1. Introduction
1. On 22 June 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted
Resolution 1822 (2011) on the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly. On 24
June, at the Bureau’s proposal, it instructed the Committee on Rules
of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to draw up a
report on the implementation of that resolution and “the necessary
modifications of the Rules of Procedure, which shall include revised
terms of reference of committees, including the implementation of
the proposal that the Assembly should be able to consider 'deep security'
issues, transitional arrangements and recent issues relating to
the interpretation of the Rules such as committees' standing mandates
and deadlines for the preparation of reports”.
2. At its meeting on 23 June 2011, anticipating the Assembly’s
decisions, the Committee on Rules of Procedure appointed two rapporteurs,
one of whom – Mr Andreas Gross – was assigned a report on the amendment
of various provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly,
and the other – Mr Egidijus Vareikis – a report on the terms of
reference of the Assembly committees.
3. The committee recalls in this matter that the Assembly, while
reflecting on the reform, aimed to define objectives to develop
the context within which it operates. Therefore, the revision of
the Rules of Procedure is not an objective in itself. The ambition
of the Assembly’s reform, which is rather “to strengthen its political relevance
and effectiveness, to make it more visible and to improve its members’
involvement”, plainly presupposes more of “a change of practice”
than a change in the rules. In this context, the credibility of
the Assembly is a crucial issue: strengthening the Assembly in its
functioning and means of action shall be consistent with the aim
of strengthening its credibility.
4. Thus, certain decisions taken by the Assembly in
Resolution 1822 (2011) need not be expressed in amendments to rules. On the
other hand, for the sake of practicality and clarity of the implications
of the reform, the amendments to rules required by the restructuring
of the committees are also set out in this report.
5. Apart from the questions expressly mentioned in
Resolution 1822 (2011) (see chapter 2), the committee might deem it expedient
to examine other provisions of the Rules of Procedure whose application
is problematic or which call for clarification (see chapter 3).
2. Implementation
of the provisions of Resolution
1822 (2011) requiring amendment of the Rules of Procedure or of
the complementary texts
2.1. Motions for recommendations
and resolutions (Rule 24)
6. Under the terms of the current Rules of Procedure,
committees are competent to draw up a report when properly mandated
by a decision to refer a motion for a recommendation or resolution
(or any other document regarded as an official document by the President
of the Assembly). At present the motions are put forward by the
members of the Assembly and, to be tabled, need to receive the signatures
of 20 parliamentarians belonging to five national delegations.
7. Paragraph 5.1.2 of
Resolution
1822 (2011) acknowledges that committees can also table motions
for recommendations and resolutions in order that these may perform
a more active role in determining their work programmes.
8. It is therefore expedient to clarify the arrangements under
which committees may put forward motions. In that respect, it is
important to bear in mind that in recent years it has been the Assembly’s
intention to tighten the conditions governing the tabling of motions
for recommendations and resolutions, particularly by raising the number
of signatories from ten to twenty (see
Resolution 1698 (2009), paragraph 3.5). Consequently, the conditions laid down
for committees need to be approximated to those stipulated for members’
motions. Rule 45.3 sets the quorum in committee at one-third of
its members (i.e. a quorum of 28 for an 84-member committee). It
is therefore legitimate to subject the tabling of motions by committees
to the stipulation in the Rules of Procedure that their adoption
requires a quorum of members.
9. Finally, it is self-evident that committees should table motions
only on themes or subjects strictly relating to their fields of
competence as established in their specific terms of reference.
– Proposal
10. Concerning motions for recommendations and resolutions,
it is proposed to amend Rule 24.2 of the Rules of Procedure by adding
at the end of the first sentence the following words: “or be adopted
with the requisite quorum by a committee, as defined in Rule 45.3,
provided that the motion comes within the committee’s specific terms
of reference.”
2.2. Reference to committee
(Rule 25)
2.2.1. Competence of the
Bureau
11. Paragraph 5.1.2 of
Resolution 1822 (2011) proposes to codify in the Rules of Procedure a practice which
has been well established for some years by clearly acknowledging
the possibility for the Bureau of the Assembly “to propose reports
for debate in the Assembly”. In concrete terms, this essentially
comprises the Bureau’s initiatives to refer certain questions to
committees for report and debate in the Assembly – for example on
the state of human rights or the state of democracy, on the religious
dimension of intercultural dialogue, on living together in 21st-century
Europe, or the effective implementation of the European Convention
on Human Rights and the Interlaken Process – as well as the Bureau’s
proposals concerning the requisite action on adopted texts. These
decisions of the Bureau are naturally subject to the Assembly’s ratification,
like motions for texts, so as to be duly referred to committees.
