of hard work, honesty, tolerance and loyalty. We agree that football, as one of the most popular sports in the world, must be based on the principles of fair play, mutual respect and tolerance. With that in mind, everyone involved in football – players, coaches, fans, and local, national and international organisations – should set a good example. At the same time, we should thoroughly investigate FIFA’s activities and their impact and, where justified, they should be presented in detail in a report. We welcome the planned FIFA-Council of Europe co-operation agreement. That joint work is a major step forward in enforcing human rights in sport.
Today, the purity of sport is endangered by, among other things, increasingly fierce market competition, the lack of a good governance mechanism, betting fraud and doping. Those challenges can be handled only by respecting the autonomy of the sports movement, and in close co-operation with sports organisations and stakeholders. As a result of international betting activity, the illicit influencing of sports competitions is one of the most pressing challenges for 21st-century sport. Hungary believes that the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, and professional co-operation within that framework, can be an effective means of prevention and sanctioning international illegal activities. Hungary has signed the convention and is committed to its ratification.
Mr GOLUB (Ukraine)* – Today, people often engage in sport for political or lucrative ends. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe needs to pay particular attention to the current state of affairs and the management of various sports events hosted in different countries around the world. We need to ensure that sports governance abides by the principle of transparency. Overcoming corruption in sports governance, which has become a crucial issue, depends on our willingness to fight against this shameful practice.
We should note that not all countries have opted for transparency as the driving force in their evaluation of sports governance, and that is detrimental to sport and politics. The year 2018 is the year of the football World Cup. It was decided to host the event in the Russian Federation, but so many of its sportsmen have been banned from international sports competitions for using corrupt, covert methods to win. Doping, for example, has affected a number of sports federations in the Russian Federation. That is why we should appeal to decision-making bodies to deprive the Russian Federation of the right to host the 2018 World Cup. The Russian Federation uses sport in international politics to achieve its own ambitious and illegal ends, trampling various human rights underfoot. After the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi, the Kremlin unleashed its aggression against my country, annexing Crimea and starting a war in Donbass, with a view to pursuing its geopolitical ends, using sport to put across the image of Putin as a victor, enabling the Russian Federation to overpower its weaker neighbour, Crimea.
Sport has become an important phenomenon in a globally interdependent world. We should therefore focus on establishing ethical standards in the field of sport. We should encourage non-corrupt practices throughout sport. Sports organisations need to concentrate on creating effective systems for developing strategies that make it possible to attract more people into sports and ensure a future for sport, appealing to young children, but also on making sport an important axis in the development of public policies and the functioning of the state.
Mr MÜLLER (Switzerland)* – I should like first to disclose my relationship to football. I was a president of the St Gallen football club, which, along with Le Havre, is the oldest football club in Europe. I was also a FIFA official at local matches and was charged with enforcing the rules on the pitch.
With that disclosure, I would like to address three points in the FIFA report. First, this is the fourth Council of Europe report on FIFA, and the fifth is already in the pipeline. However, FIFA is a global sporting organisation, so the views of European institutions and, indeed, European law are not decisive in this regard. The views of other supranational organisations, in Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania, for example, could claim equal validity.
Secondly, we should look at the quality of Council of Europe reports. The Parliamentary Assembly can vote only on draft resolutions; the text of the explanatory memorandum remains unchanged. That is a particular worry in this case, because there are a number of robust facts missing from the explanatory text. Nobody would deny that there is a problem at the level of the executive committee of FIFA, but there are many assumptions or assertions made on the basis of tendentious media reports. The text is littered with words such as “apparently” and “it would appear”. There is no proper attribution or sourcing of information. That calls into question the reliability of the report.
FIFA gets off fairly lightly in the Jensen report. Indeed, in the addendum it comes out as best in class, scoring more points than the Council of Europe. That being the case, how can the Council of Europe come up with the idea of placing FIFA under international political oversight or tutelage? There are contradictions between the Brasseur and Jensen reports. That raises questions not only of reliability, but of credibility. The Council of Europe has a corruption problem of its own and will need some time to regain its credibility. That being the case, is it really up to any of us to regulate other organisations? We should of course support future reforms, but the resolution and report on FIFA will not help us in taking steps towards reform, so I will reject it. On the other hand, I will vote in favour of the Jensen report, as it will provide a sound basis for future dialogue.
The PRESIDENT* – Mr Eide is not here, so I call Ms Heinrich.
Ms HEINRICH (Germany)* – We are debating two such excellent reports this morning that I somewhat regret the fact that I find myself talking to Anne Brasseur’s report. I am actively involved as an official in a broad-based sports association that includes football. Our best team plays in the local championship. Lots of our teams provide proof of the social benefits of team sport. We have lots of voluntary members. Anne Brasseur’s report is something I can take back to my local club to explain to people what we do in the Council of Europe. Most of our members are aware of the corruption scandals involving FIFA, for example. They are also aware of the talk about major events and the exploitation of workers in building major stadiums. All football fans know all about that, and they are not happy. Football fans view FIFA as a self-serving group of kleptocrats who benefit from impunity.
We have had all sorts of resolutions on this issue, but what use is that? Ms Brasseur, we have to look at the close links between sport, politics and money. The same allegations clearly apply at the level of national sport. You touch on a sensitive issue, which was also illustrated by what the previous speaker said. It is true that the reports that we have heard about are apparently based on allegations and personal opinions. For a long time, we have heard that the committee has been working hard to dig out facts in this never-ending story. FIFA wrote to us and said it would be willing to accept constructive criticism, even from bodies whose image has been tarnished by corruption scandals. I therefore have good news for FIFA: Ms Brasseur’s report is very positive, because she is one of the people in the Council of Europe who has always been digging hard to find out the facts.
The report is in excellent hands. It picks up on the need for the governance structures of FIFA, governments and national associations to act, as many previous speakers have said. I believe that the report provides us with an excellent framework for our work, and I think it would be wonderful for football fans if FIFA and other sport governance bodies spent a bit less time setting up bank accounts in Panama and a bit more time dealing with football fans and the values of the sport.
Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I thank both rapporteurs for their comprehensive reports. My everyday life is full of football: my son plays and my spouse follows. Both are passionate about the sport. I have been active for several years in Finnish sport policy and I therefore read both reports with great interest. It is easy to agree with Mr Jensen’s report that everyone’s participation in sports activities and governance must be ensured. Particular attention should be paid to the involvement of women and young people. I personally hope that we will give more thought to the fact that people with an immigrant background should also be involved, and not just as athletes.
In Finland, we have tried to find ways to increase dialogue between the sports community and decision makers. For almost 100 years now, the national sports council has acted as an expert body in issues relating to sports. One of its main tasks is to assess the impact of sport in society in general. For instance, it collects information on how many citizens – children and adults – regularly take part in sports activity. It also assesses how transparency and gender equality are taken into account and deals with ethical issues.
As noted in the reports, we need more international forums where decision makers from different countries can discuss all aspects of sports governance and integrity issues. That should include difficult topics, such as doping, grey areas of finances, racism and hate speech, match fixing and lack of transparency.
We are used to seeing sport as an independent activity. However, when activities are financially supported by governments, citizens have the right to demand openness, good governance and accountability. For me, sport should connect people from different national, economic, religious and cultural backgrounds. Sport can enable different people to meet each other and strengthen mutual understanding, thereby promoting solidarity, diversity and, ultimately, human rights. Fair play should be not only words but the guiding principle of all decisions and activities. As Ms Brasseur states in her report, we have a special responsibility when it comes to activities for children and young people in sports.