– Proposal
12. Regarding the Bureau’s competence for reference to
committee, it is proposed to amend Rule 25 by adding after Rule
25.1 the following new paragraph: “The Bureau may refer a specific
matter to a committee for a report to the Assembly, particularly
as part of the action to be taken on an adopted text, provided that
the matter has not already been referred to it.”.
2.2.2. Competence of committees
– clarification of the notions of reference for report and of forwarding for
information
13. Paragraph 5.1.4 of
Resolution 1822 (2011) states that it would be useful “to make explicit in
the Rules of Procedure the various options which committees have
when a motion is referred to them for information”.
14. Rule 25.1 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that a motion
for a resolution or recommendation tabled by members of the Assembly
(or another document where relevant) is the subject of a decision
by the Bureau that it “shall be referred to one or more committees,
forwarded to one or more committees for information, or that no
further action be taken”.
15. Only formal reference to a committee by the Assembly enables
it to draw up a report which it may submit to the Assembly. Conversely,
the forwarding of a proposal for a text to a committee for information
cannot give rise to the preparation of a committee report to be
submitted for debate to the Assembly. Therefore a committee cannot
appoint a rapporteur in this context.
16. Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure, dealing with committee
reports, specifies that the report of a committee “shall normally
contain one or more draft texts” (48.2) but that “committees may
table information reports, which shall not be subject to a vote
in the Assembly” (48.6). Under the terms of Rule 23.2.d of the Rules of Procedure, only
these committee reports have the status of official Assembly documents
and are published as such.
17. However, a committee to which a reference has been made is
under no obligation to prepare a report, and remains free to determine
the action to be taken on the reference. It may accordingly decide:
- to present a report containing
a draft text which will be submitted to the Assembly or to the Standing Committee
for adoption;
- to present an information report which does not comprise
a draft text but may nevertheless be debated in the Assembly or
the Standing Committee;
- not to follow up the reference;
- to merge the new reference with one or more previous references
for report.
18. A committee to which a motion for a recommendation or resolution
has been forwarded for information cannot present a report for debate
in the Assembly. In practice, committees simply take note of such
motions. They may nevertheless discuss any paper or information
note prepared by one of their members. Only recently has a committee
decided to look further into a particular question and to instruct
one of its members to prepare an internal information report, which
was merely circulated to its members as a committee document.
19. It should be recalled here that it behoves every committee
to examine any subject for which it is competent within its terms
of reference (Rule 43.1); in particular it may discuss any paper
or information note from its members, although, once again, only
a formal reference for report permits it to draw up a report for debate
in the Assembly.
– Proposal
20. It is therefore proposed to clarify the Rules of
Procedure:
- by adding to the
end of Rule 25.1 that “a document forwarded for information may
not give rise to a committee report to the Assembly”;
- by adding to Rule 43.1, after the first sentence, that
committees “may draw up a report, or an information report, for
presentation to the Assembly or to the Standing Committee in accordance
with Rule 48, merge references, or take no action on a reference.
In the last two cases, they shall inform the Bureau accordingly”.
2.3. Organisation of
part-sessions and plenary debates
21. One of the major innovations of the reform concerns
the organisation of the Assembly’s part-sessions which, as from
the 2012 session, will undergo significant changes, particularly
in the number, nature and length of plenary debates.
2.3.1. Introduction of
a free debate
22. The Assembly decided in paragraph 5.3.1 of
Resolution 1822 (2011) “to introduce one 'free debate' during each part-session”,
in which members of the Assembly would be able to speak on a topic
of their choice.
23. This measure, designed to make sessions more interesting and
lively, harks back to the discussions in the Committee on Rules
of Procedure in 2007 on the report on “Improving the participation
of members in Parliamentary Assembly plenary sessions and committee
meetings”.
This
report was behind an identical measure also intended to make the
debates before the Assembly more lively and attractive: under the
terms of Rule 34.6 of the Rules of Procedure, members may freely
take the floor on a question of their choice for not more than fifteen
minutes, on the first day of a part-session. But this provision,
which came into force in January 2008, has not had the success expected
and has never been used. It would therefore be expedient to delete this
obsolete provision from the Rules of Procedure and replace in with
the new procedure envisaged, that of free debates.
24. The conditions of this exercise should nevertheless be clearly
determined, particularly by setting a maximum time – one hour
–
and circumscribing members’ freedom to speak with a reference to
the existing provisions on respect for the dignity of persons –
those of Rule 21 which the Committee on Rules of Procedure set out
to strengthen in a recent report on “Ensuring protection against
attacks on a person's honour and reputation”.
Indeed,
as the committee emphasised in its written contribution to the report
on the reform of the Assembly, it is to be feared that members may
seize the opportunity of a free debate to raise subjects of little relevance
to the general concerns of European citizens, or purely national
issues pointing to internal political quarrels, or questions arousing
national animosities liable to cause altercations between delegations.
– Proposal
25. Regarding Assembly plenary
debates, it is therefore proposed to add after Rule 37
the following new rule:
“Free debate
The Assembly may hold a free debate lasting for not more
than one hour. The President shall call the members of the Assembly
or the members of delegations of special guests, observers or partners
for democracy wishing to speak on any subject of their choice not
appearing on the agenda of the part-session. The Assembly may hold
only one such debate during a part-session. Speakers must have their names
entered in the speakers’ register. Their statements must comply
with the principles set out in Rule 21.6 on acceptable words. This
debate shall not give rise to a vote.”
and to delete Rule 34.6.
2.3.2. Explanatory notes
to amendments
27. It is interesting to note that the Committee on Rules of Procedure
examined this measure in its 2007 report on “Application and amendment
of various provisions of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure” (
Doc. 11431) and at the call of its rapporteur, Mr Erik Jurgens,
but did not accept it, considering, in particular, the technical
obstacles which its implementation would raise (additional time
for translation, the need to adjust IT tools).
28. Here too, the Rules of Procedure need to prescribe the operating
conditions of this possibility which members of the Assembly will
have to add explanations to amendments tabled. In that respect,
the Committee on Rules of Procedure proposes to take over some of
the provisions in the rules of national parliaments, particularly
as regards the length of the explanatory notes.
– Proposal
29. Regarding amendments, it is proposed to add after
Rule 33.2 the following new paragraph: “Except where an amendment
is self-explanatory, it may be accompanied by an explanatory note
of no more than 50 words to aid understanding or clarify the scope
of the amendment”.
2.3.3. Reduction of speaking
time
30. The Assembly, in paragraph 6.1.1 of
Resolution 1822 (2011), invited the Bureau “to reduce the maximum speaking
time for members on the speakers’ lists to four minutes or, where
necessary, to three minutes”.
31. It should be recalled that the “Additional provisions relating
to Assembly debates”, regulating speaking time in particular, have
been amended several times in the last few years (in 2007 and 2009),
with speaking time being increased to 13 minutes for rapporteurs
to present their reports and reply to statements, reduced for presenting
amendments (to 30 seconds), and rapporteurs for opinion being allocated
the same time as speakers in the debate.
32. The speaking time normally allowed under the provisions in
force is five minutes. However, in recent years, when the list of
speakers has been long and/or numerous amendments have been tabled,
the time has been limited to four, even three, minutes. This provision
shall be amended in order to carry the Assembly’s decision into
the Rules of Procedure.
33. It should also be noted that the renovation of the Chamber
and the installation of several wide screens now permits display
of the speaking time remaining. The previous technical equipment
has been deactivated, so the additional provisions need to be updated
in this respect.
– Proposal
34. It is proposed to amend the additional provisions
relating to Assembly debates:
34.1. concerning speaking time, by amending paragraph
1 as follows:
“Speakers
registered for a debate shall have four minutes’ speaking time”.
34.1. concerning the organisation of debates, by
amending paragraph 5 as follows:
“To ensure that the speaking time
is respected, the time available is displayed and a bell rings when
the time ends”.