Ms PRUNĂ (Romania) – It gives me great pleasure to speak on this engaging topic. We have to approach football governance from two different perspectives. First, I am happy that we have begun to talk frankly about something that has affected the industry for quite a long time: corruption. As a representative of a party driven to expunge corruption at all levels, I know at first hand the negative effects of such acts. Any act of corruption, small or large, has and will continue to tarnish the reputation of the football industry. If we do not act now, the sport may be ruined forever. To that extent, I salute the recommendations presented by our colleagues, Mr Jensen and Ms Brasseur. Both make compelling arguments in their reports: that we need to work towards creating a better, more robust legislative framework to expedite prosecutions, and that we need to set up an independent international observatory body tasked with monitoring aspects of the governance of football organisations and other sports bodies.
Secondly, we have to think in terms of how football can promote tolerance and social responsibility and deliver education programmes and information campaigns to fight sexual harassment and gender discrimination. To give that more context, let us take a step back and talk about an unfortunate constant that has been present in the lives of many women and children: domestic violence. There are numerous cases of domestic violence, especially in poorer communities, and the perpetrators continue to be predominantly men. Men also represent the majority audience of football. I believe that football can make a difference in the lives of those people, because it reaches out to them in a way that traditional institutional means cannot; football touches millions of lives, and football players are seen as role models.
I was recently reminded of an initiative started last year, backed by 61 female MEPs and endorsed by the European Commission and by our own Secretary General, Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, to combat violence against women through football. Through the initiative, UEFA was asked to broadcast three times at every UEFA and national game a 15-second video showing famous players and a black screen, without sound, saying to stop violence against women. Try to imagine the impact of that campaign on the lives of young men across Europe and the rest of the world. That is why, in front of the Assembly, I call on all members to rally behind that initiative. Let us make our voice, and those of millions across Europe, heard. All we need is three times 15 seconds to spread the message and stop violence against women.
Mr GONÇALVES (Portugal)* – I congratulate the rapporteurs on their reports, which are of great importance and also very topical. With the passage of time, new concerns have come to light with respect to the phenomenon of sports. Sport, as we knew it, has partially disappeared, and it has opened up to major economic and financial institutions. It influences sectors such as the media and medicine, and disturbing excesses have emerged, such as doping, non-respect for the rights of athletes, discrimination and racism and even political aspects.
The values one identifies with sport are part and parcel of the heritage of our societies, and sportspeople are exemplars and icons. In that regard, sport, especially football, generates great passions among the population. Regrettably, that image of sport, in terms of it being a school of life, is today besmirched. Sports news is often dominated by corruption and scandals – acts that all too often go unpunished. The public view sport as a milieu with too much money, with many interests mixed up in it. The general feeling is that there is a lack of transparency in sport, which we can no longer tolerate.
This new reality has not always been tracked by law makers – whether at national level or in international institutions – in defending sporting transparency. The two draft texts we are discussing today therefore go in the right direction of transparency. Both call for good and new governance, and they advocate change and far-reaching reforms in a sector that generates extraordinary revenues and which is becoming a decisive strategic player in the economic world and in the political world as well.
Today, we face a huge challenge: guaranteeing the values and ethics of sport in a world in which sport is gaining ground, including ground in which it does not really belong. Thus we need new sporting governance that is tailored to the new realities, with new players and institutions that can reform themselves in order to guarantee a future for sport that respects ethics, human rights and solidarity.
These proposals will only be positive with the involvement of all parliamentarians in our respective countries. I come from Portugal, a country that is passionate about sport, especially football. Portugal has adopted new legislation that is an important step in defending the values of ethics, fairness and sporting truth. It is just the first step, but it is an important step, and one that we should all follow in our respective countries. We must revert to the true values of sport.
Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Norway is a small country with 5 million inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports consists of more than 2 million members. It is the largest children and young people’s organisation in Norway, and is such an important arena for social integration and public health.
In Norway, the sports organisations were the very first democratic mass movements, founded in 1861 and based mainly on the voluntary work of thousands of people. That is still the situation, even in branches of sport where business and big money play a major role. Every sports event – local, as well as national or international – depends on a large number of volunteers as organisers and board members. The same goes for the daily operation of 12 000 local sports clubs, which in turn are the prerequisites for participation in sports on all levels. The undermining of sports ethics is a threat to democracy itself.
Sunday league and top league sports are closely interlinked, which is why the two reports are so extremely important. We associate athletes with a long list of positive values such as fair play, being health role models and having impressive achievements. They are national heroes. With every new cheater and every new incident of corruption, we lose a part of that admiration and confidence. Sports administrators should never forget their dependence on public trust and public money. Even more importantly, bad governance at top organisational levels demonstrates a lack of awareness of and respect for each and every volunteer on whom sports at all levels are completely dependent. That goes for every branch of sport.
Nevertheless, FIFA, with its 211 member states has a special obligation to stay clean because it represents the world’s most popular sport by the number of performers, supporters, and maybe also sponsors and the amount of money involved. However, there are also positive initiatives. The FIFA reform process includes a focus on gender equality. I hope that this leads to a stronger focus on women’s football at all levels. It is worth noting the agreement on the partnership between FIFA and the Council of Europe on how better to promote human rights in sports, based on the existing conventions against doping, match-fixing and violence. If successful, this co-operation – together with the measures proposed in the reports of Ms Brasseur and Mr Jensen, which include a new convention on good governance in sport – could set renewed standards for all branches of sport.
Mr KERN (France)* – I pay tribute to the work of the rapporteurs, Ms Brasseur and Mr Jensen. I certainly subscribe to the draft resolutions and recommendations, which are ambitious and far-reaching. I share the rapporteurs’ views on the need for sport to be inclusive and its governance transparent but, unfortunately, the reality looks very different. Sport, including at Olympic level, is often marred by scandal.
France has not remained inactive. A law adopted in 2017 seeks to uphold the ethics of sport, to strengthen regulation and the transparency of professional sport, and to enhance clubs’ competitiveness. For the management of professional federations and leagues, this law ensures the preservation of ethics in sport by making it compulsory to adopt a charter of ethics and a code of conduct, the implementation of which will be overseen by an independent committee specially set up to that end. With a view to transparency, there are provisions in the law on preventing conflicts of interest. The law also seeks to beef up rules on financial flows, and legal and financial control over sports associations, clubs and the activities of sports agents has been stepped up. Plans to buy and sell sports clubs, and to change shareholder structures, will all be better controlled. More generally, as far as professional sports federations and leagues are concerned, the State will concentrate its activities on co-ordination, monitoring and ethical standards.
We need to modernise the governance of sports federations. The involvement of public authorities in the development of sport is necessary, given the values for which sport is a vehicle, its territorial dimension and its growing economic role. The support for sport covers a range of public policies, which is why it is indispensable to ensure that this public action is visible. When we are up against powerful federations and leagues, the absence of a robust public partner with a clear road map is a weakness for the harmonious development of sport. Erasing the role of the State is not a good thing.
Last November, the French Minister of Sport set up a steering group on sports governance. The aim is to rethink the organisation of sport in France, ensuring that it is more independent and clarifying the role of the State, local authorities, sports movements and private partners. Between now and next June, a number of proposals will be put forward so that we can establish a new organisational context or framework for sport and develop the practice of sport throughout society.
The PRESIDENT* – I now have to interrupt the list of speakers. I call on the committee to reply. Ms Brasseur, you have five minutes left, so I will give the floor to either you or Mr Jensen.
Mr Jensen, you have two minutes remaining.
Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark) – I think that I also speak on behalf of Ms Brasseur when I thank you all for the overwhelming support for both our reports. That support has come from the six political groups, and almost everyone who has spoken in the Assembly today.
My report may seem rather technical in nature, but that is because it mentions very concrete tools that can be used in practice, so that we can go further in our work to establish good governance in international sports. This has been acknowledged by a number of sports organisations, which have reacted positively to the different tools we have introduced.
Although the report on FIFA is Ms Brasseur’s report, I would just say that there has been a meeting with the Secretary General and FIFA on how to co-operate on international conventions. On Monday, I had the opportunity to tell the Secretary General that we expect the signals in our report – the demands and wishes for FIFA to work with us on our agenda and reports – to be a part of the discussion with FIFA. The Secretary General said that this would be the case.
I simply thank all the people who have helped to produce my report, including: Jens Sejer Andersen from Play the Game; Andreas Selliaas, who is an expert from Norway; Antonio de Marco, who worked on my addendum; our Deputy Secretary General, Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni; the executive secretary of EPAS, Stan Frossard, who followed the negotiations; the president of the National Olympic Committee and Sports Confederation of Denmark, Mr Niels Nygaard; and, of course, in the secretariat of the committee, my co-worker on this, Ivi-Triin Odrats, who has done an immense amount of work. I am looking forward to completing our task by voting on the reports. I also thank Ms Brasseur; we make a good couple in doing this work.
The PRESIDENT* – Ms Brasseur, you have 5 minutes remaining.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg)* – I echo the thanks extended by my colleague Mogens Jensen. I also thank everyone involved in drawing up my report, both within and outside this Organisation; I have listed them in my report, so I will not repeat their names here. I second Mr Jensen’s thanks to colleagues present today. All but one of the 24 speakers who took the floor – six on behalf of political groups, and 18 individual speakers – supported what we are trying to do.
I should like to single out certain points that I was not able to address either in my introduction or in the written memorandum. First, women’s football and women’s sport in general are extremely important and have certainly seen some recent advances. I have met the football players themselves, who really are extraordinary. They are standard bearers for us all, not only in football but in the values we need in our societies. I call on the leaders of sports organisations to ensure that they promote more women to their ranks. We also need to ensure that our national associations see to it that there is proper and balanced representation of women.
One speaker referred to the supporters. We should pay tribute to the supporters and show our gratitude to them, because football would be nothing without them. It is thanks to their passion that football exists, so football should not abuse their support or take advantage of them just to make money. I have nothing against money per se, but we have certainly seen all kinds of abuses and excesses in the world of football.
Let me say a word about development. A French member said that more needed to be done to improve physical education and sports education, and that perhaps we could introduce a levy on football transfers and spend it on physical education. I think more should be spent on sports. I refer in my report to helping football organisations, which should be linked to education as well as vocational training for young people. We will not get anywhere unless we do more than just training young people to play football. Only a handful will be able to make a living from it, so the others in football academies need to be given proper vocational training to allow them to earn their livelihoods outside football. We have to help them to make a contribution to developing their countries.
I will say a final word about what our colleague Mr Müller said. He echoed the reproaches directed at me by FIFA and he alleges that my report is based on rumours. I can tell the Assembly that I have read extremely carefully what FIFA wrote, and nowhere did it say that I had made any errors. I take full responsibility for my report. When I use phrases such as “in my view” or “I think”, of course I am allowed to make surmises or assumptions, because these are issues of perception. I have talked to people in FIFA, including Mr Infantino and Ms Samoura. They know that they can reform the organisation; many of those reforms have been set out in Mr Jensen’s report and a lot of them are in the pipeline, but they need to be implemented in practice.
We also need to look at the mind-set, because implementing reforms requires the right frame of mind. That is the problem. FIFA has an ethics committee of 15 people, but how can it claim that progress is being made when the chair of its governance committee was replaced for daring to say that Mr Mutko, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, could not be a member of the FIFA council? The governance committee chair was removed from his post for saying that, which is a problem for FIFA’s credibility. I tried to get that message across to FIFA, but I am sorry to say that it failed to heed it – it did not want to hear it.
Most colleagues present support Mr Jensen’s report and mine, along with the accompanying draft resolutions. I am very grateful for that support, because football certainly needs all our backing if we are to preserve such a fabulous sport.
The PRESIDENT* – Ms Santa Ana, as chairperson of the committee, would you like to add anything?
Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – We take an interest in sport governance because sport in general and football in particular are key parts of the social fabric and powerful tools to promote universal values. If our role is to help to build a better society, it is clear that we cannot overlook the role of sport. We need sport to fulfil its key role effectively and we want the message it delivers to be credible. For that to happen, all key sport actors must explicitly adhere to and firmly base their behaviour on core values such as human rights, the rule of law, democracy and concern for the common good. Sport itself is a common good, not a kingdom of sports dignitaries. We will therefore continue to stress, whether it is welcome or not, that we believe sport should be improved. I do not say that to give any lessons; we know well that politics faces the same problems and we as politicians have failed many times to give the right example.
Our Assembly has an important role to play in fostering improved sport governance. I attach particular importance to the many proposals in the two reports that call for closer partnership, including between the Assembly and those we consider our partners. The two draft resolutions that our committee is presenting to the Assembly today include concrete, innovative proposals that could really lead the way towards significant change, including in the whole culture of sport governance. Many people will be looking at the decisions we take today, believing that with our votes we can really make a difference to the future of sport governance. We shall not disappoint them. I warmly ask you all to support the two resolutions, not only here and now but in your own countries.
The PRESIDENT* – That concludes the debate.
I remind colleagues that the ballot to elect the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair before 1 p.m. The ballot will resume between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m.
We come to the draft resolution presented by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media on “Working towards a framework for modern sports governance”, to which eight amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which three amendments have been tabled.
I understand that the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 5, 6 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. Is that so, Ms Santa Ana? That is so.
Are there any objections? That is not the case.
As there are no objections, I declare that Amendments 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 5, 6 and 1 to the draft resolution have been agreed.
Amendments 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 5, 6 and 1 adopted
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14464, as amended. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14464, as amended, is adopted, with 108 votes for, 7 against and 6 abstentions.
The committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which three amendments have been tabled.
I understand that the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 7, 8 and 9 to the draft recommendation, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so Ms Santa Ana?
Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) – That is the case.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 7 to 9 to the draft recommendation, as set out in the Compendium and Organisation of Debates, have been agreed.
Amendments 7 to 9 adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14464, as amended. I remind you that a two-thirds majority of the votes cast is required.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Document 14464, as amended, is adopted, with 126 votes for, 6 against and 8 abstentions.
The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution, to which three amendments have been tabled. I understand that the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so Ms Santa Ana?
Ms SANTA ANA (Spain) - That is the case.
The PRESIDENT – Does anyone object? That is not the case.
As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 2 and 3 to the draft resolution have been agreed.
Amendments 1 to 3 adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14452, as amended. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft resolution in Document 14452, as amended, is adopted, with 131 votes for, 5 against and 10 abstentions.
I remind you that the ballot in the second round to elect the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights is still open.
Those who have not voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair. You have until 1 p.m. to cast your vote now. The vote will be resumed between 3.30 p.m. and 5 p.m.
(Mr Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Trisse)
4. Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia
The PRESIDENT - Mr President, it is a true honour and a real pleasure to welcome you in this Chamber. The Council of Europe is an Organisation of 47 European States, and our Parliamentary Assembly is and remains a pan-European platform for political dialogue, where the views and aspirations of the leaders of all our member States should be represented. Therefore, your visit today is very important for us.