2.4. Structure and functioning
of committees
35. Another prominent measure of the Assembly reform
concerns committees, their structure and their working methods.
36. As was said in the introduction, the Committee on Rules of
Procedure has been instructed to draw up a report on the new terms
of reference of the Assembly committees. But in order to preserve
a certain unity in the overall application of the reform, the regulative
aspects of the implications of
Resolution 1822 (2011) for committees will be discussed in the framework of
the present report.
2.4.1. Appointment of
committees
37. The Assembly, in
Resolution 1822 (2011) (paragraph 6.4), decided to reduce the number of its committees
from ten to eight and to amend the terms of reference of most of
them by transferring certain fields of competence. These decisions
affect several provisions of the Rules of Procedure, principally
Rule 42 on the appointment of committees, which need to be amended
accordingly.
– Modification of the membership
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs
38. Thus, to take account of the new financial and budgetary
responsibilities assigned to the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Resolution 1822 (2011) decided that the number of its members should be increased
“with a view to ensuring an equitable geographical representation
of members”, it being understood that the chairs of the Assembly’s
five political groups would be
ex officio members
and that no national delegation could have more than one member
on the committee.
39. This provision, added by way of an amendment during the Assembly
debate in order to enhance the guarantee of balanced representation
of national delegations in the committee, could have unintended consequences
in that it is liable to have the opposite result to the desired
objective. Indeed, political groups appointing members to the committee
may quite possibly find themselves unable, for want of volunteers,
to appoint members of a delegation which is not already represented
on it.
40. Let it also be recalled that the Committee on Rules of Procedure
itself decided in 2007 to modify its own structure in order to resolve
the recurrent problem, encountered for years, of its members’ participation.
Its membership
was reduced from 53 to 27, 25 of them appointed by the political
groups and not by the national delegations. It would therefore be
surprising if the Committee on Rules of Procedure, notwithstanding
the widening of its remit, manages to ensure the participation of
national delegations which, up to 2008, did not see fit to have
their members sit on it. So it seems pointless to increase substantially
the number of committee members, in the knowledge that certain national
delegations will not be able to ensure effective participation of their
members in the committee’s proceedings. A limited increase of membership
is preferable.
41. It is therefore proposed to increase the number of members
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure to 37, broken down as follows:
30 members chosen by the political groups according to the d’Hondt
system, two non-registered members, and the chairs of the political
groups as ex officio members.
– Limitation of committee membership
for members
42. In addition,
Resolution
1822 (2011) decides “to limit each member of the Assembly to full
membership of two committees, with the exception of the committees
whose members are nominated by the political groups,” that is the
Committee on Rules of Procedure and the Monitoring Committee. It
is therefore appropriate to amend Rule 42.2.
– Changes in the content of
the committees’ specific terms of reference
43. The revision of the terms of reference of the committees,
as stated above, involved transferring areas of responsibility from
one committee to another, as well as redefining their fields of
action and changing the names of some of them.
It
is therefore necessary to adapt certain provisions of the Rules
of Procedure, and in particular:
- to
delete Rule 43.5 on the competence of committees to develop relations
with non-governmental organisations, since the wording has been
fully incorporated – and reinforced – in the general terms of reference
of the committees;
- to delete the second sentence of Rule 46.6 – which disqualifies
members of delegations of special guests, observers and partners
for democracy from attending meetings of the Committee on Economic Affairs
and Development when it discusses Council of Europe budgetary and
administrative questions – which has become devoid of purpose;
- to amend Rule 60.7 on partner for democracy status in
order to mention the Assembly committees competent to consider a
request for the status and to monitor the progress achieved in honouring
the undertakings made by the parliaments concerned;
- to amend Rules 18.5, 19.3, 58 and 59 with regard to the
title of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Proposals
44. It is proposed to replace Rule 42.1, setting out
the list of the Assembly’s general committees and fixing the number
of their members, with the following new paragraph:
“At the beginning of each ordinary
session, the Assembly shall set up the following general committees:
1. Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy (84 seats),
2. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (84 seats),
3. Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable
Development (84 seats),
4. Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons
(84 seats),
5. Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media
(84 seats),
6. Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination (84 seats),
7. Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments
by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
(84 seats),
8. Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs (37 seats).”