Mr President, you visited Strasbourg in October 2013, when Armenia was chairing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and when you had just started the first year of your second presidential mandate. You shared with us at that time a clear and ambitious political programme aimed at consolidating and strengthening further Armenia’s democratic institutions. A lot of progress has been made since, and this morning we had an opportunity to discuss together the numerous steps your authorities have taken, including the constitutional and the electoral reform, as well as the strengthening of the independence of the judiciary and the stepping up of the fight against corruption. The political transition to a new parliamentary political system has now been almost complete, but a number of reform issues remain on the table and I would like to assure you, Mr President, of the Council of Europe’s and our Assembly’s full support on this front.
Mr President, you are well aware of the challenges the Council of Europe faces today. I strongly believe that these can be effectively overcome only if all member States, and all Council of Europe institutions and stakeholders, reaffirm their commitment to the ideals of European unity and to the values and principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. From our discussion this morning, I know that Armenia’s commitment to these ideals and principles is strong. Therefore, we are looking forward to hearing your views.
Mr President, thank you for being here. You have the floor.
Mr SARGSYAN (President of Armenia)* - Honourable President of the Parliamentary Assembly, honourable Secretary General, distinguished members of the Assembly, at the outset I would like to warmly greet you and to congratulate you, Mr Nicoletti on assuming the high office of President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. You have indeed embarked upon this mission in rather challenging times. I strongly believe that your extensive experience and strength are exactly what is needed for the future success and reputation of our Organisation. I also wish to commend Ms Kyriakides for her excellent performance when she was President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The last time I had the honour to speak from this high podium was in 2013, when Armenia held the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That mission served as a key landmark in our integration within the larger family of the Council of Europe. I trust that we met expectations while carrying out that mission.
Tomorrow is 25 January, the day on which we acceded to the Council of Europe exactly 17 years ago. At the time of joining this Europe-wide structure, we were fully aware of the path that lay ahead of us. We were also fully aware that building and strengthening democracy would not be easy without the support and direct involvement of the Council of Europe. Indeed, through political will and joint constructive engagement, we managed to overcome numerous obstacles and achieve profound improvements.
As I stand before the Assembly today, I can proudly state that we have honoured the main commitments made to the Council of Europe in terms of Armenia’s democratisation. Moreover, that is not just our assertion. Our achievements in consolidating democratic institutions have been recognised by the monitoring reports of Council of Europe bodies. We firmly continue efforts to join the Europe-wide legal framework, and Armenia has already signed close to 70 conventions. For us, this process is not simply about honouring the commitments we undertook. In doing so, we are primarily implementing our own credo and convictions. We shall continue in that vein. Moreover, our country’s progress on the path of reform will gain new momentum and accelerate in April, when the amendments adopted under the reformed constitution will enter into force, and we will embark upon the implementation of activities envisaged by our comprehensive and enhanced partnership agreement with the European Union.
Any democracy is a living organism. Throughout our quarter-century-long efforts in State building, we have aimed to nourish this organism. We have been fully conscious that democracy constantly requires attention, review and advancement. It cannot afford a standstill and must keep up with the rapidly changing times in order to remain viable. By that logic, we undertook constitutional reform in Armenia, which received wide support from the Council of Europe. Those constitutional reforms will enter into force in April. We have a clear commitment to the pillars of the Council of Europe – to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We have decided to implement a parliamentary system of government, as I announced from this podium.
Since acceding to the Council of Europe, our country has heard the criticism and encouragements of the Council of Europe. I have no doubt that both have contributed strongly to Armenia’s progress. This whole time, we have co-operated closely with the Venice Commission and, based on its expert opinion, we refined the constitutional reforms package. In an atmosphere of mutual trust, that efficient engagement continues to date through a process of implementing numerous new legislative solutions under the reformed constitution. That was best manifested in deliberations on Armenia’s new electoral code, which resulted in the adoption of the code in a transparent and inclusive process with the participation of various political actors across the board.
We opted for something unprecedented. For the first time in history, we published the signed voter lists after the election. As you know, that practice is not common, especially in the light of personal data protection concerns. However, we decided to do so to achieve greater public trust in the elections. The new electoral code clearly proved its viability in the 2017 April parliamentary election, which was observed by a large number of invited observation missions, including a delegation of this Assembly. It is important to underline that the new electoral code also resulted in the allocation in the national assembly of a certain number of seats that are exclusively for representation of the national minorities. That is yet another step towards more participatory and inclusive governance.
We are currently reforming our judicial, criminal and criminal procedure codes, as well as the referendum law and the law on the constitutional court. We are well aware that the rule of law can be safeguarded only by having an effective, independent and corruption-free judiciary. In that context, we highly appreciate the important role of the European Court of Human Rights, the jurisprudence of which plays an essential role in enhancing the quality of justice in our country. Based on the jurisprudence of the European Court, we have implemented a number of legislative reforms and improved legal practices. Those are important steps for consolidation of human rights protection in our country. Those efforts have not gone unnoticed.
The Republic of Armenia is a leader among Council of Europe member States in terms of proper and consistent implementation of the judgments of the European Court. We are convinced that proper protection of human rights and consolidation of democratic values cannot be effective without a relentless fight against corruption. The fight against corruption must be prioritised at all social and political layers. Armenia is contemplating a new toolkit in that respect. In 2017, the Armenian Parliament unanimously adopted a number of laws that create the first ever national entity for the prevention of corruption, in line with all international standards. The entity will become effective in 2018, and our parliament will elect its members.
The anti-corruption package resulted in the adoption of a law on whistle-blowing and the protection of whistle-blowers. We have also criminalised illicit enrichment. We are determined and committed to continuing our systemic and persistent everyday efforts to eliminate the evil of corruption.
Since accession to the Council of Europe, our country has taken on the profound responsibility of honouring our obligations and respecting our collective commitment to the fundamental values of this Organisation. However, in recent years, we have witnessed an unfortunate and unprecedented crisis of values in this Organisation due to the irresponsible conduct of some MPs who have acted contrary to the core mission of the Council of Europe and inflicted a heavy blow on the Organisation’s reputation. The greater family of the Council of Europe has faced perhaps the most serious challenge since its foundation, as cases of Assembly members being bribed and resulting dishonest voting were exposed.
Since 2014, a number of politically biased and egregious reports and resolutions triggered a sharp change in the attitudes of Armenian society towards this Assembly. However, we hope that such corrupt practices are short-lived. Eventually, they will rise to the surface, rendering the resolutions thus adopted unnecessary and discrediting the individuals and powers responsible. I am convinced that the report of the independent inquiry body looking into the exposed instances of corruption will eradicate those defective practices and help to strengthen member States’ trust in our Organisation.
On accession to the Council of Europe, Armenia undertook a commitment to pursue efforts to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by peaceful means only and to use its influence over Artsakh to foster a solution to the conflict. Although the Council of Europe is not a conflict resolution platform, I believe that it is appropriate briefly to touch on the issue in light of our aforementioned commitment.
Exactly 30 years ago, on the surface everything seemed calm and peaceful in Artsakh. However, the surface image was deceptive. We had never accepted Stalin’s decision to annex Artsakh to Azerbaijan. Throughout those years, the people of Artsakh were extremely anxious, because the Baku authorities did their best to drive Armenians from their historic cradle. According to the 1926 census, Armenians accounted for over 90% of Artsakh’s population. As a consequence of Baku’s policies, by 1988 the percentage had declined to just 77% of the population. I was among the Artsakhis who were worried about those developments.