45. A textual amendment is also necessary in Rule 42.2 on the
representation of national delegations on committees, in order to
replace, whenever they appear, the words “in each of the first eight
committees” with the words “in each of the first six committees”.
46. As to the composition of the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs, it is proposed to amend Rule
42.3 by replacing the words “25 of the 27 members” with the words
“30 of the 37 members” and to add the following sentence after the
second sentence: “Chairpersons of political groups shall be ex officio members of the committee.
The political groups shall nominate the members with a view to ensuring
a fair representation of national delegations”.
47. Since the number of committees on which a parliamentarian
sits as a full member is to be limited, a new paragraph should be
added after Rule 42.5: “No member of the Assembly can be a full
member of more than two committees, with the exception of committees
whose members are nominated by the political groups”.
48. Finally, subject to the decisions taken concerning committee
terms of reference and names, it is proposed to amend the name of
the Political Affairs Committee to the Committee on Political Affairsand Democracy in Rules 18.5, 19.3,
58 and 59, and to delete paragraph 43.5 and the second sentence
of Rule 46.6.
49. Regarding
partner for democracy
status, Rule 60.7 should be replaced by the following
new rule:
“The decision to grant,
suspend or withdraw partner for democracy status shall be taken
by a resolution of the Assembly following a report by the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy with an opinion by the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and an opinion by the Committee
on Equality and Non-Discrimination and, where appropriate, an opinion
by any other relevant Assembly committee. These committees, in the
fields within their specific terms of reference, review the progress
achieved in fulfilling the undertakings made by the parliaments
concerned when they requested this status”.
2.4.2. Reports of committees
and follow-up to adopted texts
50. The report on the reform of the Assembly also fittingly
makes a priority of the follow-up to the texts adopted by the Assembly.
The implementation of the Assembly’s decisions is crucially important;
it determines the visibility of the Assembly’s action and the effectiveness
of its positions.
51. The report more specifically emphasises the committees’ role
and proposes expressing in the Rules of Procedure the need for their
rapporteurs to be assigned a more active and more official role
in following up the Assembly’s decisions.
52. Accordingly,
Resolution
1822 (2011) (paragraph 5.2.1) proposes allowing rapporteurs to
retain their reference for a year after the adoption of the adopted
text to ensure its follow-up, and to report back to the committee
at the end of that time.
53. It should be recalled that the committees themselves are already
responsible for examining the action taken on the texts adopted
by the Assembly on the basis of their reports (Rule 43.2) and that
under their revised general terms of reference they “ensure the
appropriate follow-up to the resolutions and recommendations adopted
by the Assembly in the fields covered by their specific terms of
reference”.
54. Finally,
Resolution
1822 (2011) asks that “standing mandates” be given “a firm legal
basis in the Rules”. The question of general or standing terms of
reference is discussed in the report on the committees’ terms of reference.
Its conclusions are
therefore to be expressed in regulative terms by this report.
– Proposals
55. It is proposed to add to the Rules of Procedure provisions
on strengthening the role of rapporteurs:
55.1. by adding, at the end of Rule 48.1, the following sentence:
“A rapporteur shall remain in charge of the follow-up to his or
her report for a term of one year after the adoption of the text
by the Assembly.”;
55.2. by adding, after Rule 48.6, a new paragraph on general
rapporteurs:
“Committees may appoint
one or more general rapporteurs whose terms of reference and term
of office they shall determine beforehand. The terms of reference
shall be submitted to the Bureau for approval and its decision shall
be subject to ratification by the Assembly”.
2.4.3. Bureaux of committees
and sub-committees
56. Concerning the bureaux of committees, the Rules of
Procedure in force provide that “Candidates for the office of chairperson
or vice-chairperson must be full members of the committee and have
been full member or alternate of the committee concerned for at
least one year”. The Assembly agreed in paragraph 6.2 of
Resolution 1822 (2011) “to eliminate the requirement that committee chairpersons
or vice-chairpersons must be full members of the committee, not
alternates”.
57. Having regard to the fact that parliamentarians cannot be
full members of more than two committees (see paragraph 42 above),
such an amendment to the Rules of Procedure is necessary to facilitate candidatures
for the office of committee chair and vice-chair. In addition, the
rules covering the election of the bureaux of sub-committees shall
also be revised accordingly.
– Proposal
58. In Rule 44.3, the first sentence, the words “Candidates
for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson must be full members
of the committee and have been full member or alternate of the committee
concerned for at least one year” should be replaced by the following
words: “Committee members who have been members for at least one
year may be candidates for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson.”
It should be made clear that, logically, this provision does not
apply to newly created committees.
59. Regarding the bureaux of sub-committees, in Rule 47.7 the
third sentence should be replaced as follows: “Sub-committee full
members who have been members of the sub-committee for at least
one year may be candidates for the office of chairperson or vice-chairperson
of the sub-committee.” This provision shall not apply to newly created
sub-committees as well.
2.5. Request to open
a monitoring procedure
60. At present, a request to open a monitoring procedure
is admissible if made by a motion for a resolution or a recommendation
signed by ten members belonging to at least five national delegations
and two political groups.
61. Paragraph 5.1.3 of
Resolution
1822 (2011) henceforth lays down a requirement of 20 signatories belonging
to six national delegations and two political groups.
62. It will be observed, however, that the tabling of motions
for recommendation and resolution also presupposes the gathering
of 20 signatures, but from members belonging to five national delegations,
and that a motion for a resolution to challenge credentials already
ratified must be tabled by at least 50 members belonging to five
national delegations and two political groups.
– Proposal
63. The terms of reference of the Committee for the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments of Council of Europe member states
(Monitoring Committee) should therefore be modified by amending
Resolution 1115 (1997) as follows: in paragraph 2.iii, replace the words “not
less than ten members of the Assembly representing at least five
national delegations and two political groups” with the words “not
less than twenty members of the Assembly representing at least six
national delegations and two political groups”.
3. Other amendments
to be made to the Rules of Procedure
64. According to its usual procedure, particularly on
the occasion of the last two reports which it presented to the Assembly
on the amendments to its Rules of Procedure in November 2007 and
November 2009, and as
Resolution
1822 (2011) invites it to do, the committee intends to examine
those provisions of the Rules of Procedure, besides the ones directly
referred to it, which are worth clarifying or updating, and to consider
any proposal likely to improve the Assembly’s functioning and working
methods.
3.1. Presidency of the
Assembly at the opening of the ordinary session (Rule 5)
65. The ordinary session of the Assembly is opened in
January by the oldest member present. This is an honorary function,
as the oldest member is not permitted to deliver an address. The
committee reflected on the advisability of enhancing this presidency.
The European Parliament amended its rules of procedure in May 2009
regarding the chairmanship of the constituent sitting: this is no
longer held by the oldest member but by the outgoing President of
the European Parliament or, failing that, an outgoing vice-president
according to the order of precedence (if still members of the European
Parliament), or, failing that, by its longest-serving member.
66. The Assembly could also change its practice, by appointing
its longest-serving member to open the session, and give him or
her the opportunity to speak briefly. This measure would constitute
a token of gratitude towards parliamentarians who have dedicated
themselves for years to the Assembly.
67. Accordingly, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure might be amended
as follows:
“Rule 5 – Provisional
President
5.1. The longest-serving
member of the Assembly, that is the member who has held office in
the Assembly for the longest, shall open the ordinary session and
shall preside until the election of the President of the Assembly
has been announced.
5.2. While the Provisional President is in the Chair,
no debate may take place unless concerned with the examination of
credentials or the election of the President of the Assembly, and
no speeches may be delivered. The Provisional President may address
the Assembly for not more than five minutes.”
3.2. Non-withdrawal
of a signature from a written declaration (Rule 53)
68. In its last report on the amendment of various provisions
of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly (
Doc. 12071 and addendum), the Committee on Rules of Procedure, at
the Bureau’s request, extensively debated the possibilities of withdrawing
or adding a signature to a proposed text or any other document.
At the time it clearly indicated that the Rules of Procedure did
not permit the addition or withdrawal of signatures to a motion
for a resolution or recommendation or any other official Assembly
document (amendments especially), with the sole exception that members
may add their signatures to written declarations already tabled.