In February 1988, the Artsakhis rose against Baku’s policies and tried to exercise, by peaceful means, the Artsakh people’s right to self-determination. I was at the forefront of the uprising. The Parliament of Artsakh took the decision and people went out to join peaceful rallies. Azerbaijan’s reaction was not simply negative; it was to massacre Armenians living in the town of Sumgait, hundreds of kilometres away from Artsakh. That was an act of revenge against Armenians for the decision adopted by Artsakh. On one side of the scale were the parliament’s decision and peaceful demonstrations while on the other side were violence and massacres. Everyone dealing with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict must clearly comprehend that fact.
All attempts to put the parties to the conflict on an equal footing are inherently futile. Such an equation is nothing but false impartiality. It represents an equal sign between the perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre and their victims. On 27 February, we will commemorate the victims of the Sumgait massacre. Massacre went on to become state policy, as Azerbaijan unleashed a war aimed at the complete annihilation of the Armenian population of Artsakh. Given the deficit of justice and the threat of extermination, Artsakh had no choice but to resort to self-defence. Yet again, I was at the forefront of that and I have never had the slightest regret about the choice that I made then.
The time is ripe for resolution of this conflict. That requires strict respect for the established cease-fire regime and the honouring of all the agreements reached in the past. Settlement must be peaceful and must overcome the deficit of justice. No matter where I find myself, I will always be at the forefront of this matter. The parties should assume joint responsibility for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and find a compromise, middle-ground settlement. The negotiation process under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs is the only internationally agreed format for the resolution of the conflict. The international community, including the Council of Europe, has reiterated its support for this format on numerous occasions.
The commitment undertaken by Armenia and Azerbaijan requires a joint and concerted effort of all the parties to the conflict. However, Azerbaijan is obviously not ready for that. The aggression that Azerbaijan unleashed against Artsakh in April 2016 was characterised by egregious violations of international humanitarian law against peaceful civilians and prisoners of war. It struck a heavy blow against the negotiation process by reawakening dreadful memories of the Sumgait massacres.
Unfortunately, this Assembly has at times allowed developments that turned a blind eye to the aforementioned facts, following those who are not interested in the peaceful settlement of the conflict. I call on all members of this Assembly to comprehend the potential negative consequences of careless or biased language for the fragile security in Artsakh.
Facing a permanent threat of war, Artsakh continues to build democracy and to promote respect for human rights. In all those initiatives, Armenia will provide full support to Artsakh. Armenia will tenaciously defend the rights and interest of Artsakh and help to strengthen Artsakh’s security. As the Secretary General of the Council of Europe noted, there must be no grey areas in Europe in the protection of human rights. I hope that in the not-too-distant future this Organisation too will stand by the side of Artsakh, with all its expertise. A person living in Artsakh deserves that. The people of Artsakh have long earned that right.
The protection of human rights is a priority for the Artsakh Government. As for the fundamental documents of the Council of Europe, Artsakh has unilaterally subscribed to the European Convention on Human Rights and has undertaken to implement it fully. Commendably, Nagorno-Karabakh has achieved all this on its own, without tangible support from any international organisation. That proves once again that, in Artsakh, respect for and protection of human rights are not mere words but a conscious and determined choice. Artsakh cannot stay out of international processes simply because Azerbaijan is opposed to it. The authorities of Azerbaijan commit flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, not least in the criminal prosecution of opposition figures and even their abduction from another country’s territory.
That brings me back to the work of the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR has examined applications by Azerbaijani citizens that relate to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I understand that the ECHR has taken up this issue with the sole purpose of safeguarding human rights throughout Europe. Nevertheless, the political language and assessments in the decisions of the ECHR can have a direct negative impact on the negotiation process. Therefore, it is necessary for the ECHR to exercise extreme caution in its assessment and to avoid political language.
Distinguished members of the Assembly, our national economies are more vulnerable than ever in the face of present-day global challenges. As a result, welfare and prosperity are at the centre of public attention. The challenging realities in our region in turn undermine the potential for economic growth. Therefore, we aspire to make the best use of all available resources, including the opportunities available to us through integration structures. Five years ago, in 2013, shortly after Armenia’s decision to accede to the Eurasian Economic Union, many people, including a number in this Assembly, expressed scepticism towards Armenia. However, Armenia proved her ability to combine engagement in different integration structures and even to serve as a role model for co-operation. On this day two months ago, on 24 November, on the margins of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Brussels, Armenia and the European Union concluded a comprehensive and enhanced partnership agreement that contemplates a completely new quality of engagement. Armenia’s fully fledged integration into the Eurasian Economic Union was not an obstacle to that in any way.
Today, we actively continue to extend our international engagement in various other directions. The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie is a case in point. It is, for us, a unique platform for engagement in language and culture and the promotion of human rights. Armenia will host the 17th summit of la Francophonie in October 2018 in Yerevan. The motto of the summit will be vivre ensemble, living together, and a pact with the same name will be adopted to strengthen human rights and intercultural and interreligious dialogue. For us, it is not simply a motto. The Armenian nation knows the price of hate speech, intolerance and discrimination, and we fight against these practices on all possible platforms.
Next year, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe. It is a crucial landmark for our greater family, which has been fighting for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe for almost seven decades. An Organisation created by only 10 States now unites 47 States of the European family with a population of 820 million. I consider this to be an enormous achievement that should be cherished. No effort should be spared in building a positive agenda and further enhancing the role and significance of the Organisation. The mission of the Council of Europe extends beyond that, however. The Organisation has a great role to play in political and civilizational terms. I believe that the Organisation needs a further stimulus in redefining its role and significance in the Europe-wide political architecture.
The contemporary mechanism and arrangements are truly wanted by our societies to increase this Organisation’s effectiveness. For quite some time now, we have been closely following and have kept at the centre of our attention the commendable process of reforms initiated at the Council of Europe. Armenia supports the idea of convening a fourth summit of the heads of State and government of the Council of Europe. I believe that it will be a good opportunity to identify the most pressing problems and issues of our continent and revisiting the vision of a stronger and more inclusive Europe. I am confident that the founders of the Council of Europe would have been proud of uniting 47 European countries under one roof. This is an achievement whose importance should not be underestimated. This unity needs continuous support from all of us.
Armenia stands ready for the persistent journey towards a more mature form of engagement and co-operation. Armenia stands ready to contribute by all means at its disposal to the success of the Council of Europe, our shared home of democracy and the rule of law.
The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sargsyan, for your interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions for you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches. First, I call Ms Schou, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Ms SCHOU (Norway, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Thank you, President Sargsyan, for visiting the Council. The 10-year term of your presidency is coming to an end. Summarising these years, what have been Armenia’s major achievements as regards its European agenda, bearing in mind the recent agreement signed between Armenia and the European Union, which you mentioned in your speech?
Mr SARGSYAN* – I should note that, in the course of the past 10 years, Armenia has registered serious achievements on the bilateral track with the European nations as well as in a multilateral setting. As I mentioned, in both 2016 and 2017 the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly co-rapporteurs, in their report, recognised the progress made by Armenia. I do not want to speak for too long, so I will illustrate it with just one example. In 2008, when I was elected as President of the Republic of Armenia, we were facing serious challenges and relations were tense with the Council of Europe. Even the threat of sanctions was heard, and now, 10 years later, we are talking about the achievements of Armenia.