69. However, several incidents occurred in 2010 and 2011 when
members who had signed written declarations wished to withdraw their
signatures, arguing that they had not fully realised the terms of
the declaration. This was refused because the possibility of withdrawing
signatures from a written declaration did not appear in the Rules
of Procedure, as was recalled in 2009 by the Committee on Rules
of Procedure in the above-mentioned report. However, to facilitate
the information of members, the Rules of Procedure could be amended
to mention explicitly that no signature may be withdrawn from a
written declaration once it is lodged with the Table Office.
70. It is therefore proposed to amend Rule 52.3 by adding in fine that “No signature may be
withdrawn”.
3.3. Clarification of
certain additional provisions on candidates for the European Court
of Human Rights
71. Among the criteria that Contracting Parties must
meet when forwarding a list of candidates to the European Court
of Human Rights, the Assembly has laid down the requirement that
the list should comprise “at least one candidate of each sex”. However,
the Assembly has subsequently defined two exceptions to this principle
enabling it to consider lists of candidates of only one sex:
- where “all candidates belong
to the sex which is under-represented in the Court”, namely less
than 40% of the total number of judges;
- where all candidates “belong to the sex which is over-represented
in the Court, in the exceptional cases where a Contracting Party
has taken all necessary and adequate steps to guarantee the presence
of the under-represented sex on the list, but has not been able
to find a candidate of that sex”.
72. However, should there no longer be an under-represented sex
in the Court – as is the case at present – the text becomes confused
as to the obligations to be met by Contracting Parties regarding
the condition of submitting lists comprising at least one candidate
of either sex. A clarification is necessary.
73. It is proposed to amend the additional provisions on
candidates for the European Court of Human Rights–
by amending
Resolution
1366 (2004), as modified by
Resolution
1426 (2005) and
Resolution
1627 (2008) – by replacing
73.1. paragraph
3.ii with:
“the
list does not include at least one candidate of each sex, except
in the cases prescribed by paragraph 4.”
73.1. and paragraph 4 with:
“The Assembly decides to consider
single-sex lists of candidates when:
i. the candidates belong to the sex which is under-represented
in the Court (i.e. the sex to which less than 40% of the total number
of judges belong) at the time of the Assembly's call for candidatures;
ii. there is no under-represented sex in the Court or
the candidates belong to the sex which is over-represented in the
Court (i.e. the sex to which over 60% of the total number of judges
belong) at the time of the Assembly's call for candidatures, in
exceptional circumstances where a Contracting Party has taken all
the necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the list contains
candidates of both sexes meeting the requirements of paragraph 1
of Article 21 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Such exceptional circumstances must be duly so considered
by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast and a majority of the
members entitled to vote of both the Sub-Committee and the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. This position shall be endorsed
by the Assembly in the framework of the progress report of the Bureau
of the Assembly.".
74. Moreover, in order to implement paragraph 6.3 of
Resolution 1822 (2011), it is proposed to add at the end of paragraph 5.viii
of the additional provisions on candidates to the European Court
of Human Rights the following words: "and in particular to give
positive reasons for its recommendation in favour of a particular candidate".
4. Conclusion
75. At its meeting on 5 September 2011, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure considered the proposals set out in the explanatory
memorandum and the preliminary draft resolution related to the following:
- motions for recommendation and
resolution (paragraph 10)
- reference to committees (paragraphs 12 and 20)
- organisation of part-sessions and plenary debates, introduction
of a free debate (paragraph 25), amendments (paragraph 29); speaking
time (paragraph 34)
- structure and functioning of committees (paragraphs 44
to 49); membership of the Committee on Rules of Procedure (paragraphs
41 and 46); limitation of committee membership for members (paragraph
47), committees’ specific terms of reference (paragraph 43)
- reports of committees, follow-up to adopted texts, general
rapporteurs (paragraph 55)
- bureaux of committees and sub-committees (paragraphs 58
and 59)
- request to open a monitoring procedure (paragraph 63)
- presidency of the Assembly at the opening of the ordinary
session (paragraph 67)
- non-withdrawal of a signature from a written declaration
(paragraph 70)
- clarification of certain provisions on candidates to the
European Court of Human Rights (paragraph 73).
76. It is proposed that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure
contained in the draft resolution, once adopted, come into force
at the opening of the 2012 ordinary session (on 23 January 2012).
The amendments to the additional provisions on candidates for the
European Court of Human Rights will come into force upon adoption
and will be applicable to the procedures in hand.