As for our relationship with the European Union, as I mentioned, just two months ago, on 24 November, we and the European Union concluded a new comprehensive agreement, which is opening up large horizons for Armenia. We consider ourselves to be Europeans, regardless of whether Europeans consider us to be such. Our co-operation with European nations and structures stems from our conviction and nobody is imposing it on us.
Ms BARNETT (Germany, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group)* – Talks with representatives of your country, as well as of Azerbaijan, have shown that both sides would like to see an end to the conflict that has been dragging on for the past 26 years. The whole package and individual steps do not diverge too far from one another. We stand for dialogue and reconciliation; what can we do to assist you, as the president, as well as the Parliament of Armenia, to try to resolve the conflict to spare people further suffering and to guarantee a rosier future?
Mr SARGSYAN* – Thank you for your question. Indeed, we and the Azerbaijanis would like this conflict to end as soon as possible, but the problem is that there is a huge difference between those two desires. You ask what you can do and what the international community can do, and I believe that the main obstacle is Azerbaijan’s maximalist and unrealistic expectations vis-à-vis the outcome of the negotiation. If the international community could help Azerbaijan rid itself of those illusions and arrive at a realistic juncture, we could achieve great success in a short time. Indeed, this conflict is an obstacle to the development of our nations. It takes away human lives, it inflicts great financial and material loss, and there is truly a need for this conflict to be resolved.
The negotiations are also hindered by the unfortunate fact that the agreements are not carried out. As you know, in 2016 Azerbaijan unleashed a large-scale military operation with the aim of returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan by use of force. Since then, we have had meetings in Vienna and St Petersburg, followed by meetings in Geneva, and in the course of these meetings – in the first two at least – high-level officials were represented. Mediators from the co-chair countries were there and we agreed that the best way to continue the negotiation was to build some elements of trust. In that sense, we decided to create an international mechanism to investigate violations of the cease-fire, and in some way to widen the mandate of the personal representative of the OSCE chairmanship-in-office, and to give the personal representative additional tools for de-escalation.
Unfortunately, that did not materialise, because immediately after those meetings, Azerbaijan’s highest officials uttered statements saying that these were not their words but those of the co-chairs, and that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is a domestic matter for Azerbaijan. Under those circumstances, to anticipate a swift resolution or intensive progress in the negotiation would be unrealistic. Turning to your question, I would like to say that our appeal to all of us is to get the parties to be realistic.
Mr TÜRKEŞ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Mr President, although there was a protocol between Armenia and Turkey, I recall it not being on anyone’s agenda. Does this mean that the stagnation in Armenian-Turkish relations will continue in the foreseeable future? Is it possible for Armenia to act in any way that will show its intentions to normalise its relations in the region after the presidential elections in your country in March?
Mr SARGSYAN* – We do not really understand very well the demand by the Turkish side to do something. In 2008, after I got elected, I initiated publicising the Armenian-Turkish talks, the result of which was a set of meetings between me and the President of Turkey. The negotiations continued intensively, and in Switzerland in the presence of the foreign affairs ministers of permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, we signed two documents on the establishment of relations between Armenia and Turkey. Before the launch of the negotiations, those documents very clearly stated – and they still do state – that these relations are to be established without any preconditions. Unfortunately, after signing the protocols the Turkish side has constantly tried – to date, it is in fact still trying – to come up with preconditions.
In our international experience, we have not come across similar examples. All terms are negotiated before a deal is signed. After a document is signed, basic morality requires compliance with the requirements of the document. Nine years down the road, we keep hearing again from the Turkish side about the need to allegedly take some steps. Should the establishment of relations between countries require some gestures, some concessions? The document clearly states that relations are to be established, after which all of the existing wrinkles between the two countries should be discussed. But the Turkish side, let me reiterate, is coming up with preconditions. We never can accept any preconditions.
Turkey is a powerful state. Indeed, Turkey has enormous potential, and Armenia’s potential is not to be compared with that of Turkey. But that does not mean that Turkey should speak from a position of power or in the language of preconditions. If that were the case, there are countries much more powerful than Turkey in terms of population and economy, and those powerful States would speak with Turkey from a position of power or in the language of preconditions. The Turkish authorities and the Turkish people would never accept such an attitude. Similarly, we do not accept such an attitude. It would simply be highly desirable, irrespective of the fact that these protocols will, in the near future, sometime before the spring, be voided by Armenia because they are pointless. I believe it would be appropriate and correct for the Turkish side – to maintain the fragile stability in the region – to give up on its biased position of unequivocal support for Azerbaijan.
I remind you that during the hostilities in 2016, Turkey was the only country in the world that expressed support for the military action. In four days, Turkey’s President and Prime Minister issued five statements in support and in defence of Azerbaijan. What can we do under these circumstances? It would be an insult for our people to make one-sided concessions for establishing relations.
Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – Going beyond theory and talking about the association agreement between Europe and Armenia, what key measures have been taken so far in combating corruption, violence and crime, and against terrorism? Talking about the current agreement, which we think will be more ambitious, what is the difference between this and the previous one? What are the key elements which are more ambitious and what elements are there in this agreement which will make it a reality?
Mr SARGSYAN* – In my speech, I addressed the efforts that we have made in Armenia towards eradicating corruption, and I ought to say that unfortunately our efforts have not borne too great results. This despicable phenomenon exists in Armenia, as in other countries. As I said, last year we enacted a law to create a corruption prevention commission. This legislation is fully in line with European best standards. Members of the commission are to be elected by the Armenian Parliament after 9 April, once the amended constitution provisions come into full force.
As I said, we adopted a law on whistle-blowing and the protection of whistle-blowers. We have criminalised illicit enrichment, and, if my memory is correct, nearly 500 Armenian officials will be required to submit declarations of their assets and income. For a country as small as Armenia, that is a huge number. Armenia’s vibrant civil society is making a contribution to exposing, solving and preventing such crimes.
On the issue of punishment, every year the number of criminal cases initiated and judgments pronounced on corruption offences multiplies several-fold. If you are asking me about general crime and criminality, in 2017 the serious crime rate in Armenia reduced by about 20%. That includes murder and other serious crimes. Armenia’s law enforcement system is fighting criminality intensely.
On your question about the differences between this agreement with the European Union and the previous one, there are many more opportunities in this agreement. We agreed an action plan with the European Union, and the European Union and the Council of Europe have supported us in the reform process by providing expert advice and technical assistance. The current agreement – the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement – is a legal document that needs to be ratified by the Armenian Parliament and the national parliaments of the remaining 27 European Union member States. CEPA covers all walks of life, and is legally binding. We are confident that our co-operation with the European Union will deepen, because we co-operate with the European organisations not to show people that we are co-operating but because we consider ourselves bearers of the European value system.
Mr PSYCHOGIOS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – First, what impact will the transition to a parliamentary system have on the rule of law and the protection of human rights? Secondly, what impact will the privatisation and liberalisation policies in the new constitution have, given that neoliberal policies, wherever they have been applied, have increased inequality and led to the violation of socioeconomic rights? What countermeasures will the government take in that context?
Mr SARGSYAN* – I believe that the transition to a parliamentary form of government is a logical next step in the reforms under way in Armenia. We are profoundly convinced that parliamentary government ensures inclusive, transparent governance, and is more in line with our vision for the consolidation of democracy. I did not get the second part of your question. We believe that the parliamentary form of government will help to develop democracy and human rights protection in our country. It will have a great impact on civil society, and will enable greater accountability and closer co-operation with our European partners.
Mr FOURNIER (France)* – How is Armenia going to reconcile its membership of the eastern partnership of the European Union with its membership of the Eurasian Economic Union? What is the current state of relations between Armenia and the Russian Federation?
Mr SARGSYAN* – I think we are already reconciling the two. We have no doubt that, by acceding to various integration structures, one can certainly move forward confidently. Since 2009-10, we have been negotiating a new agreement with the European Union. That period overlapped with our negotiations with the Eurasian Economic Union. Officials in the Eurasian Economic Union and officials in the European Union clearly knew that we were negotiating with both integration structures. In the initial phase, both welcomed our position, but there came a time when our colleagues in the European Union said that membership of the two integration structures was irreconcilable, so we were forced to make a decision to accede to the Eurasian Economic Union, because 1 000 strings attach Armenia’s economy to the economies of the Eurasian Economic Union member States. We have many centuries of history together, and we have historical friendships. The vast majority – up to 80% – of Armenia’s citizens support the notion of closer co-operation with the Eurasian Economic Union.
To the credit of European Union officials, much has changed in their way of thinking over time. By the time of the eastern partnership’s Riga Summit, it was decided to have a differentiated approach. It was decided that it is truly possible to reconcile membership of the different integration structures. We then launched intensive talks, and as you see we arrived at the right destination. On 24 November, we signed an agreement with the European Union, too.
I believe that reconciliation requires something very simple: one needs to be candid with one’s partners. One must not conceal the negotiation process and the undertakings. If in one integration process you have commitments that do not contradict your commitments under another document, why not reconcile them? We had a similar experience with the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, as a member of which we co-operate with NATO. This history dates back years. I believe that in future there will be close co-operation between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. The future is all about that co-operation. The problems that currently exist, or that may emerge tomorrow, are no good for development. These problems are absorbing enormous resources that could be diverted towards bettering people’s lives.
Mr SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – You said that you were a leader in the war against Azerbaijan. Why did you not mention the Khojaly massacre, in which approximately 800 kids, elderly people and women were killed by Armenians? Why did you not mention the ethnic cleansing – 100% in Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven surrounding regions? And now you try to mislead the international community. How can you organise your policy if you are not ready to implement what the resolutions of this Organisation and other organisations – the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and all international organisations – have said about the occupation of Azerbaijani territories? You are not ready to accept anyone from this Organisation. Is this how Armenian goes about integration?
Mr SARGSYAN* – I first ask you to calm down and be cooler, and not to distort my words. I did not announce that I was a war leader – I did not have that honour. I was a participant in the just struggle of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Why did I not mention the incidents in Khojaly, which you call a genocide? It was for the simple reason that immediately after those painful events, Ayaz Mutallibov, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, stated, in great detail and an informed way, facts that clearly showed who actually organised and carried out those massacres.
Genocide is not a good thing. Surviving a genocide is not an honour; it is a suffering. I very much regret the trend in Azerbaijan to want whatever the Armenians have had. This is impermissible. Why do you need to call something that never occurred – and, in particular, that was not carried out by the Armenians – a genocide?
As to those international organisations, the commitments we assumed and our fulfilment of them, you are simply wrong. There is no international organisation that would have adopted a decision that would have been rejected by Armenia. You tried to recall the United Nations Security Council resolutions. My advice to you, when you go into a topic, would be to really go into it and study it. The world knows that the United Nations Security Council has never discussed the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions on stopping hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh area. After each resolution, Azerbaijan said it would not stop the fighting. It attempted new offensives and attacks, but as usual it suffered losses. In those four resolutions, the only commitment on Armenia was to use its reputation, authority and influence to get the hostilities to stop. To the credit of the then Government of Armenia, we honoured this one commitment. Azerbaijan – the one responsible for the hostilities – failed to stop the fighting.
As you know, in 1994, the cease-fire agreement was signed, but it was signed under the influence of other factors, not the United Nations Security Council resolution. Unfortunately, the provisions of that cease-fire agreement are not being honoured. The agreement clearly states that the hostilities need to stop, and for a political solution, an extensive process of talks must be launched. As your own words clearly illustrate, you want the most in this process of negotiation – you want what is impossible. You want to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, xenophobia in Azerbaijan has gone so far that you are explicitly saying that you need Karabakh, but without the Armenians. That is impossible. It is never going to happen.
The essence of the struggle of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh is very simple. It is a struggle for liberty and self-determination, and I am sure that that struggle cannot have anything but a positive outcome.
The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Sargsyan. On behalf of the Assembly, I thank you most warmly, Mr President, for your address and the answers given to the questions.
The ballot for electing the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights is now suspended until this afternoon’s sitting. Voting will reopen at 3.30 p.m. and close at 5 p.m.
5. 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.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)
CONTENTS
1. Second round of election of Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
2. Changes in the membership of committees
3. Joint debate: Working towards a framework for modern sports governance and Good football governance
Presentation by Mr Mogens Jensen of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Document 14464 and Addendum
Presentation by Ms Brasseur of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media in Document 14452
Speakers: Mr Psychogios, Mr Zavoli, Ms Hovhannisyan, Mr Mavrotas, Mr Kiliç, Mr Comte, Mr Reiss, Lord Foulkes, Mr Wenaweser, Mr Stroe, Mr Önal, Baroness Massey, Mr Rzayev, Ms McCarthy, Mr Vallini, Mr Vejkey, Mr Golub, Mr Müller, Ms Heinrich, Ms Huovinen, Ms Prună, Mr Gonçalves, Ms Christoffersen and Mr Kern
Replies: Mr Mogens Jensen, Ms Brasseur and Ms Santa Ana
Amendments 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 5, 6 and 1 adopted
Draft resolution in Document 14464, as amended, adopted
Amendments 7 to 9 adopted
Draft recommendation in Document 14464, as amended, adopted
Amendments 1 to 3 adopted
Draft resolution in Document 14452, as amended, adopted
4. Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia
Questions: Ms Schou, Ms Barnett, Mr Türkeş, Ms Rodríguez Hernández, Mr Psychogios, Mr Fournier and Mr Seyidov
5. Next public sitting
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]
AKTAY, Yasin [Mr]
AMON, Werner [Mr]
AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms])
ANDERSON, Donald [Lord] (GALE, Roger [Sir])
ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]
ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]
ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]
BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [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])
BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]
BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]
BOUYX, Bertrand [M.] (WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.])
BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]
BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])
BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]
BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]
BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr]
BYRNE, Liam [Mr]
CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms])
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]
CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])
CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]
CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]
COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (PLEȘOIANU, Liviu Ioan Adrian [Mr])
CROWE, Seán [Mr]
CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]
CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]
DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]
DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]
DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]
DI STEFANO, Manlio [Mr]
DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DUNDEE, Alexander [The Earl of] [ ]
DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]
EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]
EIDE, Petter [Mr] (EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr])
ENGIN, Didem [Ms] (BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr])
ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]
ESTRELA, Edite [Mme] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])
EVANS, Nigel [Mr]
FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]
FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms])
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])
FOULKES, George [Lord] (PRESCOTT, John [Mr])
FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]
FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]
GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]
GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]
GASHI, Afrim [Mr] (HADRI, Shpresa [Ms])
GATTI, Marco [M.]
GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]
GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]
GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]
GOGA, Pavol [M.] (KRESÁK, Peter [Mr])
GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr])
GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]
GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]
GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]
GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]
GRAF, Martin [Mr]
GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (HEER, Alfred [Mr])
GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]
GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]
HAIDER, Roman [Mr]
HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]
HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]
HEBNER, Martin [Mr] (KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr])
HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]
HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]
HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]
HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]
HOWELL, John [Mr]
HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]
HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])
HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]
HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms])
IBRAHIMOVIĆ, Ervin [Mr] (ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms])
JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr] (JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr])
JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]
JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]
JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]
JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]
JORDANA, Carles [Mr]
KALMARI, Anne [Ms]
KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])
KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]
KASSEGGER, Axel [Mr] (BURES, Doris [Ms])
KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]
KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]
KERN, Claude [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])
KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]
KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]
KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])
KITEV, Betian [Mr]
KLICH, Bogdan [Mr]
KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])
KOÇ, Haluk [M.]
KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]
KOX, Tiny [Mr]
KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]
KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]
LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]
LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]
LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]
LIOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]
LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]
LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]
LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])
LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]
LUPU, Marian [Mr]
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]
MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms]
MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]
MERGEN, Martine [Mme] (HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme])
MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]
MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]
MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])
NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]
NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms]
NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]
NICK, Andreas [Mr]
NICOLAE, Andrei [Mr] (TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms])
NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]
OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]
OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]
OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (BERNHARD, Marc [Mr])
OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]
ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]
OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]
O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]
OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])
PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]
PAVIĆEVIĆ, Sanja [Ms] (SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr])
PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms]
POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])
POPA, Ion [M.] (ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr])
PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]
PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]
PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])
PUTICA, Sanja [Ms]
REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ABAD, Damien [M.])
ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (MATARÍ, Juan José [M.])
RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]
RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]
RZAYEV, Rovshan [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])
SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme] (MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme])
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]
ŠEPIĆ, Senad [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.]
SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]
STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]
STELLINI, David [Mr]
STIENEN, Petra [Ms]
STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]
STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]
ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]
SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])
TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]
TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]
THIÉRY, Damien [M.]
TILKI, Attila [Mr] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])
TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]
TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]
TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]
TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])
TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr]
VALLINI, André [M.] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])
VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]
VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])
VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]
VEN, Mart van de [Mr]
VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.])
VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme] (MAIRE, Jacques [M.])
WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]
WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]
WOLD, Morten [Mr]
YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]
YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr]
ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr] (D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms])
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
ATSHEMYAN, Karine [Ms]
BAKRADZE, David [Mr]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]
BESELIA, Eka [Ms]
BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]
CHRISTENSEN, Jette [Ms]
COMTE, Raphaël [M.]
CORREIA, Telmo [M.]
COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme]
GERMANN, Hannes [Mr]
JØRGENSEN, Jan E. [Mr]
KELLEHER, Colette [Ms]
LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.]
LOUHELAINEN, Anne [Ms]
LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]
MAKHMUDYAN, Rustam [Mr]
MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr]
MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]
OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr]
ÖZSOY, Hişyar [Mr]
PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]
POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme]
RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]
RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]
SHEPPARD, Tommy [Mr]
TORNARE, Manuel [M.]
TOUHIG, Don [Lord]
WHITFIELD, Martin [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 FILALI, Hassan [M.]
EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]
HAMIDINE, Abdelali [M.]
KHADER, Qais [Mr]
LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]
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 / 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
ABAD, Damien [M.] / REISS, Frédéric [M.]
ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]
ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]
AMON, Werner [Mr]
ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms] / PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr]
ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]
ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]
ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]
BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms] / VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr]
BAKRADZE, David [Mr] / KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]
BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]
BARNETT, Doris [Ms]
BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]
BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr] / ENGIN, Didem [Ms]
BECHT, Olivier [M.]
BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr] / KOBZA, Jiři [Mr]
BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr] / KIRAL, Serhii [Mr]
BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]
BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]
BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]
BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]
BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]
BLAHA, Ľuboš [Mr]
BLANCHART, Philippe [M.] / SUTTER, Petra De [Ms]
BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]
BOSIĆ, Mladen [Mr]
BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]
BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]
BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]
BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]
BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr] / GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme]
BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr] / MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]
CAZEAU, Bernard [M.]
CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms] / AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr]
CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]
CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]
CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]
CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]
COWEN, Barry [Mr] TROY, Robert [Mr]
CROWE, Seán [Mr]
CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]
CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]
DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]
D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms] / ZAVOLI, Roger [Mr]
DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]
DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.]
DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr]
DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]
DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]
DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr] / LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr]
EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]
ECCLES, Diana [Lady] / BALFE, Richard [Lord]
EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr] / EIDE, Petter [Mr]
ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr]
FIALA, Doris [Mme]
FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]
FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]
GAILLOT, Albane [Mme] / VALLINI, André [M.]
GALE, Roger [Sir] / ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]
GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]
GATTI, Marco [M.]
GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]
GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]
GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr] / GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr]
GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]
GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]
GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]
GROSDIDIER, François [M.] / KERN, Claude [M.]
GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]
GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]
HADRI, Shpresa [Ms] / GASHI, Afrim [Mr]
HAIDER, Roman [Mr]
HAJDUKOVIĆ, Domagoj [Mr]
HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]
HEER, Alfred [Mr] / GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.]
HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]
HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]
HETTO-GAASCH, Françoise [Mme] /MERGEN, Martine [Mme]
HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]
JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr] / JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]
JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]
JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]
JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]
JORDANA, Carles [Mr]
KALMARI, Anne [Ms]
KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]
KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms]
KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]
KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]
KITEV, Betian [Mr]
KOÇ, Haluk [M.]
KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]
KORENJAK KRAMAR, Ksenija [Ms]
KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]
KOX, Tiny [Mr]
KRIŠTO, Borjana [Ms]
KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]
KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]
KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]
LACROIX, Christophe [M.]
LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms] / CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr]
LAMBERT, Jérôme [M.]
LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]
LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]
LIOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]
LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]
LOUIS, Alexandra [Mme]
LUPU, Marian [Mr]
MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms] / BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]
MAIRE, Jacques [M.] / VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme]
MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]
MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]
MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]
MATARÍ, Juan José [M.] / ROCA, Jordi [Mr]
MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme] / SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER, Elisabeth [Mme]
McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]
MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]
MULDER, Anne [Mr] / OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]
NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]
NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms]
NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]
NICK, Andreas [Mr]
NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]
OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]
OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]
OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]
O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]
PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms] / FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms]
PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.] / BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr]
PELKONEN, Jaana Maarit [Ms]
PISCO, Paulo [M.]
POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms] / POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.]
PRESCOTT, John [Mr] / FOULKES, George [Lord]
PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms]
PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms]
PUTICA, Sanja [Ms]
RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]
ROSETA, Helena [Mme] / ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]
RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]
ŞAHİN USTA, Leyla [Ms] / CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms]
SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]
SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]
SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]
SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr] / PAVIĆEVIĆ, Sanja [Ms]
ŠEPIĆ, Senad [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.]
SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]
STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]
STIENEN, Petra [Ms]
STIER, Davor Ivo [Mr]
STRIK, Tineke [Ms]
STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]
ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]
SVENSSON, Michael [Mr]
TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms]
TERIK, Tiit [Mr]
TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]
TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]
TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr]
TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]
TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]/MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr]
TÜRKEŞ, Yıldırım Tuğrul [Mr]
TUȘA, Adriana Diana [Ms]NICOLAE, Andrei [Mr]
TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]/ VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.]
VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]
VEN, Mart van de [Mr]
WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]
WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]
YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]
YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]
YENEROĞLU, Mustafa [Mr]
ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms] /BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms]